I know this will piss off some people. So if you disagree — bring it. Let’s discuss.
I heard an interview with LeBron James last week after he broke the NBA scoring record. James was asked what goal he still has in basketball, since he now holds the all-time record. James replied that he hoped to play long enough to be on the same court in an NBA game with his son — who is named “Bronny.”
That sparked a thought. So, here’s where the discussion begins.
Why do parents (almost always fathers) insist on naming their children after themselves? Think about it. Can you imagine the heavy burden of carrying not just any family name, but the LeBron (Bronny) James name onto a basketball court? How is naming a unique individual after yourself possibly good for a child? This is especially true for someone who’s world-famous.
Question: Shouldn’t children be born into a family and support system devoid of links and labels and preconceptions and expectations CERTAIN to follow by association with a famous father? Why not let the child be his/her OWN PERSON? Frankly, I think it’s sick and selfish to name a child after yourself. I’m sure some “Juniors” and readers with “II” and “III” after their names will disagree. Feel free to explain this to me.
The James example is mild, in some ways since the name isn’t quite identical. The sickest lineage farce of all is, of course, George Foreman, the ex-boxer (now a pitchman for barbeque grills). Foreman had FIVE sons. What did he do? He named ALL FIVE “George.” FIVE!!! There’s George Jr, II, III, IV, and V. He even gave all his sons the same middle name! Can you imagine what that must be like? The confusion? The expectations placed unfairly upon those children? Why? For what purpose? To satisfy daddy’s ego? I’m calling it what it is — SICK and SELFISH.
Perhaps this act of naming children after parents is far less egregious for people who are not famous. It’s not nearly so bad for a plumber named John to name his son “John, Jr.” But I still think it’s selfish, and creates links (chains) that children should not be forced to adhere to. Let’s also add in the possibility (which has happened) of fathers who later commit crimes, or cause embarrassment to families, and then their offspring must carry the extra burden of a tainted name. That’s cruel. If Charles Manson had any children imagine being “Charlie Manson, Jr.” [See Correction in Footnotes]
I don’t understand this troubling long tradition of burdening children with identities they do not have, placing links to them they do not deserve, and creating expectations that no child (or adult) should ever be forced to bear. Shouldn’t children be born free of these burdens? Shouldn’t children be encouraged to become their own person and create their own identities?
I’m curious to read your thoughts.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN THE DISCUSSION ON FACEBOOK
__________
FOOTNOTE: Come to find out, Charles Manson did have biological children (3!) and even named a son Charles Manson, Jr. READ MORE HERE