WI: Persia was never renamed "Iran"

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.
Perhaps so but is it polite to tell others what they must say? It is not for one nation to dictate to others. Persuade, encourage even exhort but if foreigners want to use another name amongst themselves then it is a matter for them alone.

To insist in official communication that the preferred national name be used is, perhaps a little over sensitive, but a perogative of an independent nation but to to tell others what to use in their own countries is cultural bullying.
 
Last edited:
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.
The British (if I may insist on the polite formal name and not the diminutive) ) did not give the lesser parts of the monkey what the people of the larger part of Ireland call themselves and see it as no business of theirs what a foreign country chooses to use by way of a name.
 
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 being referred to 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?
Reza Shah explicitly asked the international community to refer to the country as Iran and not Persia in 1935. I hardly think it's cultural bullying to insist that your identity is what you call it and not what someone else calls it. For instance, someone may refer to me as "Fuckface Shitstein". They're free to call me that if they like; but that's not my name. It's also significantly different than if someone calls me Sasha or Oleks in their language as opposed to Alex, which is what I call myself in my own language; they refer to me differently than I refer to myself but I understand that the distinction is due to linguistic difference. If I ask them to call me Alex instead of what they're used to calling me, it's reasonable for me to expect them to be polite about it and for me to take offense if they explicitly refuse to call me what I've asked them to call me for their own comfort.

Also, minor quibble but it's España, not Espagne.
 
Reza Shah explicitly asked the international community to refer to the country as Iran and not Persia in 1935. I hardly think it's cultural bullying to insist that your identity is what you call it and not what someone else calls it. For instance, someone may refer to me as "Fuckface Shitstein". They're free to call me that if they like; but that's not my name. It's also significantly different than if someone calls me Sasha or Oleks in their language as opposed to Alex, which is what I call myself in my own language; they refer to me differently than I refer to myself but I understand that the distinction is due to linguistic difference. If I ask them to call me Alex instead of what they're used to calling me, it's reasonable for me to expect them to be polite about it and for me to take offense if they explicitly refuse to call me what I've asked them to call me for their own comfort.

Also, minor quibble but it's España, not Espagne.
My apology for the brain fade moment on Spain using French from habit.

I think the confusion may be due to a difference between identity and title. Of course an Iranian or someone from Myanmar have that as their identity, but to an Anglophone, Persian and Burmese are received English terms for the same things. I am well aware of the errors that induced the English terms but they became the traditional forms and using them simply refers to the same thing as Iran or Myanmar; however inaccurate their derivation e.g. the Burmese form only a part of the population of Myanmar. There is a difference between respecting that a nation and people call itself by a particular name and that of demanding that the world change it's everyday speech to match. It would be wrong of me to use a deliberately pejorative name for another country. That is gratuitous rudeness. But to use the existing traditional name in one's own language is a right of an independent people and culture.

I indeed find it irritating that foreigners use, even when using the language, English as a synonym for the United Kingdom which denies the separate existence of England as a nation within the Union but I do recognise that 'England' is a traditional synonym for the United Kingdom and when they use 'English' they are referring to the United Kingdom and not England; however mistaken. Except in sport where England proper has it's own identity. Persia is a traditional synonym for Iran. Burma is a traditional synonym for Myanmar. No diktat will change that fact. In Farsi I would use the name Iran. In Myanma bhasa (have I got that right?) I would use the name Myanmar. In everyday English I would feel free to use Persia (actually I would not as it is old fashioned) and Burma as freely as I use Poland and Morocco. When I speak to another of the original peoples of Morocco I use the term Berber because it is the received and understood term even though I prefer the 'Amazigh' of my remote ancestors. Amazigh does not carry over the Arabic cultural inferiority of Berber but nowadays, to non-Amazigh, 'Berber' just is a synonym of 'Amazigh'; whatever the nuances of it's origins.

Again simplifying. It is reasonable to ask others to call you by your preferred name. It is unreasonable to demand that they must only use that name amongst themselves. It is not my name but were I known as 'Dave' I can reasonably ask to be called 'David'. It would be unreasonable to berate others for calling me 'Dave' between themselves. Of course if they call me 'that ..**! Dave' that would be wrong and rude and I would have good reason to complain and be tempted to strike them smartly about the ears.

To address the OP. I am not aware (open to correction) that Persia was ever thus named by the good inhabitants of the country so they would have no need to rename it Iran as it was already Iran. If the government of Iran asked for the international community to use the Iranian name (i.e. Iran) it would do so but use Persia informally amongst themselves. The informal practice would reduce as time goes on.

There was, of course, the order by Churchill in WW2 that British forces and maps cease to use 'Iran' and instead use 'Persia' simply because of the obvious danger of confusion in English between Iran and Iraq due to their similar spelling and contiguity.

i think that we have exhausted the digression from the OP.
 

Big Smoke

Banned
apparentl Belarus still has that problem, as most Europeans translate their name to some form of White Russian, instead of just Belarusian.

Belarussian chiming in. If you know anything about Slavic languages, the root bel means "white". I disagree with the insistence of 'Belarusian' instead of 'Belarussian', because it makes no sense etymologically. The reason for the confusion is that in foreign languages there is no distinction between Russian as in the modern country - the Russian Federation - and Russia/Ruthenia/Rus', that is, East Slavic people in general. In East Slavic Russian/Ukranian/Belarussian this distinction does exist, you have 'Rossiya/Rossiyskiy' (Raseya/Raseyskiy) for the country - the Russian Federation/Great-Russia - and 'Rus'/Russkiy. Now, if you anglify Russia as Russian, you should also anglify Belarus as Belarussian. In fact, most people here when they talk about the country in English tend to refer to it as Belarussian, rather then Belarusian or I've even heard 'Belaruzhian' or something like that, it just sounds wrong to me. Belarus is the descendant of the partial descendant of this Kievan Rus' not of the GDL or Poland - to me, trying to make Orthodox Slav Belarussians as a part of Lithuanians or Poles is like Slavic Bulgarians pretending to me Hellenistic Macedonians, its stupid. There is no comparison of thecontemporary or even historical influence of Ruthenian culture on Belarus and the influence of Lithuanian or Polish culture on Belarus. However, there is the annoying mistake of refering to Belarus as Byelorussiya in Russian and in English, which makes no etymological sense, either. Its Belarus' or, if you insist, something like Belorossiya, not some bullshit in between.
 

Big Smoke

Banned
I tend to prefer Anglicisations to endonyms, too. Croatia instead of Hrvatska, Germany instead of Deutschland, Spain instead of Espana, Persia instead of Iran, Myanmar instead of Burma, India instead of Bharatiya, China instead of whatever the fuck, etc. Nothing wrong with sticking to exonyms.
 
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.
I don't think that, let's say, Germans call themselves "mutes" and that's how slavic nations tend to call them, or feel particularly offended by that.
 
Belarussian chiming in. If you know anything about Slavic languages, the root bel means "white". I disagree with the insistence of 'Belarusian' instead of 'Belarussian', because it makes no sense etymologically.
I know it means White. I am talking about countries literally translating it as White Russia.
 
I don't think much would change politically. The Shah would still be repressive, there would still be a revolution. Instead we would be referring to the Islamic Republic of Persia and the Persia-Iraq war.
 
Dear Yulzari,

You and I strongly disagree on this subject.

I find it a bloody nuisance to remember three or four different names for the same place!
When I switch back and forth between English, French, German, Spanish, etc. I am forced to change the name of the country every time!
What a nuisance!
Why would I want to clutter my pretty little head with: Germany, Germanic, Deutschland, Allemagne, etc. when referring to the same country?
My Spanish vocabulary is not large enough to remember all those different names.
Thanks for teaching us that “bel” means “white” in Slavic languages, but I am going to continue referring to the country as “Belarus” because that is what immigrants to Canada call their homeland.
At a minimum, we should keep the original/native spelling and only mangle the pronounciation.

Out of respect ...... when in doubt ...... I refer to a place or people by what they call themselves.
 
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...

This may come across as anecdotal but I live in a city with a significant Iranian community and the majority of them refer themselves as "Persian" not Iranian, to the point that some will specially say they rather not be called Iranian.
 
This may come across as anecdotal but I live in a city with a significant Iranian community and the majority of them refer themselves as "Persian" not Iranian, to the point that some will specially say they rather not be called Iranian.
Probably because Iran conjures up images of the Ayatollah and the Islamic Republic, while Persia conjures more Western friendly, if romanticized/ orientalist, images of the nation.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Probably because Iran conjures up images of the Ayatollah and the Islamic Republic, while Persia conjures more Western friendly, if romanticized/ orientalist, images of the nation.
Does it? Because when I hear Persia, I think of that nemesis of the Greeks and Romans.
 
Top