How could Japan and China improve their relationship ? OFFTOPIC about colonialism

[Vanguard_Vendetta]

The Bigger Picture Here Is Because Of The Imperialist Colonist Who Tried To Split We Asians Up,ravaging And Plundering Civilizations All Across The World Or Have We Asians Forgotten That It Was Us Who Was Stripped From Our Pride,honor And Wealth..endured Useless Hardships Over Misunderstandings And Greed Of The Imperialist?

Remember That The French Colonist That Colonized Vietnam... Screw It Up.. British,portugese,spanish,who Colonized Korea..hong Kong.. Thailand...myamar...malaysia..indonesia... Singapore...

Australia Doesnt Belong To The White Man At First..what Happened To The Natives..where The Hell Do They Come From?america?

They Imperialist Are The One Who Diveded The World... There Was No East And West Before...

India Was One Country..and The Imperialist Splitted Them Up To Pakistan And India..that Was Supposed To Be One..now Theyre Fighting Each Other...

Middle East Was Suppose To Be One But Now Look At The Chaos..splitted By The Imperialist..

Read Your History Books Or Did You Leave That Chapter In History Out Too..

The West Enjoys Watching Us Asians.easterners Killing And Slughtering Each Other And Making Each Other Weaker Whike They Sell Weapons To Our Curropted Leaders While They Benefit.. Were Playing Into Their Hands..wake Up Japanese And Chinese..you Too Koreans... All The East Get Together.. The Attrocities Of Japan Was Long Gone..thats What War Does..war Is Out Of Control..and Inexperience Nation Like Japan Is Not Design For Foreign War.. Not The Kind Of Foreign Killers.... You Know What War Is Like..bloody,ugly And Out Of Control...

Seek Your Revenge On The True Enemies..focus..get Together.. We East If We Get Together..we Are Far More Better Than Europeans..tell That To Your Children This Days Dressing Like Europeans...dont You Japanese Love Your Culture..what About You All Easterners?where Is Your Pride And Honour?

The West Wants Us To Split Up..if We Get Together Theyre Finished..and Their Western Superiority Is Vanquished And Unable To Satisfy Their Greed Any Longer...we Become Free..independent..like Angels With Wings..we Soar..to The Path Of Peace,pride,honor And Joy...

 

[bossel]

Remember That The French Colonist That Colonized Vietnam... Screw It Up.. British,portugese,spanish,who Colonized Korea..hong Kong.. Thailand...myamar...malaysia..indonesia... Singapore...

A rather selective memory that you want to see implemented.

India Was One Country..and The Imperialist Splitted Them Up To Pakistan And India..that Was Supposed To Be One..now Theyre Fighting Each Other...

IIRC India was quite a number of countries when the Europeans colonized it.

Middle East Was Suppose To Be One But Now Look At The Chaos..splitted By The Imperialist..

Supposed by who? The Osmans? IIRC, the Arabs were not too fond of Osman rule. Persians & Arabs also were not really fond of each other. How do the Kurds fit in?

Read Your History Books Or Did You Leave That Chapter In History Out Too..

Well, I hope the people you address have better history books than you.

Seek Your Revenge On The True Enemies..focus..get Together.. We East If We Get Together..we Are Far More Better Than Europeans..

& this from the same one who wrote:

They Imperialist Are The One Who Diveded The World... There Was No East And West Before...

 

[Maciamo]

Australia Doesnt Belong To The White Man At First..what Happened To The Natives..where The Hell Do They Come From?america?

South-East Asia (including Malaysia) belonged to the Java men (500.000 years ago) in the first place. What did you do with them ? Did you exterminate them ? :sorry:

What's more Malaysia is very cosmopolitan, so unless you are a racist Malay who is fighting for the expulsion of all Chinese and Indians from Malaysia, I don't get your point about Australia. Aborigenal Australians have benefited a lot from Western knowledge and technology, and are free to choose to live in big cities eith Westerners or stay in the outback and live like their ancestors. The important is that they have this freedom.

They Imperialist Are The One Who Diveded The World... There Was No East And West Before...

There was. It's just that West only meant Europe, while now it also measn America and Australia/NZ.

India Was One Country..and The Imperialist Splitted Them Up To Pakistan And India..that Was Supposed To Be One..now Theyre Fighting Each Other...

It is time to revise your Indian history if you don't want to look like a dumb fool saying such things. Britain unified India, and the Indians divided it into India and Pakistan once they became independent because of religious issues.

Middle East Was Suppose To Be One But Now Look At The Chaos..splitted By The Imperialist..

Do you mean all Arabic countries (from Morocco to Iraq) or also non-Arabic countries like Turkey, Iran and Israel ? Could you imagine a modern country spreading so far on such a cut-off area as from Morocco to Iraq and Yemen, although these people can't even understand each other's Arabic if they don't use Classical Arabic (which only an educated few can speak) ?

 

[Nefelia]

Well, this topic sure fell to stupidity very quickly. Great original post, its too bad the original intent was sabotaged. I ended up skipping page three and four, hope I didn't miss anything important.

Just a few historical nitpickings.

It is time to revise your Indian history if you don't want to look like a dumb fool saying such things. Britain unified India, and the Indians divided it into India and Pakistan once they became independent because of religious issues.

Umm, no. I wouldn't call what Britain did 'unification'. The fact remains that muslims and hindus were able to co-exist peacefully and productively before the British presence. Under British rule, the British played one religion off against the other for political gain and created the animosity that lead to partition in 1947.

Do you mean all Arabic countries (from Morocco to Iraq) or also non-Arabic countries like Turkey, Iran and Israel ? Could you imagine a modern country spreading so far on such a cut-off area as from Morocco to Iraq and Yemen, although these people can't even understand each other's Arabic if they don't use Classical Arabic (which only an educated few can speak) ?

Its easier to imagine than you think. Just look at modern day Russia, or go back a bit to the time of the Ottoman Empire, during which the Arabian peninsula was indeed united under one ruler. Upon the collapse of the Empire after WWII, the western colonial powers decended like vultures and splite the land: Kuwait was separated from Iraq; the coastal part of Syria was sliced off and dubbed Lebanon; Palestine lost its eastern frontier, which was named Jordan. Detecting a pattern?

The key to colonialism was never to units. The creedo is 'divide and conquer', and the West has gotten a lot of practice in the last few centuries.

Anyway, woot.

 

[bossel]

Umm, no. I wouldn't call what Britain did 'unification'. The fact remains that muslims and hindus were able to co-exist peacefully and productively before the British presence. Under British rule, the British played one religion off against the other for political gain and created the animosity that lead to partition in 1947.

Maybe you should check your history books again. India was less united before British rule than afterwards. I wouldn't see the colonial period as very positive but it also was not much worse than before. The Mogul Empire ruled large parts of India for a short while, but that was only after centuries of warfare & their control was far from complete (or, in large parts of their territory, even stable).

Its easier to imagine than you think. Just look at modern day Russia, or go back a bit to the time of the Ottoman Empire, during which the Arabian peninsula was indeed united under one ruler. Upon the collapse of the Empire after WWII, the western colonial powers decended like vultures and splite the land: Kuwait was separated from Iraq; the coastal part of Syria was sliced off and dubbed Lebanon; Palestine lost its eastern frontier, which was named Jordan. Detecting a pattern?

The Arabs were not really fond of Turkish rule (who, BTW, did not control the entire Arabian peninsula), which was a kind of colonial power of its own.

 

[Nefelia]

You miss my point regarding the British influence on South Asia.

Britain may have been the master of South Asia, either through direct rule or through proxy, but they did not unify the people under one identity.

The Mughal Empire (gotta watch your spelling, maybe you should be crackin open those history books ;p) rules under a system of layered sovereignty. The Mughal emperor was at the center, and the various regions were ruled by monarchs and governors under the emperor's name. The borders may have expanded and retracted from one decade to the next, but the authority of the Mughal emperor was respected long past the demise of the empire. In fact, this reverence to the Mughal emperor lasted until the death of the last Mughal emperor in 1862. The British hid his tomb, fearing that it would become the rallying point for rebellion. Indian identity belonged not to the state, but to the dynasty.

Under the Mughal system, Hindu and Muslim co-existed without major political division and tension. With the exception of Akbar (the tool that brought down the empire), all Mughal emperors were tolerant of religious difference, and allowed Hindus and Christians access to positions of power withing the majority-Muslim government.

Untitled

Map of India, 1857. Keep in mind that those red and yellow zones are further fragmented according to religion and language factors, factors that served to highlight difference. Differences that would later erupt during the independance movement starting in the 1890s.

The Arabs were not really fond of Turkish rule (who, BTW, did not control the entire Arabian peninsula), which was a kind of colonial power of its own.

How does that change the fact that the Middle East, as we know it today, is a Western creation formed in order to be more easily exploited. Again, the 'divide and conquer' mentality applies. Lebanon, for instance, was created by the French because the area had a Christian majority (which the rest of Syria did not) and could be more easily dominated by France.

To this day the West liberally interferes in the affairs of Middle Eastern politics...rather clumbsily as of late. Somehow, I don't think Bush is quite done with military interventions in the area.

Anyway, can we say 'off topic'?

 

[bossel]

Britain may have been the master of South Asia, either through direct rule or through proxy, but they did not unify the people under one identity.

Of course not, but one identity never existed, anyway. Can't see why the British should be blamed for this. Actually, I think, only under British rule some perception of a "national" Indian identity developed.

The Mughal Empire (gotta watch your spelling, maybe you should be crackin open those history books ;p)

Actually, Mogul is alright, too. Since this is closer to the German spelling, I prefer it.

The borders may have expanded and retracted from one decade to the next, but the authority of the Mughal emperor was respected long past the demise of the empire

I see that you're better informed than Vanguard Vendetta , but IIRC not to the point. The Moguls were not respected everywhere. There were enough tribes & nations who disliked Mogul rule. The prime example would be Maratha.

Under the Mughal system, Hindu and Muslim co-existed without major political division and tension.

Perhaps partially, but obviously with major tensions. Why else would one of the Maratha battle cries have been swadharma, which means "religious freedom" if I'm correctly informed.

How does that change the fact that the Middle East, as we know it today, is a Western creation formed in order to be more easily exploited.

Not at all, but what are you saying then? That Ottoman rule should have been extended eternally? Or should one European power should have taken control of the whole area?

Left to their own devices the people of the Middle East probably would just as well have formed a variety of different nations. Whether the ensuing wars would have been much better than colonial rule, can be doubted. Not that I'm supporting colonialism as such, but everything is relative.


BTW, if it's getting too much off topic, the thread will probably be split into 2. So don't worry!

 

[Maciamo]

Umm, no. I wouldn't call what Britain did 'unification'. The fact remains that muslims and hindus were able to co-exist peacefully and productively before the British presence. Under British rule, the British played one religion off against the other for political gain and created the animosity that lead to partition in 1947.

The British unified India politically. This is undeniable. But Britain was not going to force people have one religion and one language for the sake of cultural unification. One of the strength of India is its rich cultural diversity. One of the greatest achievements of the British Raj is to have given (even unwillingly) a sense of Indianness that transcend religions, languages, ethnic groups and regions. I can tell you, after travelling all around India, that Indian peope in Tamil Nadu share little in common to those of Punjab or Sikkhim. But yet, they feel Indian. Like in Japan before Meiji or Europe in the middle ages, people in India used to have no sense of national identity. In that sense, Britain united India in the minds too (united against the foreign powers).

Its easier to imagine than you think. Just look at modern day Russia, or go back a bit to the time of the Ottoman Empire, during which the Arabian peninsula was indeed united under one ruler. Upon the collapse of the Empire after WWII, the western colonial powers decended like vultures and splite the land: Kuwait was separated from Iraq; the coastal part of Syria was sliced off and dubbed Lebanon; Palestine lost its eastern frontier, which was named Jordan. Detecting a pattern?

Modern Russia or Canada are big, but are one block, while the Middle East is already divided from Africa by the Red Sea, Sinai and Suez Canal. The Sahara further divides Egypt from the Maghreb. I also don't see much in common between Oman and Lebanon. The Ottoman Empire was probably not a good example, as the Turks were also a kind of (European?) colonial power. Both ethnically and historically, Turkey is completely distinct from Arabic countries. And as Bossel said, it did not reach to most of the Saudi Peninsula or Morocco, but had about a third of its territory in Europe and another third in non-Arabic land (Turkey and the Caucasus).
=> see map
In fact, the core of the empire was always the European and Turkish part around Istanbul. The Arabic part was conquered last, as a sort of colonial extension.
=> see map at the bottom of the page for extension

 

[Maciamo]

The Mughal Empire (gotta watch your spelling, maybe you should be crackin open those history books ;p)

Oh, that's new to me that "Mogul" is any different from "Mughal". Wikipedia says it's an alternative spelling, and my Oxford dictionary cites first Mogul and Moghul and Mughal as alternatives. The Merriam-Webster also considers Mogul to be the most usual.

Under the Mughal system, Hindu and Muslim co-existed without major political division and tension. With the exception of Akbar (the tool that brought down the empire), all Mughal emperors were tolerant of religious difference, and allowed Hindus and Christians access to positions of power withing the majority-Muslim government.

If the British used the pre-existant division between Indian rulers (starting from Bengal) to ascert their control at first, once India was completely under British rule (about 1886 to 1937), there was no more reason to create conflicts inside what they already controlled. What's more, the British did not impose Christianity on the locals, and respected the religious diversity. There was as much if not more freedom of religion under the British Raj than during the Muslim-dominated Mogul Empire.

Lebanon, for instance, was created by the French because the area had a Christian majority (which the rest of Syria did not) and could be more easily dominated by France.

FYI, both Syria and Lebanon were under French rule. Lebanon does not have a Christian majority (40% Christian vs 60% Muslim), and Syria also has a substantial Christian minority (10%).

To this day the West liberally interferes in the affairs of Middle Eastern politics...rather clumbsily as of late. Somehow, I don't think Bush is quite done with military interventions in the area.

I think it's a bit too easy to say "the West" here, when most Western countries never had nothing to do in Middle-Eastern politics (only France and Britain had out of over 30 Western countries, and recently it has been mostly limited to the US).

As Bossel said, the Turks had been ruling the Middle East since the 16th century. In comparison, French and British rule were very short-lived, and probably better for the locals than the late Ottoman rule.

Anyway, can we say 'off topic'?

Thread split.

 

[Nefelia]

Discussing Indian history is impossible without acknowledging the fact that there are two competing versions of the history:

1) The pro-British version written by (surpris, surprise) the British and most other historians up until the late 20th century.

2) The more recent versions resulting from more recent research and discoveries, independence from purely British sources, and a lack of pro-British bias.

The retelling of Mughal history is also different depending on just who is telling the story. The British, in order to justify Pax Britannica and the spread of civilization, had to trivialize the accomplishments and sophistication of the Mughal Empire. And they did so rather effectively.

For a more balanced view of Indian history I would recommend Modern South Asia, by Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal. I'm not saying that your sources are biased (since I don't really know what your sources are), just pointing out the possibility. ;p

Oh, that's new to me that "Mogul" is any different from "Mughal". Wikipedia says it's an alternative spelling, and my Oxford dictionary cites first Mogul and Moghul and Mughal as alternatives. The Merriam-Webster also considers Mogul to be the most usual.

I think I'll go with the spelling adopted by modern Indian and Pakistani historians. After all, up until recently, the mighty Brits were calling Beijing 'Peking'. As such, I don't consider the British the authorities of spelling when it involves different cultures and languages.

FYI, both Syria and Lebanon were under French rule. Lebanon does not have a Christian majority (40% Christian vs 60% Muslim), and Syria also has a substantial Christian minority (10%).

Indeed, that is the situation as it stands today. Care to dig up the figures from 1920, when the Christians did have a significant majority? Just as the Mexican Americans are quickly representing a larger percentage of the American population year-on-year due to higher birth rates, so did the Muslimsout grow the previous majority.

As Bossel said, the Turks had been ruling the Middle East since the 16th century. In comparison, French and British rule were very short-lived, and probably better for the locals than the late Ottoman rule.

With the wise Brits propping up Saddam with the co-operation of the US, I find that hard to fathom. But here I believe both of us are speculating.

 

[Maciamo]

I think I'll go with the spelling adopted by modern Indian and Pakistani historians. After all, up until recently, the mighty Brits were calling Beijing 'Peking'. As such, I don't consider the British the authorities of spelling when it involves different cultures and languages.

You probably don't have much knowledge of other European languages to say that. It has more to do with what European language was the first to establish the spelling and the variant that followed according to the pronuciation in other language. For example, the word "Japan", spelled "Japon" in French and Spanish, "Giappone" in Italian, etc. ultimately come from a corrupted version of Zipangu brought back by Marco Polo in the 13th century. The same happened with other country or city names. Beijing/Peking is Pekin in French and Pekino in Italian. It even works inside Europe. Here is the spelling of a few cities respectively in English/French/Italian : London/Londres/Londra, Venice/Venise/Venezia, Florence/Florence/Firenze, Paris/Paris/Parigi. Even when the spelling is identical, the pronuciation never is. Could you claim that any of them is more right than any other ? No. They are right in their respective languages. Written London in French or Italian is wrong, eventhough it is the original.
Coming back to our Mogul/Mughal, "Mogul" is the only correct spelling in most European languages.

 

[Nefelia]

You probably don't have much knowledge of other European languages to say that.

Well, considering that French is my mother-tongue, I am fluent in English, and I have learned some Spanish, I highly doubt that is the case.

As far as the spelling of any nation, city, or dynasty goes, I prefer to respect the convention followed by the natives. Whether you call it Japan, Japon, or Giaponne, the fact is that you are using a variation of a mispronunciation caused by arrogant negligence on the part of the first Europeans to visit Japan. The proper pronunciation is Nippon (or Nihon, as you already well know). Unfortunately, such errors are so entrenched in our languages that nobody really tried to correct it.

Well, almost nobody. The system of pinyin that translated the Chinese language into roman characters was revamped at the end of the last century. The prime example would be a change in pronouncing the name of the capital city: from Pekin to Beijing.

India is also attempting to regain some of its history/dignity by dropping the Westernized mispronunciations of city names in favor of a more accurate romanization. As such, the British dubbed 'Bombay' has been updated to Mumbai, and the city of Calcutta is now Kolkata. The same modernization has been applied to the Mughal name. Using Mogul instead of Mughal is similar to using Pekin instead of Beijing: its a tip of the hat to old imperial arrogance, and a kick in the face to the locals.

Edit: I will admit I am not too clear as to the distinction between Nihon and Nippon. Feel free to enlighten.

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2004/oct/12/yehey/opinion/20041012opi6.html

 

[Maciamo]

As far as the spelling of any nation, city, or dynasty goes, I prefer to respect the convention followed by the natives. Whether you call it Japan, Japon, or Giaponne, the fact is that you are using a variation of a mispronunciation caused by arrogant negligence on the part of the first Europeans to visit Japan. The proper pronunciation is Nippon (or Nihon, as you already well know). Unfortunately, such errors are so entrenched in our languages that nobody really tried to correct it.
...
Well, almost nobody. The system of pinyin that translated the Chinese language into roman characters was revamped at the end of the last century. The prime example would be a change in pronouncing the name of the capital city: from Pekin to Beijing.

First of all, the commonly accepted spelling in English nowadays is "Beijing", not Peking. I'll continue in French, as you speak French.

Je suppose que tu sais que les Chinois appelent le Japon "ri ben", Tokyo "dōng jīng", Osaka "dà ban", etc. Ils n'essayent meme pas de garder la moindre ressemblance de sonorite. Ils lisent juste les kanji comme en chinois. De plus, Pekin se dit aussi "pekin" en Japonais. Je ne vois pas quel est ton probleme avec ca, et pourquoi tu accuses les Europeens de "negligence arrogante".

 

[Nefelia]

First of all, the commonly accepted spelling in English nowadays is "Beijing", not Peking.

Exactly. The initial Westernization of Chinese names was woefully inaccurate, and so the Chinese wished to have it upgraded. The result is a new system of pinyin (or romanized Chinese) that adheres more closely to the Chinese pronunciation.

I assume you've read the link I have posted, maybe I should highlight the point. Note that the names of Indian cities are another example of inaccurate Westernization of pre-existing Indian names, and that there is a movement in India to disassociate from the legacy of historic imperial rule. In changing the names of their cities to more closely resemble the pronunciation of the traditional (pre-British) names, the Indians are claiming sovereignty over the manes of their cities.

Lets bring this point home then, since you don't seem to sympathize with the Indians or the Chinese. You say the Chinese regularly mangle the manes of Japanese cities. How do you feel about that?

I was already aware that Tokyo can be pronounced Dong Jing (East Capital) in Chinese. I was under the impression that it was insulting to Japan and that the Japanese didn't like it. Am I wrong?

But then again, the Indians are not the Japanese, and the Chinese not the British. The British Raj was not a gentle rule, it was oppressive and exploitive, and the sloppy Romanization of Indian names is simply insult added on top of injury. And so now the Indians are reversing the process, and asserting their sovereignty over their city names.

I accuse the Europeans of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries of arrogant negligence because that is precisely how they officially acted towards non-Europeans. There were exceptions, of course, but not many among the powerful and influencial. The sloppy Romanization of Asian languages is simply one example out of many of the arrogance that infested colonial Europe.

Would you argue otherwise?

De plus, Pekin se dit aussi "pekin" en Japonais.

I don't get your point here. But regardless, I can dismiss it. Sino-Japanese relations are hardly the ones to emulate. So they practice a mutual disrespect for the language of the other. Is that a principle the rest of the world should adopt? I think not.

Do correct me if I have mis-analyzed your point.

 

[bossel]

Well, considering that French is my mother-tongue, I am fluent in English, and I have learned some Spanish, I highly doubt that is the case.

You may know some languages, but your knowledge in linguistics seems rather limited.

As far as the spelling of any nation, city, or dynasty goes, I prefer to respect the convention followed by the natives.

Then you call Germany Deutschland & the Germans Deutsche? & you don't have problems being understood in Canada?
What do you call a Chinese? Zhongguo Ren? But there are so many native languages & dialects in China? Why to go for Mandarin when there are several native conventions? Oops, Mandarin? Better call it Hanyu or Zhongwen or Putonghua? All native.

It would make things quite complicated if you really wanted to follow "native conventions."

Unfortunately, such errors are so entrenched in our languages that nobody really tried to correct it.

Which shows your lack of linguistic knowledge. These are no errors. People are following their own native language conventions in pronouncing foreign words. This is pretty common in every language & has absolutely nothing to do with a colonialist attitude.

The prime example would be a change in pronouncing the name of the capital city: from Pekin to Beijing.

Are you mistaking pronunciation for spelling?
BTW, even Cantonese (or would I need to say Guangdong Ren, or Gwongdong Ran?) call Beijing BakGing. Now what?

Edit: IIRC, the origin of Peking is also Chinese, but it's taken from some Southern Chinese dialect or language. Since it is also native, why not use it?

India is also attempting to regain some of its history/dignity by dropping the Westernized mispronunciations of city names in favor of a more accurate romanization. As such, the British dubbed 'Bombay' has been updated to Mumbai, and the city of Calcutta is now Kolkata.

No problem, if the Indians change their spelling. But why should the rest of the world follow suit?

The same modernization has been applied to the Mughal name. Using Mogul instead of Mughal is similar to using Pekin instead of Beijing: its a tip of the hat to old imperial arrogance, and a kick in the face to the locals.

You seem to suffer from an advanced stage of political correctness.

Exactly. The initial Westernization of Chinese names was woefully inaccurate, and so the Chinese wished to have it upgraded. The result is a new system of pinyin (or romanized Chinese) that adheres more closely to the Chinese pronunciation.

Does it? Maybe for Chinese, but what eg. with Germans? Writing Chinese words in Pinyin actually makes it harder for Germans to pronounce the words in a Mandarin way, since Pinyin writing doesn't match the German sound system. The older oh-so-colonial transcription made things much easier.

 

[Nefelia]

It would make things quite complicated if you really wanted to follow "native conventions."

Native convention does not mean the language itself, else I wouldn't be using Roman script when referring to the Mughals. ;p

Maybe 'native convention' is a poor choice of words. How about 'international convention dictated by the native state'?

No problem, if the Indians change their spelling. But why should the rest of the world follow suit?

For the same reasons they took note of the changes in Chinese names, I'd imagine.

One one level it would be a sort of political correctness, and I see nothing wrong with that. I have no problem with being politically correct if it doesn't cost me anything.

If Japan were to suddenly find an interest in changing the English convention on the naming of its cities, I would follow suit, as I would if Germany did so as well. They aren't likely to, however, simply because they aren't in the position to want to do so.

The fact that Hindu extremists are running around the country vandalizing sign posts bearing foreign names is telling. Foreign names are an association with a colonial history that they do not view favorably. Can the same be said for Germany or Japan?

 

[Maciamo]

Exactly. The initial Westernization of Chinese names was woefully inaccurate, and so the Chinese wished to have it upgraded. The result is a new system of pinyin (or romanized Chinese) that adheres more closely to the Chinese pronunciation.

The pinyin system is an evolution of previous romanizations of Chinese (Wade-Giles system and Bopomofo). Not to contradict you, but the supposedly "bopomofo" (where Beijing is spelt Peking) used from 1912 to 1958 was also made by the Chinese government itself.

Note that Japanese also has three romanizations systems, and ALL three are still used. The most accurate however is the Hepburn system, made by James Curtis Hepburn, an American.

Note that the names of Indian cities are another example of inaccurate Westernization of pre-existing Indian names, and that there is a movement in India to disassociate from the legacy of historic imperial rule. In changing the names of their cities to more closely resemble the pronunciation of the traditional (pre-British) names, the Indians are claiming sovereignty over the manes of their cities.

Indian are free since 1947 to change the spelling of any of their cities or regions if they wish. I wonder why it has taken so long though. I also don't see the point in renaming Bombay as "Mumbai", considering that the original name comes from Portuguese ("Good Bay") and the city was founded and developed by the British.

I was already aware that Tokyo can be pronounced Dong Jing (East Capital) in Chinese. I was under the impression that it was insulting to Japan and that the Japanese didn't like it. Am I wrong?

The Japanese call most Chinese regions and cities as they would read the kanji in Japanese (eg. Guangdong is 'Koutou', even further from the English 'Canton'). They also do the same with Chinese names, so that Mao Zedong becomes "Mou Takutou". When I was studying Japanese in a school in Tokyo, all the Japanese teachers used the Japanese reading to call Chinese student. They could have used at least the katakana form (not very accurate, in any languages other than Japanese), but did not even do that. To take the example of Mao Zedong, it is possible to write in katakana "mao zedon" or" mao zedongu", but the Japanese just use their reading and vice versa. This is much more confusing and incorrect than the Beijing/Peking thing.

Considering that, I don't think they have a problem with the Chinese reading of their cities. I have never heard anybody complain about it.

 

[bossel]

Maybe 'native convention' is a poor choice of words. How about 'international convention dictated by the native state'?

You still have a problem when there are several native conventions, as for example in China where you not only have Pinyin (for Mandarin) but also Jyutping (for Cantonese), as well as some other smaller standards. Now which convention to follow for Canton? Guangdong or Gwongdong?

International conventions as such may have a certain sense, but only in international communication. But I really don't see why people in every nation on the world should start to learn -say- 160 different spelling "conventions" with the according pronunciation.

Apropos pronunciation: You were not quite clear about this. Do you want the whole world to follow some foreign spelling systems or should they also learn the pronunciation?

For the same reasons they took note of the changes in Chinese names, I'd imagine.

Well, in Germany it's still Peking & Kanton, not Beijing & Gwongdong. I can't see, why the Germans should do the same as the English, since - as I already said - the German pronunciation is yet farther away from the Chinese pronunciation of Pinyin than the English one.

One one level it would be a sort of political correctness, and I see nothing wrong with that. I have no problem with being politically correct if it doesn't cost me anything.

Actually, it costs quite a lot, if you'd have to change all the textbooks & official documents, a.s.o.

The fact that Hindu extremists are running around the country vandalizing sign posts bearing foreign names is telling.

Yeah, that extremists are just silly buggers. So what?
Anyway, Indian signs in India are one thing, Indian spelling in foreign textbooks another.

Foreign names are an association with a colonial history that they do not view favorably. Can the same be said for Germany or Japan?

Sorry, can't really see your point here.

 

[Maciamo]

Native convention does not mean the language itself, else I wouldn't be using Roman script when referring to the Mughals. ;p

But English is an official language in India. It is even one of the two "main official languages", along with 21 other official languages. It was their own choice in 1947 and anytime after that, and the Indian government has been free to change their city names too. But chaning Bombay to Mumbai is not just a lnguistic problem, it's a nationalistic one (as the city was founded by Europeans and thus should keep its European name).

Maybe 'native convention' is a poor choice of words. How about 'international convention dictated by the native state'?

As bossel so eloquently said, many countries have more than one official language and therefore many different spelling not only for the country, but also city names. Take even a small country like Belgium, there are three official languages (Dutch, French and German) and some cities also have different names in English, Spanish and Italian (eg. Liege, Luik, Luettich, Liejas and Liegi). The country name is usually written in Dutch and French (Belgie and Belgique) on coins, official documents, etc. and usually only in German (Belgien) when it is also written in English (Belgium), although German is official and English is not. So what is politically correct, and what word should be adopted by other countries.

Interestingly, Japan did not take the English pronuciation of the country (as they did for most countries), but the Dutch one with a Japanese accent (berugi-). I guess French-speaking Belgian could complain that they should have used the French version instead. But who cares, really ? What is more annoying is when Japanese people say "French" when they mean "France" (which of course is a mistake, even in Japanese, but so many of them do it !).

 

[Mycernius]

I have tried to ignore this thread, but I feel I must put some reply on it. The original post seemed to be some sort of rant against the west in general. It them seemed to spiral into a rant against colonialism, which became 'Let's bash the British', as most debates about colonialism become. Yes, the British empire did do some very nasty things in the world, including India, but we did do some good things as well. We gave India a system of government that it still uses. A large majority of ex-British colonies have done fairly well for themselves after independence, and it is in some part thanks to the systems set up by the British before they gained independence. As for the comment that India was very stable before the British came, ask the Sikhs about Moslems. The drive of Islam was based on aggreesive expansion and the Sikhs stopped their expansion into India. There is a saying I have heard from Sikhs 'If it weren't for Guru Gobind Singh, all of India would be circumcised'. It seems that some people have a rather selective memory when it comes to expansionism. Let's not just have a go at the European powers. China, Iraq, Argentina, Vietnam are just a few countries that spring to mind during the 20th century. It is a histroical fact that more powerful countries will expand into weaker neighbours. It has been happening since ancient Egypt and will continue to happen until the human race either wipes itself out or finally comes to its senses. I won't continue because I may say something that would really offend some people. Thank you!

 

[Mal]

Colonialism isn't all bad. Yes, a great deal of it is bad. Some of it however, is good.

The point here is that something while being morally repugnant can actually acomplish a good end, even if it wasn't the original intent.

Oddly enough, there are few countries in the world that prove this case as well as India. I would like to see someone seriously argue that the unification of India, the introduction of national identity and final evolution into a parlamentary democracy hasn't been good for India.

Yes, there was a lot of pretty terrible **** that happened during colonial occupation, but there was also alot of good things that happened as first world imperial nations brought their culture, science and laws into the undeveloped world.

My personal opinion is that without the era of imperial expansion the stratification we have of first and third world nations would be even more profound than it currently is. Does that mean that I think that colonial abuses were justified? Of course not! However with out that period of rapid modernization and cultural influence the world would look much different than it is today.

Perhaps its not an easy pill to swallow, but sometimes bad things can have ultimately good outcomes. It doesn't mean that you have to enjoy it or be grateful about it, but please try to put it into perspective.