Article: Pretoria name debate

TJ99 said:
Why not just call it Floopidyflooville then?

The point is there's no reason to change the names of ANY town, city or street in SA anymore. It's something that needs massive effort and money to do and the default state is to keep things as they are, unless there's a reason to change it. There were some offensive ones but they have been changed ages ago. The only reason it's done now is for political pandering to distract from real problems.

BTW there's also a City of Johannesburg metro and an actual city called Johannesburg, that doesn't stop them.
Click to expand...
Look, I'm not pro-name-changes; especially not Pretoria. I was born, raised, schooled, universitied and everything there.

I'm just trying to say that if we say we're changing it due to historical issues with the name "Pretoria" (which I've admittedly started to understand the last few months); then lets change to something neutral. Sort of a 'clean slate' approach.

But still, first prize would go to building a new place/street/hospital/school/airport/whatever and calling it what you like. This is the true win-win situation.
 
CR34M3 said:
Look, I'm not pro-name-changes; especially not Pretoria. I was born, raised, schooled, universitied and everything there.

I'm just trying to say that if we say we're changing it due to historical issues with the name "Pretoria" (which I've admittedly started to understand the last few months); then lets change to something neutral. Sort of a 'clean slate' approach.

But still, first prize would go to building a new place/street/hospital/school/airport/whatever and calling it what you like. This is the true win-win situation.
Click to expand...

Which "historical issues"? Even the good old antichrist source-of-all-evil-in-the-universe-ever Nats never changed the city's name. I heard something on the radio about apartheid or whatever this morning, but the city was already almost a century old when Apartheid began, so they're talking out of their asses as usual... Or maybe I'm misunderstanding and you don't agree with there being any?

Pretoria is already as neutral a name as you can get. Anyone saying differently is just plain dishonest. Like I said there were instances of names that were just plain insulting, and those have been changed as far as I know. Same for ones that were changed for political reasons. Although now they've just been changed to different politicians which is kind of pointless but anyways.
 
Pretoria is already as neutral a name as you can get.
Click to expand...

Well he colonised the Transvaal and was commandant-general at Blood River ....

No city named after a person is politically neutral.

Jacaranda is neutral.
 
CR34M3 said:
Look, I'm not pro-name-changes; especially not Pretoria. I was born, raised, schooled, universitied and everything there.

I'm just trying to say that if we say we're changing it due to historical issues with the name "Pretoria" (which I've admittedly started to understand the last few months); then lets change to something neutral. Sort of a 'clean slate' approach.

But still, first prize would go to building a new place/street/hospital/school/airport/whatever and calling it what you like. This is the true win-win situation.
Click to expand...

I am so sick of these "political issues". History happened. The sooner these clowns realise that and that they cannot erase and re-write it the better.
 
Last edited:
BBSA said:
You want to tell me that pboy knows it is a billion we take away form service delivery and he still chose do the name change?
Click to expand...

Well there are millions that do and still vote for it.
There are people like our esteemed corrupt nepotistic bastard mayor that is gunning for it. They can all read write and use the internet. And they do know the cost behind it.

Saying Eish I did not know is the biggest load of hogwash around. They do know. They just do not care about the people living in shacks and in poverty with no running water, toilets, hospitals or schools.

Anybody with a little bit of a brain can imagine the cost of changing a cities name. If they cannot they should not be able to vote.


I mean guys come on it could be worse.:erm: Seriously.

If hd did not know he could/should have asked why we are so against it.
 
TJ99 said:
Which "historical issues"? Even the good old antichrist source-of-all-evil-in-the-universe-ever Nats never changed the city's name. I heard something on the radio about apartheid or whatever this morning, but the city was already almost a century old when Apartheid began, so they're talking out of their asses as usual... Or maybe I'm misunderstanding and you don't agree with there being any?

Pretoria is already as neutral a name as you can get. Anyone saying differently is just plain dishonest. Like I said there were instances of names that were just plain insulting, and those have been changed as far as I know. Same for ones that were changed for political reasons. Although now they've just been changed to different politicians which is kind of pointless but anyways.
Click to expand...
Again, I'm not for changing the name, I'm just interested in the 'why' and hence the other side of the argument. This is the best ‘reason’ I could gather to date.

I read this comment on a M&G Thougt Leader article a few months back: [source]
The Creator said:
A major problem with this is that “Pretoria” was the identification code for the apartheid regime. Whenever anything bad happened, it was “Pretoria” that was doing it. (Whereas Lourenco Marques was just a sleepy colonial backwater doing Lisbon’s bidding.)

So there’s a certain political-moral significance to making the name-change. Whereas changing East London to Buffalo City has, to my mind, not been any significant improvement. (Though I admit buffaloes are not my favourite of the Big Five.)
Click to expand...
Since then I've asked around a bit and some people do share this particular train of thought.

Now I don't know about you, but Pretoria has no political significance to me. Therefore, my opposition to the name change is rooted in objective considerations such as costs (which I agree is wasteful). It also does not signal progress to me, as existing structures are merely renamed and not necessarily improved in the process (case and point Steve Biko Academic Hospital).

As for the other side of the coin; I try to imagine a person sitting in some township/etc. listening to the radio blaring the new laws passed by “Pretoria”. In this scenario I could begin to understand why people would associate negative connotations with the word “Pretoria”. The existence of Pretoria as a city before the advent of apartheid and the rights of its name to be protected now become… well, complicated.

Would the continued existence of “Pretoria” hint that the struggle movement never defeated the apartheid government? Would the change of the name to “Tshwane” increase racial polarity; as a name change does not erase the past? In 40-odd years, will anyone be left to associate anything negative with “Pretoria” and is it fair/unfair to wait that long? All questions for other threads...
 
Lets just call it what it is:

Ineptoria - It may not suit the leaders of our local Ineptocracy, but at least it would be honest.

Ineptocracy (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ineptocracy)

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
 
CR34M3 said:
Again, I'm not for changing the name, I'm just interested in the 'why' and hence the other side of the argument. This is the best ‘reason’ I could gather to date.

I read this comment on a M&G Thougt Leader article a few months back: [source]

Since then I've asked around a bit and some people do share this particular train of thought.

Now I don't know about you, but Pretoria has no political significance to me. Therefore, my opposition to the name change is rooted in objective considerations such as costs (which I agree is wasteful). It also does not signal progress to me, as existing structures are merely renamed and not necessarily improved in the process (case and point Steve Biko Academic Hospital).

As for the other side of the coin; I try to imagine a person sitting in some township/etc. listening to the radio blaring the new laws passed by “Pretoria”. In this scenario I could begin to understand why people would associate negative connotations with the word “Pretoria”. The existence of Pretoria as a city before the advent of apartheid and the rights of its name to be protected now become… well, complicated.

Would the continued existence of “Pretoria” hint that the struggle movement never defeated the apartheid government? Would the change of the name to “Tshwane” increase racial polarity; as a name change does not erase the past? In 40-odd years, will anyone be left to associate anything negative with “Pretoria” and is it fair/unfair towait that long? All questions for other threads...
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, I just think it's complete BS and a smokescreen for the real reasons. Yes, people call a country's government by the name of its capital city. So what? It was also the name of other governments, even before what we now call "South Africa" ever existed. I'm sorry but if people associate that name with an old government's policies, it's their own ignorance that needs changing, not any names. Only a moron today thinks of the Terror or the Paris commune when hearing the name "Paris", or (hate to mention this but it's relevant) think of the Nazis when hearing Berlin, Even though Berlin was far more central to the Nazi ideology than Pretoria ever was to that of the NP. Bucharest is also still Bucharest, even though that crazy bastard Ceaucescu reigned from there. People think of great cities that have rich histories and have survived through massive societal changes into the modern era, and changing something that fundamental just to "forget" things is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Not to mention that trying to forget or misrepresenting history is a disaster in itself since we can't learn from past mistakes if we lie about or forget it.

As the part you quoted said, they change names that never had anything to do with governments either so it blows the whole "historical" argument right out of the water.

By the way, if we want to be technical, apartheid era laws (including the Group Areas Act) were passed in Cape Town. Only in the ZAR era were laws actually made in Pretoria. So if you want to go and renaming cities purely because bad descisions were made there, you know where to look.
 
TJ99 said:
I get what you're saying, I just think it's complete BS and a smokescreen for the real reasons.
...
Click to expand...

This is the closest to a “real” reason I’ve found. I’m just reporting it as such.

With regards to the other city names you mentioned; that is a very compelling point of view. The city name signifying progress and reform against a not so pretty historical background. I like that. :)
 
So if you want to go and renaming cities purely because bad decisions were made there, you know where to look.
Click to expand...

We already have the Institute for the Restoration of the Aborigines of SA wanting it ( Cape Town ) renamed to //Hui !Gaeb.
 
I have no objection to name changes for Racial devide reasons. Example Verwoerd stad to Centurion. We can all see why it needed change and Centurion is a neutral name with no link to anything or anyone. Why change a name like Pretoria which isn't named after anyone per se it's not Pretorius stad. If they do want to change it so badly why not a neutral name and thereby not trying to push an agenda? Every time before the ANC does their Leader elections, the Pretoria issue comes up...
 
Just rename every city, town and street to 'Mandela' and be done with it :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X