Should BC consider a name change?
#31
On a grand tour
Joined: Jul 2017
Location: Somewhere dusty
Posts: 240
Re: Should BC consider a name change?
In response to the original question - no, what's wrong with "British Columbia"?
#32
Re: Should BC consider a name change?
#34
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns
Posts: 19,849
Re: Should BC consider a name change?
Food for thought
Though today the majority of Canadians are white, the land that is now “Canada” was first occupied for thousands of years by the aboriginal peoples of North America. These people had lived on the northern half of the North American continent ever since homo sapiens first arrived from Asia, most likely via the Bering Land Bridge,around 21,000 B.C.
https://thecanadaguide.com/history/early-history/
The ancestors of Aboriginal peoples are believed to have migrated from Asia many thousands of years ago.
http://www.canada.com/pdf/discover_canada_eng_37.pdf
Though today the majority of Canadians are white, the land that is now “Canada” was first occupied for thousands of years by the aboriginal peoples of North America. These people had lived on the northern half of the North American continent ever since homo sapiens first arrived from Asia, most likely via the Bering Land Bridge,around 21,000 B.C.
https://thecanadaguide.com/history/early-history/
The ancestors of Aboriginal peoples are believed to have migrated from Asia many thousands of years ago.
http://www.canada.com/pdf/discover_canada_eng_37.pdf
#35
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Feb 2013
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 3,874
Re: Should BC consider a name change?
......... and there are at least 27 First Nations in BC alone, each with their own languages and dialects.
Who chooses which??
Certainly should not be the whites, or even the Blacks, who all came much later. But which of the 27 arrived first?
It's a discussion that could go on literally for centuries, not just years.
Who chooses which??
Certainly should not be the whites, or even the Blacks, who all came much later. But which of the 27 arrived first?
It's a discussion that could go on literally for centuries, not just years.
#36
Re: Should BC consider a name change?
There was a call to change the name of British Columbia weeks before Floyd's killing, by a native artist named Lawrence Yuxweluptun, as an introduction to his politically-themed show in the Museum of Anthropology at UBC. Artists give a lot of thought to their Artist Statement that viewers are greeted with at the gallery, so the name thing is obviously important to him, but I take this more as a reminder to be aware of the land and it's history (and that much of it is unceded land and still going through the treaty process) than a clarion call to change the name.
https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-...l-yuxweluptun/
Last edited by caretaker; Jun 22nd 2020 at 5:17 am.
#37
Re: Should BC consider a name change?
Seems like an interesting topic some might like to debate about if.
Is it time to change the name of Canada’s westernmost province to something other than British Columbia?
Is it time to change the name of Canada’s westernmost province to something other than British Columbia?
#38
Re: Should BC consider a name change?
In some cases using a different name doesn't come too hard, for example we're used to calling the Queen Charlotte Islands Haida Gwaii now, but it took an international ecological campaign over the forests and a movement to protect the remains of the settlements and totems on the islands before it happened. .
Of course, Kitchener is problematic in itself as a name. Horatio Herbert Kitchener (what a name!) was largely responsible for the rapid expansion of Roberts' use of concentration camps in the Second Boer War. There have been several (so far unsuccessful) attempts to raise the issue and get the town to change its name once again
#40
Re: Should BC consider a name change?
There's nothing wrong with discussing the potential for name change... but if it's not stamped on pretty quickly it'll grow legs and become a movement.
Once this happens all manner of hangers-on and parasites become involved. There'll be interest groups formed, lobbying for this name or that name and most importantly politicking and fund raising.
In no time at all inertia will increase to the point where there never was a discussion about whether the name should change but only how soon, to what and most importantly 'how can it benefit me personally'.
It's a complete waste of time, effort and resources unless there's a wide groundswell driven need, but these trendy movements tend to be initiated from the top and it's the rest of us that pay for it.
Once this happens all manner of hangers-on and parasites become involved. There'll be interest groups formed, lobbying for this name or that name and most importantly politicking and fund raising.
In no time at all inertia will increase to the point where there never was a discussion about whether the name should change but only how soon, to what and most importantly 'how can it benefit me personally'.
It's a complete waste of time, effort and resources unless there's a wide groundswell driven need, but these trendy movements tend to be initiated from the top and it's the rest of us that pay for it.
#41
Re: Should BC consider a name change?
Of course, Kitchener is problematic in itself as a name. Horatio Herbert Kitchener (what a name!) was largely responsible for the rapid expansion of Roberts' use of concentration camps in the Second Boer War. There have been several (so far unsuccessful) attempts to raise the issue and get the town to change its name once again
#43
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2007
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 1,371
Re: Should BC consider a name change?
But that is exactly what happened. Names of places home to thousands of years of human occupation, and complex, sophisticated civilizations and cultures were just erased and written over with new colonial names without consent. The people didn't disappear. Their culture didn't disappear. They are still here. It's a mindset that needs to be changed. The cultures in BC are thousands of years old, up to 10,000 years old in places. These place names existed for literally thousands of years. They still exist and are in use. BC is just a temporary blip on the map. It can certainly be written over just as disgracefully as the colonizers who wrote over the Indigenous place names.
Last edited by Lychee; Jun 24th 2020 at 8:22 pm.
#44
Re: Should BC consider a name change?
But that is exactly what happened. Names of places home to thousands of years of human occupation, and complex, sophisticated civilizations and cultures were just erased and written over with new colonial names without consent. The people didn't disappear. Their culture didn't disappear. They are still here. It's a mindset that needs to be changed. The cultures in BC are thousands of years old, up to 10,000 years old in places. These place names existed for literally thousands of years. They still exist and are in use. BC is just a temporary blip on the map. It can certainly be written over just as disgracefully as the colonizers who wrote over the Indigenous place names.
#45
Re: Should BC consider a name change?
But that is exactly what happened. Names of places home to thousands of years of human occupation, and complex, sophisticated civilizations and cultures were just erased and written over with new colonial names without consent. The people didn't disappear. Their culture didn't disappear. They are still here. It's a mindset that needs to be changed. The cultures in BC are thousands of years old, up to 10,000 years old in places. These place names existed for literally thousands of years. They still exist and are in use. BC is just a temporary blip on the map. It can certainly be written over just as disgracefully as the colonizers who wrote over the Indigenous place names.