Right! I totally forgot about the whole French Masculine/Feminine thing. Your husband is totally right, but I agree that it would be kind of difficult in [name]North[/name] [name]America[/name], especially since the Esmé spelling is so well known for girls now. (I have to change the spelling on my signature now 
)
[name]Just[/name] to get it straight:
Latin Americans shouldn’t give Spanish names, nor [name]Christian[/name] ones (Quechua or bust!);
British people should resume speaking Celtic and only give Brythonic names;
the Hungarians and Finns should go back to Mongolia;
Indians can’t use Sanskrit-derived names;
Arabs can’t use Muslim names nor speak Arabic;
the Persians need to start worshiping Ahura Mazda, speak Avestan, and no Arabic-derived names for them either;
No Greek [name]Christian[/name] names for the Slavs;
[name]East[/name] Africans should leave off speaking Swahili, and absolutely no [name]Christian[/name] or Muslim names for them no matter how ardently their beliefs are held;
and everyone in [name]North[/name] [name]America[/name] should really just die.
I don’t even have to make your arguments into a reductio, they’re already there.
Human history, what little is known of it, is one seething mess of conflict, migration, contact, assimilation, borrowing, conquest, death, pain, beauty, and interconnection. Good ideas catch on, no matter who thought of them. Why should this not be reflected in our naming culture?
This thread is bringing up a lot interesting discussions. I think some things are perhaps being misinterpreted though, so here is my take.
I feel like countries like the U.K and the U.S are becoming one big muddled pot of culture. Every culture has freely and openly borrowed from other cultures.
The thing that upsets people, though, is the appropriation of culture by a dominant culture that most likely had something to do with the major problems of the other culture, and it’s not like the other cultures had much choice in the matter. Then the descendents of the dominant culture walk around taking what they like about the other culture and leaving what they don’t. If people are offended by that, it’s understandable, and they should be respected and heard when they speak out against it. After all, it’s usually the conquerors who think that everything is fine and dandy after they’ve conquered and can’t figure out why the conquered resent them.
I am Christian by belief (and descent) and our Bible includes the Jewish scriptures. So that means that I can use Jewish names that are in our common scriptures, right?
I would think this is more about names that have evolved in specific Jewish communities or are specifically the Hebrew names themselves? There are many Jewish names that are not Biblical in origin and are more specific to Israeli/Yiddish/etc. communities in general. I think the problem is because for centuries the [name]Christian[/name] church has tried to divorce itself from its Hebrew roots rather than embrace them, to the point of horrific violence/racism against the Jews in the forms of legal and widely encouraged prejudice to the Inquisition and the Holocaust. [name]Even[/name] though many modern Christians are more sympathetic, the fact is there are still many prejudices in play as well as many assumed liberties being taken by would-be allies that are offensive and problematic.
For many people, the wounds of the “past” are still fresh; the fall-out of British/Western Imperialism is STILL happening. Meanwhile, people who are of Western descent have a hard time connecting themselves with their ancestors and think since we’ve moved on from that that everyone else should as well, BUT many people can’t because their cultures were taken from them or their worlds were changed so much that it is very hard for them to practice their traditional culture at all because of what was done TO them. They were not active or willing participants in that.
The [name]West[/name] has most successfully appropriated food and some language. I’m not sure that names can really be taken out of the language department, and I think that probably, at some point, names will become more integrated into a global culture despite what people want, but I think the main argument against that is that we shouldn’t take things that aren’t ours just because we think it’s pretty/hip/cool, etc.
I just wanted to chime in on WHY [name]Dakota[/name] and [name]Cheyenne[/name] (and other TRIBE names are offensive) - they are not actual names, Natives do not use them as names, they are words and a good majority of the words used to name tribes have deep roots in religion and spirituality. For me, that is enough to steer clear, but if you think about it, enough of the culture and religion has been lost as it is, so many see it as the white man stealing what little they have left. My father is [name]Seneca[/name] and I know that from what little can be salvaged, a lot of native’s still feel very protective of what there is left. Again, it boils down to a race thing.
And, to defend what I said about the [name]India[/name] / British thing - yes, [name]Britain[/name] has invaded and killed people from other countries as well, but I think that (fairly or unfairly) people kind of group Europe together. Sure, they invaded Germany, but I think the reason a lot of people miss those things and don’t think about them is because Germans are also Caucasian - the [name]Indian[/name]'s are not. I’m not saying that it’s really any different, but I think that’s why they get put on the backburner - with [name]Britain[/name] / [name]India[/name], it’s a race thing. And yes, unfortunately, the British caused over a billion deaths in [name]India[/name], no other invasion (to my knowledge, please prove me wrong) has come close to that. I am also not the first one to use the term [name]Indian[/name] Holocaust, google it, it’s also used to describe what we American’s did to the Native’s here. It’s not pretty but holocaust is not a word that only references the Jewish Holocaust.
That being said - I still say let common sense rule. I don’t think people need to be walking on egg shells, but there are still common courtesies you should be following. And please don’t let my opinion on the use of “[name]India[/name]” as a name let you think that I am simply bashing [name]Britain[/name], I am not - every country has done things that are not savory (I’m American - need I say more?) and I think that there are certain events that have had more of an emotional impact than others have and that’s where part of this is stemming from.
I [name]DO[/name] agree with [name]Ottilie[/name] - we [name]DO[/name] need thicker skin, we SHOULDN’T be offended by things that happened in the past by people other than ourselves, but to function in society, we need to think about the weight that something like a name can carry, that’s all.
I think this is what my issue is, honestly. My aunt is Jewish and was sent out of Germany when she was 5 during the Holocaust. She does not know her family name, she doesn’t have any information on who her biological family is - she was fostered in [name]Israel[/name] by complete strangers from age 5 until adulthood. She did not come to the US until she married my uncle and I can tell you that it is still fresh in her memory, her entire family was taken from her and killed, it’s not an event that is just in the past - I grew up hearing stories from her, she’s still alive, for her it’s very much still real and still happening.
Sorry can’t quite figure the quote thing.
“and everyone in [name]North[/name] [name]America[/name] should just die”
This made me laugh out loud
That made me LOL, too - we are pretty horrible if you think about it. :lol:
I have to say, I find it bizarre that some people find mere mention of atrocities committed by their home country to be offensive. The atrocities mentioned are real, and just because neither you nor anyone you know were directly involved (and no one’s insinuating that you were!) doesn’t mean that these things don’t matter. The legacies of these acts still endure today…on both sides. No one’s “bashing” your country by pointing out that it’s perpetrated oppression or acts of violence. Brushing these things off because they seem distasteful is the truly distasteful thing here. “Yeah, it happened, but I didn’t do it and furthermore [name]Britain[/name] and [name]India[/name] are pals now!” is such a ridiculous thing to say. I don’t go around minimizing my country’s involvement in slavery (just to name one objectionable thing we’ve been involved in) in this manner. (“Yeah, it happened, but I didn’t do it and furthermore I have black friends!”)
That said, I think this can be a tricky issue. Some issues seem more clear-cut than others (i.e. don’t use [name]Cohen[/name] if you’re a non-Jew, don’t use [name]Adolf[/name]/[name]Adolph[/name] ever); I think it comes down to common sense, a lot of the time. I don’t think that being able to speak the language or “looking” the right way should be prerequisites to using a name (by that logic, I can’t use Scandinavian names, even though I have Swedish heritage, I can use Jewish names, because even though I’m not Jewish, I look Jewish, and someone who’s 1/8 Chinese might be judged for having a Chinese name if they don’t look Chinese). I don’t think one’s (or one’s partner’s) ethnic background needs to match a name one chooses, either (by that logic, my boyfriend shouldn’t be allowed to keep his last name, since it’s Italian and he’s not, and no one should be allowed to change their name at marriage to a surname from a culture of which they’re not a part). To further complicate things, some names from cultures it might be questionable to use a name from have been mainstreamed, so for example someone might consider [name]Chloe[/name] & [name]Zoe[/name] totally acceptable for non-Greeks, but pause at [name]Athena[/name] or [name]Xanthe[/name] or [name]Panos[/name]. (Of course, someone else might think that Greek names are acceptable for anyone.)
I think this is an interesting question. Where do you draw the line? Is there even a line that needs to be drawn? I’ve noticed that people start saying things like “that’s a nice name, but only if you’re [insert ethnicity/religion here]” when the name in question isn’t from a Western or Northern European culture (or from the Bible) and/or isn’t easy to pronounce in English. If a name doesn’t fit these criteria but has seen mainstream use, it’s treated as acceptable, though; if a name partially fits those criteria but is more obscure (like maybe a semi-uncommon Biblical name, i.e. [name]Gideon[/name]), it’s more likely to be questioned.
Fairly sure neither [name]Ottilie[/name] nor I tried to minimise or make light of anything. Saying it happened and that [name]India[/name] and [name]Britain[/name] are allied nations are both factually correct statements. Minimising it would have been me saying ‘yeah but it wasn’t really that bad and it was so long ago now that no one remembers’.
And as to this. It was the comparison of the British colonisation of India to the (Jewish) Holocaust that I found offensive. Not the mention; the comparison. We did not enter India intent on massacring all it’s people because we believed they should be exterminated. We did not plan the genocide of an entire race of people as Hitler did.
And Flick:
I’m confused… My point was that over the years people have invaded/attacked/enslaved us too. We never invaded Germany…
Anyway, this is the last I’m saying on this subject now. It’s been argued to death and I’m tired.
The assertion was made that other factually correct statements were being used to “bash” your country. Additionally, the claim that [name]Britain[/name] and [name]India[/name] have “a great relationship” (also mentioned: “I have many British-[name]Indian[/name] friends”) was made multiple times, in multiple different ways; of course, these statements are not, incidentally, equivalent to saying [name]Britain[/name] and [name]India[/name] are allied nations. This suggested, to me, the opinion that these incidents of the past have little bearing on the present, and thus don’t bear consideration (nor comparison to other atrocities; such comparisons would be, instead, offensive).
I’m going back and re-reading and I am pretty positive I misread or mis-interpreted something, lol.
I think there’s a big difference between drawing a line of “offense” and drawing a line because it might make it a bit easier for your kid and you won’t have to answer as many questions about it.
Those are hugely different issues.
I don’t think it’s “wrong” to name your child…almost anything really. There’s a handful of vaguely offensive names that I’d probably steer clear of (many mentioned in this thread), but I don’t think anyone can give a great argument for it actually being morally wrong to use any actual name.
Whether a name is “offensive” is a stickier issue and what’s mainly being dealt with here. I personally would steer clear of those names that might offend a large number of people, but I can understand others having different opinions on that. And how many people does it have to offend before it’s taboo? That’s the unanswerable question. That’s just an argument with no real end.
Thus, I think the real question is, what level of annoyance are you willing to endure for a name you like (and what level of annoyance are you willing to put on your child). Almost all names have a small amount of annoyance, whether it’s misspellings, gender issues, pronunciation issues, the name feeling dated or trendy, and a hundred other things.
Cultural misappropriation is just another annoyance as far as I’m concerned. For teachers or interviewers or anyone who will make a prejudgement about your name. It’s an annoyance that can be easily avoided, but not morally wrong on anyone’s part.
The Germans never successfully invaded [name]England[/name]. [name]Every[/name] other example is quite literally ancient history. You do realize that things that happened sixty years ago are rather more relevant to the national psyche than things that happened six hundred years ago, yes?
Here are some articles on the legacy of colonialism in [name]India[/name].
Yes, yes to all of this. Apparently nobody has hurt feelings over the fact that [name]India[/name] was invaded, its culture and economy forever compromised, and its people brutally oppressed…because British people have [name]Indian[/name] friends! Kumbaya time.
I agree with EVERYTHING Ren has said, especially this:
I think maybe us Brits have a better perspective of how BRITS feel about this than Americans do. We do have a good relationship with India. I’m not talking to you about America’s relationship to whomever you’ve oppressed. So there, I’m done. Some of us are more accepting than others. If you’re always going to rip things up again and again, the world would be a horrible place. And none of us could name our kids anything. And for the love of whatever, chill, and stop being mean.
[name]Do[/name] you honestly not understand that conquest that happened a thousand years ago has very different resonance than conquest that happened within living memory? [name]Ireland[/name] isn’t upset about the [name]Roman[/name] invasion, but they’re pretty pissed about that whole occupation-and-exploitation-by-the-British thing. Also, please tell me that you realize that European colonialism was unique in the history of conquest in scale, motive, and lasting cultural and economic impact. Otherwise I would direct you to a Cultural Studies 101 class, because Nameberry can be of no more help to you.
[name]Forever[/name], you say? I find it hard to believe that [name]India[/name]'s economy has been [name]FOREVER[/name] compromised…
Anyways, yes, the Brits negatively impacted [name]India[/name] but you always fail to mention the positive effects.
Here’s a really good paper about it. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:usN0Fq4rRmAJ:community.mis.temple.edu/shyampatel/files/2011/11/Senior-Paper.docx+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESimk-MPZx_vl2GTczAbMQRIYHzuSsN7y0Wa7TXWlrlinGC53Pi88pH6SJQ8aRkVDpH1-Xew7195vJc3xbowT5lIjudoZcf8ZOwxqVKaH45icdQNDV9k2mWfOQWYRQdR25XyZN-X&sig=AHIEtbQIUCDnyzt1Rb843HiIYohzi_YLPA
I agree, here, too - “offence” is a pretty strong term. But the fact that your child has to live with these associations leaves the question of what you are willing to possibly put them through.
Well, you know, I didn’t purport to speak for all Americans myself, and I doubt that all Brits agree with you, but whatever.
I thought I was being pretty chill, especially since I haven’t been personally offended by anything said in this thread (low offense threshold = chill, yes?). I’ve disagreed with some things and been boggled by others, and if expressing these feelings is being regarded as “mean,” then, I mean, I don’t really think I’m the one who needs to chill, here. (I also don’t see what notion in the opinions running counter to yours and [name]Ren[/name]'s is prohibitory toward using any name ever, but maybe I missed that part!)
There have also been many, many arguments – by academics, no less! – that plantation slavery was good for people of African descent. [name]Do[/name] you really want to go down this particular racist, paternalistic rabbit-hole?