6 ms·

What would it mean for Portugal if Spain decided to change its name to Iberia? This is exactly what is happening here. They want to be named after a geographic

by Foivos 8y ago

What would it mean for Portugal if Spain decided to change its name to Iberia? This is exactly what is happening here. They want to be named after a geographical region which is way bigger than their borders.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> They want to be named after a geographical region which is way bigger than their borders Ancient Athens once controlled the Aegean and its borders. Does this mean Anatolians should require Athens be re-named?
- StavrosK 8y ago
  Think of like a part of the US emigrating into Argentina, taking up a majority of the country, and then deciding to rename Argentina to "Inca Empire" and talk about how great their Inca ancestors were. Presumably Peru would be at least a bit miffed about it.
- Foivos 8y ago
  They do not want just to be named after that region. They want their country to eventually be this region. This is very clear if you ever visit. You can see everywhere maps like [1]. The red part is the "borders of their heart". In this photo, they actually kept the current borders (usually this is not the case) and you can see that they claim parts of Serbia, Bulgaria, Albania and a huge part of Greece. Also, a large part of the population shares these views, so such events is not just a mindless ultra nationalist minority. [1] http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/03/04/02/49CB538300000578-5459355-image-a-22_1520131446785.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/03/04/02/49CB53830000...
  - mishkovski 8y ago
    So there are nationalists like everywhere in the world. Is that really an issue? Is this even remotely plausible. I mean Macedonia occupying parts of Greece? Doesn't that sound silly to you? Greece is NATO member which Macedonia is trying to join while being blocked by Greece. Do you think Macedonia will go to war with NATO? Come on, this problem was used by corrupted politicians on both sides as an excuse for bad governing. Oh it is hard to deal with the real issues so lets fight over irrational problems. And no, large part of the population does not share those views. The reason is simple, those views are unrealistic and have no place in today's Europe.
- flukus 8y ago
  > Ancient Athens once controlled the Aegean and its borders. Does this mean Anatolians should require Athens be re-named? There concerns would have been well founded, the issue was settled in 1922: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_%281919%E2%80%931922%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_%281919%E2%8...
newfoundglory 8y ago
Yea, it's as silly as a country claiming to be the "United States of America" when lol, Canada and Mexico and all of South America would like a word...
- Sangermaine 8y ago
  Except, lol, it’s the reverse of the Macedonia-Greece issue: the US was the only recognized independent state in the Americas when they chose their name. If “Canada and Mexico and all of South America would like a word” they should invest in time machines.
  - newfoundglory 8y ago
    No, I don't see how you think it's opposite. Macedonia is a name for a large area. FYROM/Northern Macedonia is being used to name a country that takes up only part of this area. Similarly, the Americas are two continents, and USA is being used to name a country that takes up only part of this area. Neither the USA nor FYROM are granted any claim to the rest of their nominal superset.
    - Sangermaine 8y ago
      >No, I don't see how you think it's opposite. Because you're misunderstanding the issue at hand. Greece and Macedonia aren't having an abstract argument over sets. As the article explains, Greece has two specific objections to its neighbor using the name Macedonia: that the name (and certain actions) are thinly-disguised territorial claims against its own province of Macedonia, and are an attempt to lay lay claim to the historical/cultural legacy of the ancient Greeks. This is why the US situation is the opposite, because the US as a separate nation predates all of the other nations you mentioned in the Americas. It therefore can't have been claiming territory of other neighboring states because there weren't any, nor were they claiming anyone's cultural legacy (except arguably the natives, but that's a charge that can be brought against every modern nation in the Americas). It might help to recall that after the American Revolution the 13 colonies became 13 separate sovereign states that would only come together as a single nation in 1789 with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. The new nation was a union of all then-extant states on an American continent, hence the United States of America. That other independent nations eventually came to be in the Americas has no bearing on what America chose to call itself at the time of its founding.
LaMarseillaise 8y ago
I find your comment ironic because, in fact, 'Spain' ('Hispania') has historically referred to the entire peninsula.
lhorie 8y ago
> They want to be named after a geographical region which is way bigger than their borders. Surely that can't be the whole reason for this dispute. I mean, the name "United States of America" would also fall into that description, but nobody's up in arms about it.
- jimmydddd 8y ago
  Think of it like a portion of Canada bordering Montana seceding from Canada and calling themselves Montana. Also, a lot of the people of a certain ethnicity from that portion of Canada move into Montana in the US. In time, the ex-Canada Montana people lay claim to the US Montana region. After all, it's all Montana, right? That's what they are worried about.
  - kd5bjo 8y ago
    Historically, this is pretty much what happened with Texas. A bunch of Americans moved there, fought their own war of independence, and then immediately asked to join the US.
- GFischer 8y ago
  I mean, the name "United States of America" would also fall into that description, but nobody's up in arms about it. Many people in South America think it's a ridiculous, pretentious name. It's not even the only United States in America (for example, Mexico is formally United States of Mexico). But nobody is that worried, it's true.
DC-3 8y ago
It's even worse than that - it's like Portugal changing its name to Iberia. The vast majority of historical 'Macedonia' is in Greece.
nitwit005 8y ago
> What would it mean for Portugal if Spain decided to change its name to Iberia? Fairly sure they'd laugh at them, and then get on with their lives.

by Foivos 8y ago

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> They want to be named after a geographical region which is way bigger than their borders Ancient Athens once controlled the Aegean and its borders. Does this mean Anatolians should require Athens be re-named?

StavrosK 8y ago
Think of like a part of the US emigrating into Argentina, taking up a majority of the country, and then deciding to rename Argentina to "Inca Empire" and talk about how great their Inca ancestors were. Presumably Peru would be at least a bit miffed about it.
Foivos 8y ago
They do not want just to be named after that region. They want their country to eventually be this region. This is very clear if you ever visit. You can see everywhere maps like [1]. The red part is the "borders of their heart". In this photo, they actually kept the current borders (usually this is not the case) and you can see that they claim parts of Serbia, Bulgaria, Albania and a huge part of Greece. Also, a large part of the population shares these views, so such events is not just a mindless ultra nationalist minority. [1] http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/03/04/02/49CB538300000578-5459355-image-a-22_1520131446785.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/03/04/02/49CB53830000...
- mishkovski 8y ago
  So there are nationalists like everywhere in the world. Is that really an issue? Is this even remotely plausible. I mean Macedonia occupying parts of Greece? Doesn't that sound silly to you? Greece is NATO member which Macedonia is trying to join while being blocked by Greece. Do you think Macedonia will go to war with NATO? Come on, this problem was used by corrupted politicians on both sides as an excuse for bad governing. Oh it is hard to deal with the real issues so lets fight over irrational problems. And no, large part of the population does not share those views. The reason is simple, those views are unrealistic and have no place in today's Europe.
flukus 8y ago
> Ancient Athens once controlled the Aegean and its borders. Does this mean Anatolians should require Athens be re-named? There concerns would have been well founded, the issue was settled in 1922: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_%281919%E2%80%931922%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_%281919%E2%8...

newfoundglory 8y ago

Yea, it's as silly as a country claiming to be the "United States of America" when lol, Canada and Mexico and all of South America would like a word...

Sangermaine 8y ago
Except, lol, it’s the reverse of the Macedonia-Greece issue: the US was the only recognized independent state in the Americas when they chose their name. If “Canada and Mexico and all of South America would like a word” they should invest in time machines.
- newfoundglory 8y ago
  No, I don't see how you think it's opposite. Macedonia is a name for a large area. FYROM/Northern Macedonia is being used to name a country that takes up only part of this area. Similarly, the Americas are two continents, and USA is being used to name a country that takes up only part of this area. Neither the USA nor FYROM are granted any claim to the rest of their nominal superset.
  - Sangermaine 8y ago
    >No, I don't see how you think it's opposite. Because you're misunderstanding the issue at hand. Greece and Macedonia aren't having an abstract argument over sets. As the article explains, Greece has two specific objections to its neighbor using the name Macedonia: that the name (and certain actions) are thinly-disguised territorial claims against its own province of Macedonia, and are an attempt to lay lay claim to the historical/cultural legacy of the ancient Greeks. This is why the US situation is the opposite, because the US as a separate nation predates all of the other nations you mentioned in the Americas. It therefore can't have been claiming territory of other neighboring states because there weren't any, nor were they claiming anyone's cultural legacy (except arguably the natives, but that's a charge that can be brought against every modern nation in the Americas). It might help to recall that after the American Revolution the 13 colonies became 13 separate sovereign states that would only come together as a single nation in 1789 with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. The new nation was a union of all then-extant states on an American continent, hence the United States of America. That other independent nations eventually came to be in the Americas has no bearing on what America chose to call itself at the time of its founding.

LaMarseillaise 8y ago

I find your comment ironic because, in fact, 'Spain' ('Hispania') has historically referred to the entire peninsula.

lhorie 8y ago

> They want to be named after a geographical region which is way bigger than their borders. Surely that can't be the whole reason for this dispute. I mean, the name "United States of America" would also fall into that description, but nobody's up in arms about it.

jimmydddd 8y ago
Think of it like a portion of Canada bordering Montana seceding from Canada and calling themselves Montana. Also, a lot of the people of a certain ethnicity from that portion of Canada move into Montana in the US. In time, the ex-Canada Montana people lay claim to the US Montana region. After all, it's all Montana, right? That's what they are worried about.
- kd5bjo 8y ago
  Historically, this is pretty much what happened with Texas. A bunch of Americans moved there, fought their own war of independence, and then immediately asked to join the US.
GFischer 8y ago
I mean, the name "United States of America" would also fall into that description, but nobody's up in arms about it. Many people in South America think it's a ridiculous, pretentious name. It's not even the only United States in America (for example, Mexico is formally United States of Mexico). But nobody is that worried, it's true.

DC-3 8y ago

It's even worse than that - it's like Portugal changing its name to Iberia. The vast majority of historical 'Macedonia' is in Greece.

nitwit005 8y ago

> What would it mean for Portugal if Spain decided to change its name to Iberia? Fairly sure they'd laugh at them, and then get on with their lives.