|
|
WHAT’S IN
A NAME : The following is Copyright © 1997-2020 by Clayton
Barker, all rights reserved. It was published on the editorial page of The
Burford Times, in October of 1997, in Burford, Ontario, Canada.
A segment of an c1886 map,
obliterated with names (Editor's Note: This article, written
by local historian Clayton Barker, takes a refreshing look at the current
discussion regarding re-naming the "soon-to-be-restructured"
County.) A "tag", a
"label", a word which uniquely identifies one person, place or
thing from all the rest. Often you hear how some people are dissatisfied with
their birth name, so they change it. Whether they completely change their
name to something else, or just omit or add letters to their existing name,
it is almost as if they have disowned their relatives. Perhaps they are
richer or maybe they are trying to bury their past. Whatever their reasoning,
it only makes it more difficult when researching one's family history. Place names change as well, but you
would think it would be a more difficult task to change the name of a
community, as so many people have to agree with the change. At least, that is
what I would expect. However, it appears as though all through history, Governments
have taken it upon themselves to change the names of communities whenever
they please and with no regard to public opinion or even common sense. Why
bother with a name when a number would suffice? After the former British province of
Quebec became known as the Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada in
1792, Upper Canada (now Ontario) was divided up into "Townships"
and Districts. Of course, the smaller geographical area was the
"township" or, as it was also called, a "town". These two
terms were used to refer to a single block component of the larger District.
There were no Counties then (at least not until names were assigned to the
townships). "Town" was a physical land mass and the outline or
boundary was the Town's ship or "Township" ... as in "it was
found within the Township" ... sort of like his Lordship, etc. The
surveyors back in 1793 referred to what is now Burford Township as "The
Town of Burford”, or "Dayton's Town", as Abraham Dayton was the
Town's appropriator and founder. Up until 1849, Townships were not associated
with Municipalities or Municipal Councils. Like a unique puzzle or a patchwork
quilt, the Township blocks formed the base grid or pattern from which our
present road systems and municipalities were based. At first, however, these
blocks were given only a number and a list of place names was compiled by the
original Legislative Council of the Province. Names like: Oxford, Norfolk,
Middlesex, etc. These were names that were most familiar to them, from their
homeland, Great Britain. Even the name "Burford" was taken from the
Oxfordshire Village in England (which coincidentally or purposely was
selected to adjoin and/or fall within the proposed County of Oxford in Upper
Canada). In a "nutshell", what they were trying to do was create
another Great Britain in the wilderness. The name Burford has been the name of
the Township from the time it was assigned to Dayton's Town. On the other
hand, the Urban Service Area ( or "Police Village" if you are of
older stalk) of Burford had several names over the past 200 years: Dickie's
Corners, Claremont, etc., but all along, even when the community was
"officially" being called one thing, there were always those
die-hard, long-time residents who consistently called Burford - "Burford".
The County of Brant was not one of the original building blocks of the Upper
Canadian puzzle; it was an afterthought and the results of a scheme to
further assimilate the Six Nations of the Grand River into the British Master
plan. The portions of Brant County that
fall within the "afterthought" are the Townships of Brantford,
Onondaga, South Dumfries, the Town of Paris and the City of Brantford. These
lands, along with the present Six Nations of the Grand River and New Credit
lands, fall within the six-mile limits on either side of the Grand River,
originally known as the Haldimand Grand (which extended from source to mouth
of the Grand River). In 1853, for whatever reason, Burford
and Oakland townships were chopped away from Oxford County and tacked onto
the new Brant County, by the Government. Brant became somewhat of a
transition zone between the rural wilderness west of the Grand and the urban
boom communities east of the Grand and around Lake Ontario. It was around
this period that the present community of Cathcart was entered on "the
map" as Sydenham (after Lord Sydenham), and Burford was renamed on
"the map" (the Government's map that is!) as Claremont (a place of
high altitude??!). Also, it is said that the Military had a great deal to do
with reporting place names to the Government. According to local legend, the
Military encamped quite frequently in the vicinity of what's now County Rd.
25 and Hwy. 53, at what was once called "Rag Town". The name did
not appeal to the Military official who was about to record the name for his
log and to report to the Government, so he changed it to something a little
more patriotic ... "like Victoria". "Brant-on-the-Grand,” What a
mouthful! Sometimes people feel sorry for someone who had been named
something very unusual like Bartholomew or Egbert. Who knows, maybe other
"cities" will feel sorry for Brant-On-The-Grand, if that is the
name that is chosen. The word Brant is good and is appropriate as Joseph
Brant led his people to the Grand River. However, The City of Brant might be
too close to sounding like the “City of Brantford.” On the other hand,
"The Grand River City" is good, a bit wordy but streamlined; so is
"The City of Grand Valley" which could be another suggestion.
What's wrong with just "Brant"? There is a Brant, New York State,
also a Brant Lake and Brantingham New York. There you go ... call it
"Brantingham"! Actually, that suits the City of Brantford best
these days, with their glorious Mayor and "The Kingdom of
Brantingham"! Thayendanegea is a good name... There is, believe it or not, a
Brantford in Kansas; a Brant Rock, Massachusetts; Brant, Michigan; Brant
Beach, New Jersey; and Brant, Alberta. I could only find one Burfordville, in
Missouri. As far as dividing the future City into Brant East, West, North and
South, that is no different than assigning everybody with a number! The westerly component, which
comprises the present-day Burford Township (if it must bear a different new
name), should be named "Dayton" to commemorate the founder of this
township, Abraham Dayton. There is a Drayton in Ontario, but not a "Re-
structured Ward" called Dayton. I believe the present-day Urban Service
Area of Burford will retain its name (as it should!). The other Wards in the
Restructured City of "Brant" or "Brantwood"
(like Brantwood, Wisconsin), or "Brant-On-
The-Grand" (like Berwick-on-Tweed), or "Brantingham" (like
Nottingham), or "Grand City (like Grand Rapids, Michigan), or
"Grand Valley" or whatever, should be named in such a way as to
retain some piece of their identity and heritage. Governments might think they can
change the configuration and structure of where we live, but names are
personal. What's next? Perhaps someday the Government will have a say in what
names we choose to call our children? REFERENCES: My brain and everything that it has
collected over the past 58 years... -
Null - |
|
CLICK TOPICS BELOW |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
