Oceania Aotearoa/New Zealand name change

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

There is a reason why changing the name of Rhodesia was so easy and changing the name of Macedonia was so hard, and its not because one group of people were inherently open minded to change and the other group were not, it's about the meaning that name has to a group of people, and what it says about them. Try changing the name back to Rhodesia and see how far you get.
Well of course, Rhodesia was a name imposed by colonial settlers who ****ed over the indigenous population for a century. If anything, "New Zealand" is the equivalent to "Rhodesia" and "Aotearoa" is the equivalent to "Zimbabwe".

In the post you quoted, I already acknowledged that the name has a meaning to people. And I'm asking, why does it have that meaning? What specifically gave it that meaning? Is it because it's the name all living people grew up with? Are people's identities too inflexible for them to adapt to a name change? Or is it the concept of a more inclusive, plurinational identity that they're resistant to?
 
A lot of countries are officially called "Republic of X" or "X Republic", but how many of them have it in their informal name too? It's a little odd we'd do it for the Czechs but nobody else.
I'm a member of the Czech community, though not very involved, and I don't know anyone who gave a crap about this name change.

I only found out about it when early on in the Pandemic, I saw one outlet refer to the country with that name when announcing the case numbers they had there 😅
 
Won't happen in Australia as Australia is a collection of close to 100 different indigenous nations.
 
If you change the name just to move up the order then make it Aaotearoa. They will be always first then.
 
In the post you quoted, I already acknowledged that the name has a meaning to people. And I'm asking, why does it have that meaning? What specifically gave it that meaning? Is it because it's the name all living people grew up with? Are people's identities too inflexible for them to adapt to a name change? Or is it the concept of a more inclusive, plurinational identity that they're resistant to?
I don't know why.

I don't know any NZ'ers to ask but I knew an old and very opinionated Macedonian who because of one innocent question gave me a night long history lesson, as old and opinionated people tend to do, and as I was seeing his daughter at the time I had to sit through the whole story about the Greeks and Alexander the Great and Tito and NATO and the EU and the UN and who knows what else.

I can't pinpoint why he felt so strongly about the whole naming dispute, especially being removed from it on the other side of the world, but I never brought it up again. He was definitely resistant to change but it was for deeper reasons. I think if he was still around he would have lived with the compromise.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top