How about you actually look up the histories of the names "Persia" and "Iran" instead of making low effort posts like this, you don't give credit to the ancient and rich histories of either of them.
I just think "Persia" is a more melodious-sounding word. I know it comes from the Greek name for Fare province.
But this thread is about what would happen if the Shah hadn't renamed the country, not about my personal preferences, it just wouldn't let me post a thread without some text in the body of the post, and since I had already said all that I needed to say in the title, I just put that there.
The Country was never named Persia by its inhabitants. That is a western made up name based on a transcription of the Language Farsi by Westerners, All the Shah was doing was saying well lets use our real name instead of a made up western piece of condescending rubbish...Persia is a much nicer name, in my opinion
apparentl Belarus still has that problem, as most Europeans translate their name to some form of White Russian, instead of just Belarusian. And of course their is the issue with Burma/Myanmar. I rememeber Jon Stewart mocking President Bush in the Daily Show, not mentioingnhow it was a political statement against a junta renaming a country (with the name still being slanted to the Burmese). That, and when he joked about the US ambassador to the UN needing an earpiece with a translator to understand Elizabeth I. Despite the room being the size of a shopping mall. Ehh, all for the sake of jokes. Which reminds me of him mocking the Czech ambassador after the Boston bombing for thinking that Americans would be 'stupid enough' to mistake the Czech Republic for Chechnya. Ignoring how the Czechs keep telling people the country's name is Czechia. Also reminds me of the Russians naming Kazakhs as Kirgizh so as to not confuse them with Cossacks.Calling Iran Persia would be like if modern Iraq was called the Republic of Mesopotamia, its a name that's not used at all by the people who live there.
The Country was never named Persia by its inhabitants. That is a western made up name based on a transcription of the Language Farsi by Westerners, All the Shah was doing was saying well lets use our real name instead of a made up western piece of condescending rubbish...
Calling Iran Persia would be like if modern Iraq was called the Republic of Mesopotamia, its a name that's not used at all by the people who live there.
when you say they who do you mean....They did used to call a region Persia, but changed it to the Arabic form, which is Fars. Which is why in India they call Zorastorians Farsi. I do like how it reinforces the whole reason for naming the Persian Gulf the Persian Gulf. Makes a lot more sense than the Arabian Sea. Next to Oman,then again, Arabic speakers controlled the whole coast down to Zanzibar for eight hundred years, so makes sense the Europeans would call it that.
apparentl Belarus still has that problem, as most Europeans translate their name to some form of White Russian, instead of just Belarusian. And of course their is the issue with Burma/Myanmar. I rememeber Jon Stewart mocking President Bush in the Daily Show, not mentioingnhow it was a political statement against a junta renaming a country (with the name still being slanted to the Burmese). That, and when he joked about the US ambassador to the UN needing an earpiece with a translator to understand Elizabeth I. Despite the room being the size of a shopping mall. Ehh, all for the sake of jokes. Which reminds me of him mocking the Czech ambassador after the Boston bombing for thinking that Americans would be 'stupid enough' to mistake the Czech Republic for Chechnya. Ignoring how the Czechs keep telling people the country's name is Czechia. Also reminds me of the Russians naming Kazakhs as Kirgizh so as to not confuse them with Cossacks.
Iranians. I looked up the details on the province and it mentions that the current name, starting with an F, descents from the Arabic name for the area.when you say they who do you mean....
But that's everywhere. Greece is really Helles or whatever. Japan is Nihon. Germany is Duetch or whatever.Calling Iran Persia would be like if modern Iraq was called the Republic of Mesopotamia, its a name that's not used at all by the people who live there.
yeah, the Middle Farsi form of it was Parsis, IIRC.Iranians. I looked up the details on the province and it mentions that the current name, starting with an F, descents from the Arabic name for the area.
with all due respect it is a little different simply translating a name than using a term never used by the locals at all like Persia or Byzantine.This moves across to a wider debate about national naming. I see no reason not to refer to a country by the name by which it is traditionally known to ones own people. I visit Germany not Deutschland, Spain not Espagne, Japan not Nippon, Greece not Hellas, China not Zhongguo etc. It is right and proper for a nation to declare and use a particular name for itself but that is no reason why an anglophone (or other) should not use the anglophone (or other) traditional name thus Burma and Persia etc. are proper names for an anglophone to use and Myanmar or Iran are proper names for those nations to use. Any who find that unacceptable must get used to not referring to Britain but should always call it the United Kingdom and presumably the inhabitants be referred to as United Kingdomish/Kingdomers/Kingdoms. British is a name that refers to those who were present pre Roman and never even then called themselves British and used their tribal identities which would leave me as an Iceni or possibly a Trinovante. The Dutch are remarkably tolerant of being referred to as Dutch, Netherlanders,from Holland (I know it is just one province) or the Netherlands or the Low Country. I emigrated to France and have grown hardened to anyone from the (geographically named and not compulsory) British Isles as English even though they are aware of the Irish, English, Scots and Welsh (don't try them out on the Manx though) and that confusion is not helped by Bretagne being in France whilst Grand Bretagne is in the United Kingdom and both countries have a Cornwall/Cornouaille.
To simplify my point; it is proper for an Iranian to be of Iran. It is proper for an Anglophone to refer to a Persian from Persia just as a Deutschlander is from Deutschland and referred to by an Anglophone as a German from Germany. Germans speaking English refer to their country as Germany, in French as Allemagne. It would be proper for an Anglophone speaking Iranian to call the country Iran.
It is cultural bullying to insist that foreigners must call your country by your name for it. Their traditional name for it is their own cultural tradition. Maybe is it time for all from the United States of North America to insist we call them United States of North Americans. North Americans would not do as Mexicans and Canadians are North Americans too. BTW why are Canadians not from Canadia?
People called the Dutch Hollanders because almost all the sailors used to come from Holland. The word Netherlands means Low Countries, and most countries not calling it Holland have some translation of that. Here is the thing though. When a country or person asks you call them be a certain name, it is polite to do so. Many do not due to historical reasons, but like with Istanbul they can simply start refusing to accept letters using a dozen different names the Turks don't use. I also am afraid that a lot of what you are mentioning might be a bit... strawmanning. All that the Iranians basically did was get their diplomatic service revamped and asked people to start calling them by their own name. What is the matter with that? And the reason the United States of America has their people called Americans by many is because they were grandfathered in, in a way. The Spanish, Portuguese, and French all used many names for their colonies, but I do not now of a single one that had the world American in it.This moves across to a wider debate about national naming. I see no reason not to refer to a country by the name by which it is traditionally known to ones own people. I visit Germany not Deutschland, Spain not Espagne, Japan not Nippon, Greece not Hellas, China not Zhongguo etc. It is right and proper for a nation to declare and use a particular name for itself but that is no reason why an anglophone (or other) should not use the anglophone (or other) traditional name thus Burma and Persia etc. are proper names for an anglophone to use and Myanmar or Iran are proper names for those nations to use. Any who find that unacceptable must get used to not referring to Britain but should always call it the United Kingdom and presumably the inhabitants be referred to as United Kingdomish/Kingdomers/Kingdoms. British is a name that refers to those who were present pre Roman and never even then called themselves British used their tribal identities which would leave me as an Iceni or possibly a Trinovante. The Dutch are remarkably tolerant of being referred to as Dutch, Netherlanders,from Holland (I know it is just one province) or the Netherlands or the Low Country. I emigrated to France and have grown hardened to anyone from the (geographically named and not compulsory) British Isles as English even though they are aware of the Irish, English, Scots and Welsh (don't try them out on the Manx though) and that confusion is not helped by Bretagne being in France whilst Grand Bretagne is in the United Kingdom and both countries have a Cornwall/Cornouaille.
To simplify my point; it is proper for an Iranian to be of Iran. It is proper for an Anglophone to refer to a Persian from Persia just as a Deutschlander is from Deutschland and referred to by an Anglophone as a German from Germany. Germans speaking English refer to their country as Germany, in French as Allemagne. It would be proper for an Anglophone speaking Iranian to call the country Iran.
It is cultural bullying to insist that foreigners must call your country by your name for it. Their traditional name for it is their own cultural tradition. Maybe is it time for all from the United States of North America to insist we call them United States of North Americans. North Americans would not do as Mexicans and Canadians are North Americans too. BTW why are Canadians not from Canadia?
Come to think of it, it also helps people with separating different eras, as a lot of the confusion for some countries are those that had had some continuity for over a thousand years. And with the Byzantine, it probably is less drought than calling them Romans, Romeanians, Rumelians, etc. Especially since we would be getting into the topic of Greeks then, and they had their own ax to grind.with all due respect it is a little different simply translating a name than using a term never used by the locals at all like Persia or Byzantine.
Except in all of those cases, the countries in question have declared that those are the proper English names for the country- same with Spain for España, Ireland for Eire, Sweden for Sverige, and India for Bhārat. If a country asks to be called a name, then you call it that. I mean, I still occasionally slip with Myanmar and call it Burma, but that is very recent. People of the current generation will likely grow up knowing it as Myanmar, only knowing Burma as the previous name of the country- similar to how my mother still occasionally calls the DRC, Zaire.But that's everywhere. Greece is really Helles or whatever. Japan is Nihon. Germany is Deutchland or whatever.
What the locals call it is no reason for forcing others to do the same, save when communicating in the local language when it would certainly be impolite not to use the local name. In the case of Iran the name Persia is going out of tradition but was the normal Anglophone name for centuries. I personally use Iran for the country in recent times but Persia when referring to historical times. I would expect an Iranian to use Iran in all circumstances as is their tradition.with all due respect it is a little different simply translating a name than using a term never used by the locals at all like Persia or Byzantine.
Though to be fair there was originally a lot of problems with the Ireland name change. The Brits were fine when they changed their name from Southern Ireland to Eire, but not when they went to Ireland. And for India the thing with language also came down to southern India being rather insistent that English be kept as a national language, as they didn't want the whole entire price to belong to the Hindi-speakers from the Ganges River area.Except in all of those cases, the countries in question have declared that those are the proper English names for the country- same with Spain for España, Ireland for Eire, Sweden for Sverige, and India for Bhārat. If a country asks to be called a name, then you call it that. I mean, I still occasionally slip with Myanmar and call it Burma, but that is very recent. People of the current generation will likely grow up knowing it as Myanmar, only knowing Burma as the previous name of the country- similar to how my mother still occasionally calls the DRC, Zaire.
The name change happened before World War Two. At this point it would be changing the name to Persia that would be an issue, especially as it would be focused on one ethnic group, rather than the entire area. And I don't think anyone here has actually mentioned people forcing name changes (well, besides me withnthe mail) and all this comes down to is the OP saying he thinks Persia sounds nicer.What the locals call it is no reason for forcing others to do the same, save when communicating in the local language when it would certainly be impolite not to use the local name. In the case of Iran the name Persia is going out of tradition but was the normal Anglophone name for centuries. I personally use Iran for the country in recent times but Persia when referring to historical times. I would expect an Iranian to use Iran in all circumstances as is their tradition.
Should you yourself be of the Iranian persuasion do you refer in Iranian to the 'United Kingdom' or by a local term for the country? I would not think it disrespectful to use the local term in Iranian but I would find it so were you communicating in English. Were I fortunate enough to speak Farsi I should certainly call the country 'Iran' and not Persia and think myself rude were I to use 'Persia'.