It's kinda strange to think of a city changing it's name (Bejing comes to mind). But, I think in most cases we're just changing to use the name in the local language rather than the name which some european explorer or conquer assigned to the place.
Then again, Kitchener, Ontario was originally Berlin and changed it's name during WW-I.
Huh. I remember in Cleveland we used to get a station out of London, Ontario. I thought I was being clever by asking "gee would that be the 'English Channel'?"
haha English Channel
Actually, in my defense, I think it called itself "TV London"
Since it was "fundamentalists, fascists and idealogues" that you ranted about a few days ago who are resposnible for the Bombay-> Mumbai name change, maybe you should reject it and still call it Bombay.
How dare these right-wing religious nuts having the audacity to foist their nationalistic ideology and change its proper British-given name?!
PS: Mumbai was named for a Hindu goddess
Sorry, Kirk. Your anti-religion rants get really preachy and I have to call BS on you sometimes about your selective application.
Cole, what are you on about?
What does changing a city name have to do with being against blowing up trains full of people?
There's no selective application here. Being pragmatic, I don't see names as being very important, but can kind of understand disliking it. But killing living people for an ideological cause? That's a whole 'nother ballgame.
As far as I can determine, modern terrorism (attacks on civilian targets)* is more about trying to hurt something the attacker hates rather than any real attempt to cause change. Whether it be attacks in the US, England, or India, life goes on; although with increased security and paranoia.
This is because there's no direct relationship between the attacker and the attacked. Even if the attackers have a well-defined and reasonable objective (say releasing political prisoners), threat of attack is simply a form of ransom with no incentive to stop once the objective has been met.
* As opposed to attacks on military targets that are forms of guerrilla warfare with the objective of dislodging an occupying force. This has a much more direct relationship between attacker and attacked; and if the objective is met the attacker will stop.
Pretty postmodern symoblism, actually, if you think about it.
But the postmodern symbolism, in my eyes comes more for going after the WTC, rather than taking out public transportation and such, since the disadvantaged and disenfranchised are more likely to take it as compared to the advantaged, franchised and the people that, say, President Bush represents.
As for terrorism and wars in the Middle East, those feel almost akin to race riots from the America's past: relieve tension. . .unless they are tactical/strategic power grabs by one group or another.
It reeks of immorality, but as much as they act wrongly, I feel that the actions come from some root cause. If not justified, then they must get inspiration from somewhere.
Istanbul, not Constantinople...
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the turks!
Even Old New York, was once New Amsterdam,
Why they changed I can't say,
Guess they liked it better that wayyyyyy!
sorry for slaughtering the song, cheers!
"If not justified, then they must get inspiration from somewhere.". I dunno, no matter how "right" the cause might be, I think we should draw lines w/ certain tactics (including some that our governmen has used)
I guess I'm just coming from the standpoint that United States corporations and politics (look at the United States involvement in a couple of those South American countries) really can and have screwed up other societies.
I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm just saying that trying to eliminate or address a root cause will help to cut down problems with terrorists.