To my knowledge, no one has asked the residents of Hamilton whether they approve of their city’s name being changed. My guess is that they don’t – but hey, only 10 percent of the population want the country renamed Aotearoa, and that hasn’t stopped newsreaders, weather forecasters, reporters, politicians and academics using it as a substitute for New Zealand.
I’ve yet to hear anyone use Kirikiriroa in everyday conversation. Until relatively recently, few people had even heard of the name. But the political/academic/media cabal that controls the national conversation has decreed that henceforth, that's how Hamilton is to be known.
This is an act of colossal arrogance and conceit by a self-ordained priesthood that regards itself as being above democracy and accountable to no one.
What’s more, it’s not even honest. It's true there was once a village called Kirikiriroa where Hamilton now stands, but the city is a wholly European creation.
There’s a very good case for restoring Maori names to places and natural features – for example, mountains, lakes and rivers – where those names were usurped by colonists. That process is already well advanced, with public buy-in; who refers to Mt Egmont these days? But to apply Maori names to cities that were built by European colonisers is historically misleading and an ostentatious form of virtue-signalling.
Theoretically at least, there may also be a case for changing Hamilton’s name, given that it commemorates a British naval officer with no historical link to the city. But the same could be said of other cities and towns with colonial names that arguably have no modern relevance; for example Nelson, Napier, Hastings, Havelock North and even Wellington, all of which celebrate British imperial conquests in one way or another.
Good luck with that, as they say. In any case, the bottom line is that any change must be endorsed by popular mandate, not imposed by the ruling political caste with no regard for public opinion.
And as for Kirikiriroa, so for Tamaki Makaurau (Auckland), Otautahi (Christchurch) and Otepoti (Dunedin).
The lack of public uptake for these names by the citizens of those cities speaks volumes. Does the political class notice or care that the public don’t go along? No. They’re deaf to everything but their own moral righteousness.
Karl du Fresne, a freelance journalist, is the former editor of The Dominion newspaper. He blogs at karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz.
This is an act of colossal arrogance and conceit by a self-ordained priesthood that regards itself as being above democracy and accountable to no one.
What’s more, it’s not even honest. It's true there was once a village called Kirikiriroa where Hamilton now stands, but the city is a wholly European creation.
There’s a very good case for restoring Maori names to places and natural features – for example, mountains, lakes and rivers – where those names were usurped by colonists. That process is already well advanced, with public buy-in; who refers to Mt Egmont these days? But to apply Maori names to cities that were built by European colonisers is historically misleading and an ostentatious form of virtue-signalling.
Theoretically at least, there may also be a case for changing Hamilton’s name, given that it commemorates a British naval officer with no historical link to the city. But the same could be said of other cities and towns with colonial names that arguably have no modern relevance; for example Nelson, Napier, Hastings, Havelock North and even Wellington, all of which celebrate British imperial conquests in one way or another.
Good luck with that, as they say. In any case, the bottom line is that any change must be endorsed by popular mandate, not imposed by the ruling political caste with no regard for public opinion.
And as for Kirikiriroa, so for Tamaki Makaurau (Auckland), Otautahi (Christchurch) and Otepoti (Dunedin).
The lack of public uptake for these names by the citizens of those cities speaks volumes. Does the political class notice or care that the public don’t go along? No. They’re deaf to everything but their own moral righteousness.
Karl du Fresne, a freelance journalist, is the former editor of The Dominion newspaper. He blogs at karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz.
5 comments:
This appropriation is part of the latest strategy of imposition based on total confidence in mission and agency.
So, these powers can do what they like.
They know noone will challenge them now. Maybe a few comments on the side.... but no organized opposition.
The stakes will get much higher but the reaction will not change.The end game is in sight.
In times of national disater as at present these hard to remember, very hard to spell, non self evidnt maori names for places and organisations hugely complicate all communications.
Exactly, if you build it. You get to name it.
Personally I find the renaming issue offensive in the extreme.
But of course there is little regard for my or anyone else's feelings on this subject.
I would reluctantly accept a name change were it is to correct an original one - such as Bejing for Peking, or Mombai for Bombay. But I cannot accept the renaming of an entirely settler-origin entity such as Christchurch. Christchurch was built on a swamp, where there was no permanent indigenous occupation. I understand that Otaitahu was the name given to the junction of two paths somewhere near what is today Kilmore St. The city of Christchurch was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1856. It is an entirely legal designation for the urban/civil entity. The use of Otaitahu, which is a geographic location, is not an acceptable alternative for the city.
There will be many other local authority/civil locations like Christchurch.
It is very interesting to look at the New Zealand Geographic Names Board, and agency of LINZ: https://www.linz.govt.nz/our-work/new-zealand-geographic-board
Quite. Using Maori names for European-based towns and cities is disrespectful. Those names always applied to only some part of the land occupied by those towns or cities, and it's fair enough to keep using the Maori name for those land areas or features. But not for entities that never existed prior to European settlement, unless democratic vote decides on that.
Post a Comment