2 thoughts on “What’s In a Name?

  1. A nitpick, Tanzania instead of Tanganika is not a reversion to a traditional name. It reflects the “federation” of two very different territories, geographically, culturally, and ethnically, Tanganika proper, and the island of Zanzibar.

    It’s a federation that was imposed by the colonial powers post WWI, when German Tanganika was assigned to the UK at Versailles, and like most colonial borders in Africa, makes little sense.Report

  2. Corporations and organizations should join this push and refuse to bow to foreign pressure in how they use language.

    It depends, I think, on where the “foreign pressure” is coming from.
    If we assume that our purpose is to be mindful and respectful of the beliefs and preferences of the people who live in these nations, sometimes adopting a name change is a very good thing and we should embrace it.

    If the name change is just a propaganda effort to overrride the will of the people, then we should rightly reject it.

    Of course, the devil is that those two things are rarely clear of well delineated and its often difficult to separate out our own domestic politics from theirs.Report

Comments are closed.