Politically sensitive place names

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » March 30th, 2016, 6:38 am

I am interested in the subject of politically sensitive place names, because it's intriguing to me that it can become impossible to simply refer to a place without appearing to take a political stance. The first example that springs to my mind is the city of Derry/Londonderry in Northern Ireland/the northern part of Ireland. If you're a unionist (protestant) you call it Londonderry. If you're a republican (catholic) you call it Derry. If you're the BBC and clumsily attempting to be impartial you call it "Derry/Londonderry". Note also that there are two politically sensitive terms in the above. I referred to the province in which that situation is situated as both "Northern Ireland" and the slightly more awkward: "the northern part of Ireland". This is because I've heard republican politicians, such as Gerry Adams, referring to it in that way. His reason, presumably, is that "Northern Ireland" is its official title as a part of the United Kingdom so he presumably thinks that using that title (even though it is geographically accurate and succinct) places him in danger of implicitly endorsing the unionist position.

All good fun until someone loses an eye (as my mother used to say).

So, just out of interest, how about a list of other places to which it is impossible to refer without appearing to endorse a political position? I'll get the ball rolling.

Mumbai/Bombay

Myanmar/Burma

Beijing/Peking

A bit of a pattern seems to be developing here. Can anyone think of an example that was not caused by British colonialism? St Petersburg/Leningrad is the only one that immediately springs to mind.

Post by **Sy Borg** » March 30th, 2016, 7:12 am

In Australia, Uluru / Ayers Rock. The indigenous name is more aesthetically pleasing and appropriate IMO.

Rhodesia / Zimbabwe was once controversial but the indigenous name seems now to be fully accepted.

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » March 30th, 2016, 7:26 am

Thanks Greta. Two more examples caused by colonialism there. I also prefer Uluru because it sounds nice and it gets away from that patriarchal colonial tendency to name things after people as a way of saying "I now own this". Henry Ayers and Cecil Rhodes. Rhodes himself, and his legacy, is currently still quite controversial. See the "Rhodes must fall" campaign in Oxford.

-- Updated Wed Mar 30, 2016 2:38 pm to add the following --

Another good one:

Falkland Islands / Islas Malvinas

Apparently the UN has decided to call them "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" in every language except Spanish. In Spanish they're called "Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands)". That still seems to show a slight bias towards one side. In such politically charged cases as this it seems to me that the only fair policy is to use a coin-toss technique. Every time you refer to it you first toss a coin to decide which name you're going to use. News readers would have to be issued with the standard coin of a unit of currency from a neutral 3rd country.

To be even fairer, quantum randomness might be in order. A radioactive source is used to trigger the naming decision, a la Schrodinger's Cat. In that case, until the news reader has spoken the chosen name, the territory in question would exist in an interesting superposition of states.

Yes. I know. I clearly have too much time on my hands.

Post by **LuckyR** » March 31st, 2016, 4:08 pm

Saigon and Ho Chi Minh City, is likely one of the more detestable among the diaspora.

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » April 1st, 2016, 7:22 am

Good one. "Ho Chi Minh City" appears to be another example of a clumsy egotistical name.

Another one: Istanbul/Constantinople. There's even a catchy song about that one. A Greek colleague of mine tells me that even now in Greek schools it's referred to as Constantinople and not Istanbul. So another one that's still a bit raw.

Burning ghost · Post by **Burning ghost** » April 1st, 2016, 7:33 am

LuckyR wrote:Saigon and Ho Chi Minh City, is likely one of the more detestable among the diaspora.

Why "detestable"?

-- Updated April 1st, 2016, 7:38 am to add the following --

What about England/Scotland/Wales/N.Ireland or Britain.

Also worth considering that differences in languages can create problems in this area. Simple mistranslation can lead to all sorts of hostilities.

Post by **LuckyR** » April 1st, 2016, 7:37 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
LuckyR wrote:Saigon and Ho Chi Minh City, is likely one of the more detestable among the diaspora.
Why "detestable"?

-- Updated April 1st, 2016, 7:38 am to add the following --

What about England/Scotland/Wales/N.Ireland or Britain.

Also worth considering that differences in languages can create problems in this area. Simple mistranslation can lead to all sorts of hostilities.

Umm... because they used the proper name of their enemy's leader in the name of the old capitol?

Burning ghost · Post by **Burning ghost** » April 1st, 2016, 9:43 pm

Ho Chi Minh City and Saigon are used interchangably.

It certainly wasn't Ho Chi Minh's ego that caused the naming (he was dead). Not really an issue today although at the time of the change I am sure it was. I certainly wouldn't regard Ho Chi Minh as the enemy of Vietnam.

When I mentioned language I was referring to things like Bangkok. Bangkok is just an area in the city not the name of the city. Real name being Krungtrep ... cannot recall full name it is too long! The Thai means "city of angels". Like this I don't really think people find it offensive, I would guess it is the same for Mumbai etc.,. I don't get offended if someone says Italia instead of Italy, or Ingleles instead of England ... people are a little more sensentive when it comes to Britain though as opposed to the 4 countries.

Post by **LuckyR** » April 2nd, 2016, 2:11 am

Burning ghost wrote:Ho Chi Minh City and Saigon are used interchangably.

It certainly wasn't Ho Chi Minh's ego that caused the naming (he was dead). Not really an issue today although at the time of the change I am sure it was. I certainly wouldn't regard Ho Chi Minh as the enemy of Vietnam.

When I mentioned language I was referring to things like Bangkok. Bangkok is just an area in the city not the name of the city. Real name being Krungtrep ... cannot recall full name it is too long! The Thai means "city of angels". Like this I don't really think people find it offensive, I would guess it is the same for Mumbai etc.,. I don't get offended if someone says Italia instead of Italy, or Ingleles instead of England ... people are a little more sensentive when it comes to Britain though as opposed to the 4 countries.

I specifically stipulated my comments were valid from the perspective of the Vietnamese diaspora, and within that group Ho Chi Minh city is NOT used. The current government is detested and when the leader of Vietnam made an unannounced visit to Orange County thousands protested.

Burning ghost · Post by **Burning ghost** » April 2nd, 2016, 2:49 am

Well most governments are not exactly loved. When the president of the US visits other countries people protest. Nothing unusually there.

I am not suggesting that name changes cannot be politically motivated only that some cases are due to differences in langauges and pronunciation. The renaming of Saigon was certainly politically motivated. Today both names are used.

I do find the whole British thing interesting.

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » April 2nd, 2016, 7:11 am

What about England/Scotland/Wales/N.Ireland or Britain.

I think that's slightly different from the examples of two different names for the same country/city. I don't think anybody would seriously use the term "England/Scotland/Wales/N.Ireland". But it is possible to express a political position by identifying oneself as living in one of those 4 places. I could say "I am English" or "I am British" or "I am a citizen of the United Kingdom" all of which mean slightly different things. ("Great Britain" is not the same thing as "The United Kingdom". It doesn't include Northern Ireland. The British Isles, on the other hand, includes the whole of Ireland!)

Of course, some people also make the simple mistake of saying "England" when they mean "Britain" or "the UK". But that's not an alternative name thing. It's just a mistake.

Burning ghost · Post by **Burning ghost** » April 2nd, 2016, 9:50 am

It does seem to me from my travels that "British" has not been met with as much resistance by Scots as it was a few years ago. That is a purely subjective observation though.

I remember talk in the 90's about the lack of cultural identity for English people where Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland had it in abundance. I guess this is probably because culture can be manufactured to oppose the dominamt force.

When I was studying history I was surprised to find out how much Irish symbolism (such as the shamrock) was manufactured to create a sense of national identity.