Names Searched Right Now:
Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 45 of 57
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    559
    The point isn't what the people using the name are thinking. The point is that they're NOT thinking about how potentially harmful their name choice is. If you don't have a connection to India, don't name your daughter India. No one is going to divorce that from the country, and the less privileged CAN'T divorce it from colonialism and murder. Is it really worth it to give your daughter a name that is a political statement, whether you mean it to be or not?

  2. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by charlieandperry1 View Post
    Please show me! I don't mean to be annoying- I really would like to see some records or something! So far I've seen much the opposite- a quick search shows baptisms of Indias in the 16th/17th centuries, before the start of British occupation. And London has been used as a name for reasons other than the Blitz? Ditto India! People using the name aren't thinking 'I've killed thousands of Indians, let's champion that fact!'.

    Ugh, people are missing the point. I know Ira isn't directly related to the IRA. I mean that names can have meanings attached to them by different people. I- and I'm sure other Brits on these boards would agree- know that India really isn't considered offensive. If it really was once a taboo name, it's certainly transcended that now. 2.5% of the UK population is British Indian (more than double the proportion of Indian Americans in the US) you'd think that if they still had major problems with the British, they wouldn't be settling here.
    The Brits *were* in India during the 16th and 17th C. People not using the name *because* of the ugly colonial history doesn't mean the name doesn't *have* an ugly colonial history. The existence of British Indians is equally irrelevant. I don't have a problem with the UK and I wouldn't really expect people of Indian descent to either. That doesn't mean the UK didn't do some horrible things during the time of the British Raj which are implicit in the name India, whether the givers of the name do so intentionally or not.
    Mother to miss Mila Arden and her brand new brother, Cato Bennett

  3. #45
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Munchkinland
    Posts
    1,606
    I don't care for it. I have only heard about the controversy surrounding the use of India as a name here on Nameberry, so I'm not going to address that except to say I would probably avoid any name that I heard might be controversial, if only to spare my child from having to deal with the consequences of having a potentially offensive name when they grow up. But, here's why I really dislike it: when I hear India (or any place name, really) being used as a given name, I wonder why the parents chose it. Do they have some connection to the country? If so, why not use an actual Indian name? And if not, is it just being used because it sounds exotic? If so...why not use an actual Indian name (or any other actual name that sounds exotic to you)? I'm not 100% against the use of place names in names, but maybe in the middle spot if it has significance (I feel the same about word names)? I just can't help but wonder how awkward a person named India would feel if they ever traveled to India. So, basically...it's just not my style. Ha!

  4. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by milasmama View Post
    The Brits *were* in India during the 16th and 17th C. People not using the name *because* of the ugly colonial history doesn't mean the name doesn't *have* an ugly colonial history. The existence of British Indians is equally irrelevant. I don't have a problem with the UK and I wouldn't really expect people of Indian descent to either. That doesn't mean the UK didn't do some horrible things during the time of the British Raj which are implicit in the name India, whether the givers of the name do so intentionally or not.
    My sources say the British were active there from around 1610. I've found baptisms (in various countries) starting from the middle of the 1500s, thus using it beofre it had a history.

    Anyway, the country has a colonial history, yes. I know what happened was horrible and I'm not denying it happened. I think where we disagree is what is implied by the name India. I don't have a problem with, nor does anyone I know and, it seems, most of the UK. But some people here on NB do- fine. That's your prerogative. Thus, we must agree to disagree. I don't think we'll ever convince each other otherwise

    cassandrah, sorry for hijacking your thread!

  5. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    162
    I don't want to poke the hornet's nest of India, but I just wanted to point out that I don't think Indiana is a suitable alternative. The etymology of Indiana is "land of the Indians," and this is culturally offensive as well. My Cherokee grandfather doesn't look very favorably upon being called an Indian. He's not from India. Sorry to get a bit off-topic, but I just bristle when I hear of people naming their kid Indiana and then the nonchalant suggestion of Indiana as a benign alternative to India.
    Current loves:
    Opal | Saffron
    Winslow | Hopper

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •