Hey folks. Digging this out of chris’s coober pedy trip report thread because I think it could be interesting.
Given many of us live in coloniser societies (north America, Australia, etc). And all these places did have original indegenous names before we came in and commited genocide. What obligation do we have to try and use the original names? Is this just performative virtue signalling?
The discussion came about in terms of what to call Uluru/Ayers Rock, and @Melkerson gave me the very fair challenge of whether I called New Zealand, “Aotearoa”
The answer is that I don’t. But perhaps I should.
Introspecting a little I think my position (rightly or wrongly) is that if the indigenous name will be understood by the person you are speaking with, you should use it.
This is probably the bare minimum, and we should probably be doing more.
I think I will start using “Naarm (melbourne)” to refer to Melbourne going forward. At least in Australian audiences.
I call Mt. McKinley, Denali, but it’s not automatic.
I will always think of it as Mt. McKinley and I have to translate it in my head. Maybe that will change, but I doubt it. It’s not something that I refer to very often.
I still do the same sort of mental translation with Burma/Myanmar. It’s just hard to change how I think of it, even if I use the contemporary term.
EDIT: I realize Burma/Myanmar is not really relevant to the thread topic. I’m just using it as an example of how the first name I learned is hard to drop.
Interesting timing seeing as we were just talking Dunning-Kruger.
Where on the curve of “understanding the debate about indigenous place names” do you think you are? I assume you’ve read a number of indigenous authors on this point before chiming in with such a firm view?
EDIT.
This post was out of line, and set the thread off on the wrong foot. Leaving it here so that the rest of the thread makes sense tho.
I think that it is a bullshit issue that doesn’t affect anyone’s actual life one way or the other. As such, of course I haven’t read anything on the subject, it’s a waste of time and a distraction from issues that actually do affect people’s lives.
Doesn’t seem to confirm your hunch as I obviously don’t think I’m some sort of expert on the issue. But I think you hit the nail on the head when you wondered if it was just performative virtue signaling, credit where credit is due.
I mean, this thread is pretty solid evidence that it is in fact just performative virtue signalling, because in the OP you said “Is this just performative virtue signalling?” like you were interested in debating this question, then when Keeed answered “yes” you immediately told him that his opinion was invalid, wrapping yourself in the cloth of indigenous opinion in the process. In the other thread you said that someone calling Uluru “Ayers Rock” is a marker for them being a political enemy of yours, essentially, so clearly your mind is made up on this issue. Why then did you pretend to be interested in entertaining debate on this question? This seems like the definition of performative posting, you’re posting to position yourself as Open Minded Guy rather than saying what you actually think.
I’m open to debate. In fact I value your opinion, which is why I started the thread.
Dude saying “yes” on a question that clearly doesn’t have a one word answer however isn’t worth entertaining.
Like. Sure. I have an opinion. I’m willing to back up that opinion with sources and argument. That doesn’t mean I’m never going to change my mind or that the debate isn’t worth having.
Burma isn’t really a colonial name. Myanmar is formal and used in writing and Burma is informal and used in speaking, but as far as I can tell it’s not that one is colonial and the other is indigenous.
So why do you think it is an important issue that will actually improve indigenous peoples’ lives instead of the equivalent of de Blasio renaming some street Black Lives Matter Boulevard?
Is there a significant movement by indigenous New Zealanders to change the name officially to Aotearoa? I’ve literally never heard this word (or Naarm) which is perhaps not surprising as I’m an American. I think it matters since if even native people don’t really care then it might be patronizing but if most natives prefer it then it becomes more akin to using someone’s preferred pronouns - something that has essentially no cost but makes people happy.
I’m reminded of Bangalore → Bengaluru, Bombay → Mumbai, etc. although that’s different for obvious reasons.