Urban Name Changing Citichat 6 July 2007

CITICHAT 26/2007 - 6 July 2007

What’s in a name?

When I wrote about the possible Portuguese background to the name ‘Johannesburg’ last week I was sharing from Niel Hirschson’s “The Naming of Johannesburg” and not really thinking about name changes to our towns, cities and streets per se. Since then I have read a number of articles about this controversial issue, and, as I’m still confined to bed, have had some time to try to get my mind around it.



Name changes are nothing new, they happen for a variety of reasons – sometimes to reflect a change in community; to honour politicians or local heroes or replace the names of those who have disgraced themselves or fallen from favour; streets are often renamed to recognise international cause celebres, etc etc. But the most widespread changes take place following political regime changes sometimes brought about by war or conflict. This has been the situation through a large part of the African continent following various countries gaining their independence from their colonial ‘masters’. A very high proportion of cities and towns in Russia experienced name changing after the October Revolution of 1917; Polish cities were renamed in 1945 after the end of WWII; in 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, many cities reverted to their original names. Thus Saint Petersburg, a name dating back to 1703, became Petrograd in 1914 then Leningrad in 1924 but finally(?) reverted to Saint Petersburg again in 1991. Sometimes I guess you’d be lucky (Grushyovskaya became Gornoye Grushyovskoye then later became Alexandrovsk-Grushyovsky but now is just plain Shakhty) other times you might not be so fortunate – what was Shakthy is now Gusinoozyorsk! Try saying that when you’ve had one vodka too many!



Sometimes the motivation is language based – for instance the picturesque little south-western town in County Kerry, Ireland, called Dingle (where Ryan’s Daughters was filmed) has recently, “in the interests of protecting and promoting the Irish language” had its name changed by Government to “An Daingean” (pronounced “on dang-un”). Business was furious as the “Dingle brand”, carefully built up over decades, was instantaneously lost. The outcry was so fierce that Kerry Council, who unilaterally changed the name in the first place, is now holding a referendum. As only local government can do, it is giving citizens a simple ‘democratic’ choice. Either “An Daingean” or “Dingle-Daingean ui Chuis”! One local describes the situation as “political correctness gone nuts”!



Some name changes are strictly commercial. “Hot Springs” in New Mexico changed its name to “Truth or Consequences” when the host of a radio show of that name announced that he would broadcast the show from the first place that changed its name to that of the show; “Halfway”, Oregon accepted money to change its name to match the web-site “Half.com” and Buffalo, Texas has changed its name more than once in support of neighbouring Dallas’ football team - from Buffalo to “Blue Star, Texas and five years later to “Green Star, Texas! Don’t ask!



The effect of name changing is of course not that dramatic to people without a direct link to the place. Can’t remember world riots about Upper Volta’s change to Burkina Faso; the Gold Coast to Ghana; Ceylon to Sri Lanka; Siam to Thailand; Peking to Beijing; Calcutta to Kolkata; Bombay to Mumbai! But then we don’t hear much about the debates that might have taken place in those places in the build up to the change, if anything.



There is of course legislation that is supposed to provide direction at all three levels of government. The following are the criteria adopted by the Joburg Metro for the allocation of names to new and existing public places, streets and townships, criteria which are in line with the policy of the National Place Names Committee:



1. There should be no duplication or near duplication of already approved names in the City of Joburg; Names of which the spelling or pronunciation is so close to existing names that it may result in confusion should be avoided;

2. The names of well Known places in other countries and names of countries should be avoided;

3. The names should not be too long or clumsy;

4. The name should not be offensive to any community or section of the community, blasphemous, indecent, offensive, vulgar or ugly;

5. The names should promote goodwill and reconciliation;

6. The names may be in any of the eleven official languages;

7. The names shall assist in building a sense of ownership and community;

8. The names shall be in keeping with the theme of the area;

9. The names should not be discriminatory or derogatory in terms of race, colour, religion, sex, political affiliation or other social factors;

10. Names of living persons should be avoided; unless in exceptional circumstances, with the approval of full Council;

11. No street shall be named after a practicing councillor or politician;

12. Names should not be used which could be regarded as an advertisement for a specific product, service or company;

13. The name is seen to increase the marketing potential and investment attractiveness of the area.

14. Names promote the character of the area.



That name changes will start accelerating in our country during the next few years (and that the changes will be fiercely contested) are givens. We recently had the OR Tambo hassle, the Tshwane issue seems to still not be fully resolved (or the geographic extent of the name not fully understood); there is major niggle in Ethekwini and now anger, graffiti and defaced name signs accompany the changes in in Potchefstroom whilst Louis Trichardt/Makhado goes through a roller-coaster ride from one name to the other and back again!







So the ‘Comment’ in the Star of July 3rd “Name-change process not open” by Sonwabile Mancotywa,, CEO of the National Heritage Council of SA, came as a welcome voice of reason. Mancotywa suggests that we have at least progressed from debating the necessity of change to the choice of name to be honoured or erased. I think he is correct, though I suspect that there remain many hard-liners who haven’t yet accepted the necessity for change – as he rightly points out with such people it isn’t the process they are fighting, it is the actual names being ‘imposed’ on them. Nevertheless, they are in the minority and, over time, will be overtaken by what is right.



But he succinctly spells out the fundamental issue that lies behind our name-changing – “The choice of names that were either selected or omitted for public entities is indicative of South Africa’s ghastly past. Africans were largely excluded and some names were downright offensive towards them. The few African place-names selected were misspelt and thus distorted of their meaning. This simply added further insult. It showed total lack of respect for the humanity of Africans. That was not surprising, as apartheid rested on the idea that Africans were sub-human. Name-changes therefore seek to restore that dignity by affirming that Africans too, like any peoples anywhere in the world, have a history and historical figures that need recognition. They are not invisible or without any past to speak of. Whites are part of this society and its history. Addressing the injury of Africans, therefore, ought to not make Africans insensitive to the anxieties of their white counterparts. After all, we have committed ourselves to building a united and non-racial society, where each individual and community counts equally.”



Quite rightly, Mancotywa points out that official national guidelines regarding name changing just don’t go deep enough and are focused on procedures without providing criteria for putting on or taking off. Councils can put forward name changes, set up consultative fora and, provided it can’t be proved that ‘sufficient consultation’ did not take place, can go ahead with the changes. The four criteria he recommends are as follows:



1. Whites need to recognise the pain caused by the exclusive, offensive and distorted African place names.

2. The choice of place-names should be guided by our founding values and African identity – place names that violate national values must be erased and not be selected for future use.

3. Events or entities that appeal to us all and that affirm our commonality.

4. New names should extend beyond political personalities. Our past is full of sports-persons, musicians, clergy and community activists that symbolise our values and have a cross-cutting appeal.



I like all of that but would go just a bit further. Firstly, the reasons for the promotion of specific new names at the expense of others should be clearly enunciated – some of the reasons for erasure may well cause hurt in certain sectors of our citizens but will often be the exact reason that causes hurt to those that want the name erased. Honesty is the only way to forge the future and we are all guilty of poor and often inaccurate communication, local authorities in particular. Carefully considered and communicated name changing, given our particular circumstances, can well be a positive force for nation-building and not divisive. Many of us may not even know of the person whose name is to be celebrated. Local authorities should be duty bound to provide a detailed balanced history of the person and their accomplishments so that we may ourselves develop a pride in being associated with the name of that person – the media should be used to explain the rationale and everything possible done to ensure that the people effected by the change at least understand the justification for the change. Another criteria should be an appropriateness between the stature of the person and the scale of the place being renamed - an alleyway in Hillbrow or Braamfontein should not bear the name of one of the country’s great heroes!



The Vienna Memorandum on “World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture – Managing the Historic Urban Landscape” adopted by UNESCO doesn’t directly deal with name changing but has some sensible approaches that we could interpolate from, ie “the future of our historic landscape calls for mutual understanding between policy makers, urban planners, city developers, architects, conservationists, property owners, investors and concerned citizens, working together to preserve the urban heritage while considering the modernisation and development of society in a culturally and historic sensitive manner, strengthening identity and social cohesion. Taking into account the emotional connection between human beings and their environment, their sense of place, it is fundamental to guarantee an urban environmental quality of living to contribute to the economic success of a city and to its social and cultural vitality.”



I suggest that appropriate naming is very much a part of that success and social and cultural vitality, cheers, neil