Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lone Cat wrote:^ so the 'Sauds' is really the name of tribe and not a name of family/clan ??

It is the name of a family group. A very large one.

^ thanks meow

About Venezuela. and the Catholic VS Reformists conflicts duirng the Renaissance

Venezuela did changed its hands to German city state (Augsburg i think) by the time of Charles V (Spain as a part of Holy Roman Empire). it had a distinct german name 'Klien Venedig'. however the name wasn't recognized even by germans. by the time that Religious reforms had spreaded across europe. however. the colony reverted back to Spanish rule...
1. In the 30 years war. who did the Augsburg sided with? the Empire or the Reformists?
2. and even after the war was ended. why wasn't Venezuela returned to german hands? and what deals in the threaty of westphalia worths any exchange with the colony?
3. and why wasn't germanic name being recognized even by modern germans?

Are you talking about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonization_of_the_Americas ?

The germans never colonized Venezuela, some banking families close to the Ausburgs (Royal lineage of Spain and Austria) got a lease from Charles V to settle there founding a colony for Spain, when they got into trouble the lease was revoked and the territory went back to the spanish direct government, the ownership was never out of spanish hands.

M.

PS: Sebster I agree 100% with you points, colonization is a touchy issue but I blame Historical Materialism that at least in Hispanoamerica keeps identifying Spain with the "capital" and opression and promote the good savage myth.

Why not?


But I see it this way: The Philipines are much more famous than the King that gave them their name, which is a triumph itself.

LunaHound wrote:

Krellnus wrote:Honestly, no support here, the reason you have for changing the name of your country is imo, quite a pathetically trivial one, that would be the same as me saying that we should change the name of my country because its name was given by the British who used it as a penal colony and slaughtered thousands of people (just on this continent) in the name of progress.

Not really, the only reason Australia doesnt seem to be effected as much is you guys already have a worse name branded ........

disagree here, it would be like calling Scotland "longshanksland" no Scot on the planet would tolerate it, so why should the Phillipino's?

if they want to change their countries name, because it was named after a tyrannical ex leader, i say go for it

incidentally, im sure i read somewhere the first name given to Australia was "Van Diemans Land" so IF that is correct, your argument doesnt REALLY hold any weight

Dark Scipio wrote:Why not?


But I see it this way: The Philipines are much more famous than the King that gave them their name, which is a triumph itself.

Thank you.

Plus a Name change would not have to be an instant change, It can happen gradually and over time.

Like slowly starting out with new schoolbooks then after a while new maps then it goes on slowly until in hopefully something like 15 years it would phase out.

NO need to be instantaneous.

oooops, wrong thread lol

Wee_Tam wrote:
disagree here, it would be like calling Scotland "longshanksland" no Scot on the planet would tolerate it, so why should the Phillipino's?

if they want to change their countries name, because it was named after a tyrannical ex leader, i say go for it

incidentally, im sure i read somewhere the first name given to Australia was "Van Diemans Land" so IF that is correct, your argument doesnt REALLY hold any weight

Van Deiman's Land was Tasmania.
They can call themselves what they like. No one cares about history any more, anyway. May as well call themselves "Mmmmm Snickers".

Joey wrote:

Wee_Tam wrote:
disagree here, it would be like calling Scotland "longshanksland" no Scot on the planet would tolerate it, so why should the Phillipino's?

if they want to change their countries name, because it was named after a tyrannical ex leader, i say go for it

incidentally, im sure i read somewhere the first name given to Australia was "Van Diemans Land" so IF that is correct, your argument doesnt REALLY hold any weight

Van Deiman's Land was Tasmania.
They can call themselves what they like. No one cares about history any more, anyway. May as well call themselves "Mmmmm Snickers".

That sounds like a tasty country...

Joey wrote: No one cares about history any more

That is the saddest thing I've read all week.

Miguelsan wrote:PS: Sebster I agree 100% with you points, colonization is a touchy issue but I blame Historical Materialism that at least in Hispanoamerica keeps identifying Spain with the "capital" and opression and promote the good savage myth.

It's probably a bit broad to condemn the whole of Historical Materialism for the issue, but I do agree that the socialist wing falls into that trap way too often.

Hmm, I guess given it's that specific socialist wing that some people mean when they say "Historical Materialism" then I agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote: No one cares about history any more, anyway.

The extent to which people read and study history, it's diffusion amon the general population, and the importance of our historical understanding on policy is just as great, if not greater than it's ever been. You would know this if you'd read history. Although, I guess, given you don't care about history, asking that is a bit much.

^
the resons none cares of history might be because
1. there's TOO much to be remember. and much of fwhich aren't joyful ones.
2. an individual with this perceptions usually believes in the concepts of 'Knowledge utilization'. anything deemed useful worths remembering. anythings deemed useless is to be forgotten.

Lone Cat wrote:^
the resons none cares of history might be because
1. there's TOO much to be remember. and much of fwhich aren't joyful ones.
2. an individual with this perceptions usually believes in the concepts of 'Knowledge utilization'. anything deemed useful worths remembering. anythings deemed useless is to be forgotten.

There are no doubt lots of reasons why someone might not care about history. Just like there are lots of reasons that someone might not care about 40K. That doesn't mean that no-one cares about history. We know that isn't true.