Calling a spade by its proper name

James Fallows is right: it's Burma, not Myanmar. The generals can call their country whatever they like; we're under no obligation to follow their lead.

Equally, it's Bombay not Mumbai, Madras not Chennai etc etc. Do you plan to visit Venezia or Munchen?  Of course you don't, so Venice and Munich it is.

Comments

[Gabriel]

I see the point, but there is some logic to the name Myanmar: the Burmese are only one ethnic group in the country and Myanmar is a more inclusive name.

[Dave K]

I missed when military dictators took over India and changed the names to Mumbai, Chennai, etc. Not that I'm a big fan of the Hindu nationalist parties that pushed for the name changes in India, but still, I really don't get the comparison between Burma and India.

[Keith]

I agree with you but not with your logic. Burma is Burma, yes, but I call Germany Germany and Japan Japan (and so on...) because, as far as I know, the Germans and Japanese (and so on...) are fine with that.

Stupid, point-scoring symbolism though the name-changes in Bombay/Mumbai and Madras/Chennai assuredly were, they were the democratic representatives of the inhabitants of those cities saying "We'd like you to call us this, please," and to oblige them is just common courtesy. If anyone with a credible claim to speak for the inhabitants of Burma said something similar, then I would switch.

[The Great Ganesha]

hear hear! i second you on all of those - especially bombay.

http://greatganesha.com/2006/09/14/the-names-sake/

[PRJ]

In India, the issue is not just point-scoring. Bombay/Calcutta and so on were names given by the colonial/occupier British, so Indians feel it's about time the cities reverted to their non-British names (names that the British could not pronounce).

[shadyiyer]

Well, no one is under any obligation to follow anyone's lead when it comes to pronouncing names, Mister All-licks Muss-ee-yeah !

[mbjesq]

Of course, in Madras (and even to a thankfully-diminishing extent in Bombay), a foreigner can't win. Call the city "Madras" in conversation with any Tamilian, and they will patronizingly advise that it has been renamed "Chennai", as though you are an imbecile or just climbed out from eleven-plus years under a rock. Call it "Chennai", and you will be told, in tones no-less patronizing, that "locals still call it "Madras".

Frankly, the Hindufication of place names is annoying as hell, is completely at odds with India's multiculturalism, and is ultimately nothing more than a stupid game in the divide-and-conquer communal politics of the Hindutva right.

As for my home town, which these idiots have renamed "Puducherry": Pondicherry then, Pondicherry now, Pondicherry forever!

mbjesq
http:memestreamblog.wordpress.com

[Rao K]

Appalling ignorance comparing Burma with Indian cities. Indian cities reverted to *original* names and they are not non-British names. For the record, it was communists who changed Calcutta to Kolkata. Hindu nationalists changed Bombay to Mumbai and atheists changed Madras to Chennai.

It would be nice for westerners (and coconuts) to actually know things that "locals" do before posturing.

[Dan R]

I agree with the post. Myanmar is the name forced on an oppressed people. Calling the country Burma is a way of recognizing that the country is under the control of a brutal and unjust dictatorship.

[tequila]

Burma was also a name forced on an oppressed people - unless you find British dictatorial rule less obnoxious than dictatorial rule by generals.

[R N]

For those supporting city renaming who didnt bother checking their history, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras were founded by the British and were each a combination of a bunch of villages/islands. They were named by the British at that point and we should stick by the original names of the cities. Kolkata was the name of one of the villages that formed Calcutta and the story is similar for Bombay and Madras. So live with it - Bombay, Calcutta and Madras are the original names of the cities and its the locals who are distorting this in the native languages.

[Ajay Kapur]

I agree. Bombay, Calcutta and Madras existed before the British came, but as obscure and small fishing villages. The British made them what they became; three of the greatest cities of the British Empire and now, of modern India.

Bombay by the way, was named by the Portuguese as Bom Baim or in English Fair Bay. The etymology of Madras appears to be completely unknown.

Note that many locals living in these cities still unselfconsciously use the old names when speaking amongst themselves. It is weak-minded to accept the temporary decisions of parochial and cynical vote-getting "city fathers".