No one ever said naming was easy. In fact, some call naming a competitive sport. That said, re-naming a city or a landmark has got to be one of the hardest things in the world. Take for example the renaming of South Africa’s capital Pretoria. According to the BBC,

Pretoria was named after a settler and folk hero from the Afrikaaner group, which went on to create the apartheid system. It is now expected to take the name Tshwane, after a black tribal leader who ruled long before white colonisation. The name also means “we are the same” in the Tswana language.

Ironically, South Africa’s last apartheid President FW de Klerk has argued that Pretoria remains a proud name because of its anti-colonial association – with the Dutch Boer struggle against British rule.

The article goes on to mention the recent renaming of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, several African cities, Beijing, Tokyo and Leningrad to St. Petersburg.

While these types of name changes seem to be confusing at first, they are little more than re-branding efforts by cities and countries trying to shed their past, and should likely be handled as such. However, the emotion (and politics) behind such name changes seem more charged – but are they?

If a city name change were approached like a corporate name change would it be more effective? In general, the more people involved, the more diluted and less powerful the name. Does that mean a city or state name change should be guided by fewer people? Probably not.