Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 89919	2008-05-16 06:04:00	Is it Burma.	Cicero (40)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
669981	2008-05-17 00:07:00	The so called colonialist called NZ New Zealand,do think it should be call NOTHING,that way we an avoid realty altogether. What is the reality about the name of our country? When the colonialists first got here, there wasn't a name for the country at all - there were names for each of the islands, but not the country. The North Island (Te Ika a Maui) was sometimes referred to as Aotearoa, and that has sometimes been given as an alternative name to New Zealand for the whole country. "New Zealand" though is an English corruption of a former Dutch name given by Tasman, who thought he "discovered" the country, even though it wasn't lost and was already inhabited. If I recall correctly from my reading, the name given to the country in the Tiriti o Waitangi was Niu Tireni - a transliteration of New Zealand, so to some extent that should have some validity as the first agreement between Maori and the Crown about what the whole country should be called (I think New Zealand was used in the English version). According to the contra proferentum rule of international law, treaties should be read in favour of the understanding of the meaning of the treaty by the indigenous people signing it, so perhaps the country should be called Niu Tireni, but I don't see any interest in that happening. Professionally, in the documents I prepare as part of my work, I always use "Aotearoa New Zealand" because that is what my clients expect. It is becoming increasingly common usage. But, there is no real parallel with the Burma/Myanmar situation because there was no indigenous name for "New Zealand" when the colonialists first came here.	John H (8)
669982	2008-05-18 21:22:00	John: There does seem to be a few different thoughts as to whether the Maoris had a name for NZ or not. I was told that they did not and the name Aotearoa was one made up by an Englishman. Can anyone be certain? But while the origin of the name may be uncertain, there is no uncertainty about the invalidity of the term "indigenous" being applied to the Maori when, in their own folklore, they tell how they arrived in a fleet of canoes. As I understand the meaning, "indigenous" means native. The Tuatara, I believe, could be assumed to be "indigenous" but not the Maoris. So I wonder why that term is used in reference to the Maoris. As to the name of Burma, or anywhere else, I think that the correct name is the name that the residents (or the residents' government) call their country.	Roscoe (6288)
669983	2008-05-18 22:13:00	I think the argument goes that when Maori came here, they were not Maori in the cultural sense. They were Eastern Polynesian. As they adapted to a new environment and a new way of life, a different form of culture developed, including a substantially new language. In that sense, over a few hundred years, Maori developed a unique culture that does not exist anywhere else in the world. In other words, that new culture, and present Maori, are said to be indigenous to this country because they developed here and are unique to here. I imagine you could draw a long bow and say that in many countries (e.g. England and Scotland) the indigenous people there are only indigenous in the same sense as Maori are here. Even aboriginal (indigenous) Australians didn't just pop out of the ground - they migrated there as well, even though it may have been 40 - 60,000 years ago. In Scotland for example, the "Scots" are originally from Ireland. No-one knows what happened to the peoples who preceded them (e.g. the Picts) - whether they were absorbed or massacred - but clearly Scots culture is quite different from its Irish origins. In that sense, the Scots are indigenous to Scotland. Ditto the English (but did you see the recent TV film that traced the genetic makeup of a number of fiercely patriotic English people, and only one of them had a majority of their DNA from England!). I suppose by this argument, Pakeha like me can become indigenous to NZ over a period of time, and there has been a paper written to this effect. How long will that take? is the main issue. I certainly figured out on my trips to Britain and Australia that we are different! As far as the name of a country is concerned, whilst I agree with your point, it isn't quite that simple because it is a political question. If the government of a country has legitimacy, then certainly you are completely correct - common usage will follow the decision to change a name. No-one has a problem calling Malawi by that name rather than Nyasaland, or Zambia rather than Northern Rhodesia. However, there are examples like Burma/Myanmar and Cambodia/Kampuchea where legitimacy is an issue. E.g. there was a great variation amongst emigres from Cambodia/Kampuchea about what their country should be called - from memory, I think the latter was associated with Pol Pot, even though Kampuchea is a very old name for the country. Burma/Myanmar will take a long time to settle down (presumably this will happen when the ruling junta is chucked out), and it will be an internal matter, not one influenced by old buffers who choose not to change for their own reasons.	John H (8)
669984	2008-05-19 00:41:00	I suppose by this argument, Pakeha like me can become indigenous to NZ over a period of time, and there has been a paper written to this effect. How long will that take? is the main issue. I certainly figured out on my trips to Britain and Australia that we are different! Thanks for that, John. There is much in what you have said. Interesting reading. I have always been of the opinion that I am "native" because I am NZ born. I must agree, though, we are different. The Australians certainly are different, even though there are many similarities, but the UK and the inhabitants are completely different. I was so surprised. That is where a majority of our original ancestors came from and yet I could write a large volume concerning the differences with the inclement climate making up only a small chapter. Disgusting!:(	Roscoe (6288)
669985	2008-05-19 01:55:00	No-one seems to have a problem with Beijing, Kolkata, Mumbai etc, because the change was made by a legitimate authority. Your points are well put. One thing I cant get is name change Chennai/Madras. I understand Kolkata/Calcutta Mumbai/Bombay. Are the old names the phonetic way the colonials pronounced the original indigenous name? Hence the Mumbai/Bombay etc. Just wondered Ken	kenj (9738)
669986	2008-05-19 02:16:00	Thanks for that, John. There is much in what you have said. Interesting reading. I have always been of the opinion that I am "native" because I am NZ born. I must agree, though, we are different. The Australians certainly are different, even though there are many similarities, but the UK and the inhabitants are completely different. I was so surprised. That is where a majority of our original ancestors came from and yet I could write a large volume concerning the differences with the inclement climate making up only a small chapter. Disgusting!:( I have noticed the difference too,you will note the poms walk with a shuffle with a slight sideway motion.A bit like a crab.	Cicero (40)
669987	2008-05-19 02:25:00	Your points are well put. One thing I cant get is name change Chennai/Madras. I understand Kolkata/Calcutta Mumbai/Bombay. Are the old names the phonetic way the colonials pronounced the original indigenous name? Hence the Mumbai/Bombay etc. Just wondered Ken Well, here is Chennai from Wikipedia: The name Chennai is an eponym, etymologically derived from Chennapattinam or Chennapattanam, the name of the town that grew up around Fort St. George, built by the British in 1640. There are different versions about the origin of the name. When the British landed here in 1639 A.D. it was said to be part of the empire of the Raja of Chandragiri. The British named it Chennapattinam after they acquired it from Chennappa Nayakar. Gradually, the name was shortened to Chennai. The first instance of the use of the name Chennai is said to be in a sale deed dated August 1639 to Francis Day, an agent for the British where there is a reference to Chennaipattinam. [3] although some believe Chennapattinam was named after the Chenna Kesava Perumal Temple, as the word Chenni in Tamil means face, and the temple was thought of as the face of the city.[4] The former name, Madras, is derived from Madraspattinam, a fishing village that lay to the north of Fort St. George. The origin of the name Madraspattinam is a subject of disagreement. One theory holds that the Portuguese, who arrived in the area in the 16th century, may have named the village Madre de Deus.[5] However, historians believe that the village's name came from the once prominent Madeiros family (variously known as Madera or Madra in succeeding years), who had consecrated the Madre de Deus church in Santhome in 1575 (demolished in 1997). Another theory says that the village was named after an Islamic college (a madrasa) which was located in the area. After the British gained possession of the area in the 17th century, the two towns, Madraspattinam and Chennapattinam, eventually merged. The British referred to the united town as Madraspattinam, while the locals preferred to call it Chennapattinam.[6] The city was officially renamed Chennai in 1996, about the same time that many Indian cities were undergoing name changes. Madras was seen as a Portuguese name	John H (8)
669988	2008-05-19 02:26:00	And here is Kolkata/Calcutta from the same source: The names Kolkata and Calcutta were probably based on Kalikata, the name of one of the three villages (Kalikata, Sutanuti, Gobindapur) in the area before the arrival of the British.[1] "Kalikata", in turn, is believed to be an anglicised version of Kalikshetra (কালীক্ষেত্র, "Land of [the goddess] Kālī"). Alternatively, the name may have been derived from the Bengali term kilkila ("flat area").[2] Again, the name may have its origin in the indigenous term for a natural canal, Khal, followed by Katta (which may mean dug).[3] While the city's name was always pronounced "Kolkata" in the local Bengali language, its official English name was only changed from "Calcutta" to "Kolkata" in 2001, reflecting the Bengali pronunciation. Some view this as a move to erase the legacy of British rule.	John H (8)
669989	2008-05-19 02:32:00	Hahaha! Look up Mumbai for yourself at Wikipedia - it is a mess. It looks like the Portuguese invented a name (or series of names) that the English then changed to Bombay when they took over. So it was two layers of colonial changes that got to that point. It has just changed back to the original name in the local dialect (Mumbai). My daughter went there just after that huge bomb was set off, which scared me, but she had got used to IRA bombs when she was living in London, so she was cool as a cucumber...	John H (8)
669990	2008-05-19 02:35:00	I have noticed the difference too,you will note the poms walk with a shuffle with a slight sideway motion.A bit like a crab. It comes from trying to sidle into queues.	John H (8)
1 2 3 4 5