Colonialist naming practices were skin-deep

Angelo

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
1,786
Reaction score
0
HISTORICALLY, white people have had a big say in deciding what collective name black people should bear.

In the US, Americans decided to base the identity of people from Africa on the colour of their skin.

So, the slaves came to be known as “darkies”, “coloureds”, “niggers” and “Negroes” – names all based on skin colour.

In the 1960s, Americans of African ancestry chose the name “blacks” for themselves, but in so doing they succumbed to the original paradigm of skin colour chosen by the white masters.

All the other American ethnic groups have their national identities designated culturally or by geographical ancestry.

Hence, Irish-Americans, Greek-Americans, Ukrainian-Americans, Italian-Americans and Jewish-Americans. But suddenly there were “Negroes” or “blacks”, identity derived from physical features.

In Africa, the white man (self-designated racial label) played an additional role in selecting names for us.

When choosing a name for an African country, the white man often based the name on a physical feature such as a river, mountain, lake and coastline.

The Niger was the name of a river before it became the basis of the name Nigeria and the Republic of Niger. Indeed, almost half the population of black Africa lives in countries that share names with rivers: Zaire, Congo, Zambia, Senegal and Gambia.

Kenya, is named after a mountain, Mount Kenya. Mount Kenya also happens to be Africa’s second-highest mountain, snow-capped year round and second only to the legendary Mount Kilimanjaro in neighbouring Tanzania.

Both mountains were at one time on the Kenyan side of the border under British rule, while the Germans ruled Tanganyika (now mainland Tanzania).

According to legend, Queen Victoria decided to give her German cousin, Kaiser Wilheim, Mount Kilimanjaro for his birthday. And so Mount Kilimanjaro became part of Tanzania.

In addition to rivers and mountains, the colonial powers also used the names of coastlines. Algeria was named after islands situated along its coastline – Al-Jazaair.

Apart from Cape Town and the Cape province in South Africa, there was also the Gold Coast and the Ivory Coast in West Africa. These countries were also named after commodities – gold and ivory.

Can the European naming decisions be reversed?

Towards the end of the 20th century, Jesse Jackson successfully recommended a return to ancestry, renaming black Americans African-Americans.

The people of the Gold Coast also took another route to the past. Upon independence in 1957, their country became Ghana, an ancient empire.

Similarly, colonial Rhodesia became Zimbabwe in 1980. These countries are now named after ancient African states. Other ancient names that have been adopted include Mali and Malawi.

But what about Uganda? That is one country that could have been named after the most spectacular river in Africa, the longest river on the continent and historically the most significant waterway in the world.

The River Nile originates in Lake Victoria in Uganda and finds its way to Egypt.

And yet the British missed their chance. For once the white man did not name a colony after its most spectacular physical feature. Perhaps ancient Egyptians too missed their chance of being called “The Empire of the Nile”.

Instead, Uganda was named after its largest cultural group, the Baganda.

On this occasion culture was allowed supremacy and it is, after all, a better foundation for human identity than a river, mountain, coastline and, above all, colour of the skin.
Very interesting
 
I found this a very confused article.
The writer talks about the 'white man' giving names to places based on a geographic feature but then ends off suggesting that culture is a better way to determine 'human' identity.
There is no distinction between regional, national and traditional boundaries as such either.
I am perhaps misunderstanding the whole point of the article, but how would a name like 'Azania' for South/ern Africa help the many different tribes individually identify with themselves any better or worse?
Azania also seems to be derived from Greek or Arabic??? Not exactly African.
Clearly I just don't get this article at all.
 
@Sneeky
I, like many others, has learned to not take a thread serious when the author is Angelo.
Suggest you do the same.
 
I have found people who keep bringing up the colonial argument to be common trash with no concept of reality. I wonder if the Japanese will continue blaming the Americans for the nukes... oh wait.. they actually worked and rebuilt their community/country with the Americans help... not like our fellow countrymen.
 
I prefer to judge each specific post on its own merits rather than simply rubbishing the lot, but thx.
 
I understand why changing names from apartheid figures to struggle heroes but why is Point rd changing to Ghandi? I thought Point was a reference to the fact that it came to a point.
 
I understand why changing names from apartheid figures to struggle heroes but why is Point rd changing to Ghandi? I thought Point was a reference to the fact that it came to a point.

yeah . very few of us see the point of this
 
I understand why changing names from apartheid figures to struggle heroes but why is Point rd changing to Ghandi? I thought Point was a reference to the fact that it came to a point.
They should change the name of point rd to Nigeria rd.
Or hooker alley.
:D :D
 
well ghandi was always a proponant of loving thy neighbour so it's pretty apt that his name will be prominent where the local business people love everybody (albeit for a small fee)
 
a bit OT

Here in the UK is the 200th Anniversary of the Abolition of Slavery... and guess what the "Children of the Slaves" want... they want reparations - in the form of a cash compensation.

This colonial attitude will only go away when Africa has more than europe... until then, Africa is the poor cousin and will keep putting the rest of the world on the guilt trip for lots of cash. Why learn to fish when you get them given for free.
 
a bit OT

Here in the UK is the 200th Anniversary of the Abolition of Slavery... and guess what the "Children of the Slaves" want... they want reparations - in the form of a cash compensation.

This colonial attitude will only go away when Africa has more than europe... until then, Africa is the poor cousin and will keep putting the rest of the world on the guilt trip for lots of cash. Why learn to fish when you get them given for free.
We demand fish.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
So sad.
:o :o
And sick.
:sick: :sick:
 
I have found people who keep bringing up the colonial argument to be common trash with no concept of reality. I wonder if the Japanese will continue blaming the Americans for the nukes... oh wait.. they actually worked and rebuilt their community/country with the Americans help... not like our fellow countrymen.

Agreed!

Furthermore, we conquer, we name it first.

Yes I'm sure the natives living next to the mountain had a name for it, but since we had already conquered the rest of the world, our name became the name known to the whole world, not just a name known to one small insignificant tribe. It is like Mars, named by some ancient guy, he saw it first, his name which he successfully propagated onwards.

Russia has many names and rulers and monuments they hate, but they keep it because people named it first and did it first. It is history, it can't be rewritten. Rewriting it is childish.

Next time Africa wants to name something, discover and conquer it first. Name a planet, civil war or a disease.
 
It's a confusing and contradictory article and I'm not surprised nobody claims authorship.:eek:

Africans have a history of naming places after physical features. Wasn't Vic Falls called the "smoke that thunders"?

According to legend, Queen Victoria decided to give her German cousin, Kaiser Wilheim, Mount Kilimanjaro for his birthday. And so Mount Kilimanjaro became part of Tanzania.
Kilimanjaro sounds very Germanic doesn't it :rolleyes:
Tanzania - yes, also sounds soooo European :rolleyes:

Similarly, colonial Rhodesia became Zimbabwe in 1980.
Zim was renamed after the Great Zimbabwe Ruin. Nobody knows who built the structures because they were more advanced than the locals. Wishful thinking maybe?

And the "African-American" thing ... why are black South Africans called Africans and white or coloured people not? Smacks of racism to me.:mad:
 
Russia has many names and rulers and monuments they hate, but they keep it because people named it first and did it first. It is history, it can't be rewritten. Rewriting it is childish.

Just a note... Stalingrad got renamed to St Petersburg.
 
I knew an Angelo in school, known as the coconut. Where are you from Angelo?
 
Saint Petersburg, is informally known as Piter (Питер) and was formerly known as Petrograd (Петрогра́д, 1914–1924) and Leningrad (Ленингра́д, 1924–1991).

On January 24, 1924, three days after Lenin's death, Petrograd was renamed Leningrad in his honor. The central committee's reason for renaming the city again was that Lenin had led the October revolution.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, on June 12, 1991, a bare majority (54%) of the population decided to restore "the original name, Saint Petersburg," on September 6, 1991.

So they fixed what they changed after a vote.

The difference between them and the ANC is they don't rename towns with significance to the white minority, like Potchefstroom to Tlokwe, in spite. Lenin was a great figure, but Putin did not name Leningrad, Putingrad or Beer.
 
I knew an Angelo in school, known as the coconut. Where are you from Angelo?
Not a coconut, in fact every time I come into contact with the youth I teach them about our history and about Afrikan pride, it's one of my missions.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X