From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: mtl.general
Subject: Re: Ou est St.Catharines
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:13:56 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 3436

From article <1992Sep12.163518.12929@philmtl.philips.ca>, by ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn):
> In referenced article, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>> I am saying that changing the name of a street, town, or region, on purpose
>> is stupid. This has nothing to do with changing English to French or French
>> to English. Changing "Central Park" to say, "Buz Aldrin Park" is as stupid
>> as changing "Smith Street" to "Brown Street", or "Avenue Boucher" to
>> "Avenue Charpentier", or ....
> 
> But *why* is it stupid, Steve.  Give us *reasons* for your opinions, this
> is just name calling!

I also said that it causes confusion, costs money, and is open to ridicule.
If you want a memorial build a f*#&$ng statue! I might add that it does
wonders for disorienting tourists and visitors.

> 
> What's wrong with taking a name like Dorchester, a name far from the
> conciousness of modern Quebecois, and replacing it with Rene Levesque, who,
> no matter what your politics, has certainly got more modern relevance.
> 

There are two issues here: One is whether political perceptions, or
realities, are valid reasons for changing place names; The other is
why place names are changed at all.

Some degree of change is natural as language evolves with time.

Deliberately spending tax dollars to confuse people is stupid - but
I suppose that's what politicians spend their lives doing :-)

> That's clearly a valid reason for the change, clearly not a "stupid"
> reason. 

That is your opinion. I don't agree.

> Now lets not get sidetracked by the *politics* of this particular 
> name change, that's not the topic you raised, let's stick to discussing the
> habit of changing names itself.  There are many political and ethnic
> arguments for and against that particular change, and in fact I'm not 
> particularly enamoured with the habit of naming things after people anyway 
> (this is just cultural, it's not a common practice in Britain, as you 
> implied, we build statues!), but although I wouldn't do it myself, I 
> wouldn't call it "stupid".  
>
>> Now, using tax payers money to fund an agency to look for ways to 
>> eliminate names of places in one language by replacing them with 
>> another.  Well!  :-) 
> 
> Ah wait, could that possibly be it (:-), - although your original posting 
> said (paraphrasing) "*ignoring* this business of changing all French names 
> to English..."  really, that was the whole point of your posting???  
> 

No, I was objecting to changing names at all.

That was an aside - provocative, i agree, but an aside.

> Well, on *that* subject, it is just as valid (or invalid, depending on your 
> leanings) as insisting that "Londonderry" be called "Derry".  But that's a 
> topic for discussion for soc.culture.celtic of course (:-).  I myself think
> it's a perfectly valid socio-political tool.  To answer your implied
> question, the cost to the taxpayer is clearly worth it if you think it's 
> valid, clearly not if you don't (:-).  It's like religion, what's the point 
> in arguing about it, there can be no conclusion drawn.  

Quite.

End of discussion. I hope.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||