Change Kitchener's name back to Berlin?

[panamaniac]

As I mentioned before, Waterloo isn't a much better choice as it was named after a battle. Many of the casualties simply disappeared, likely POW's and some to concentration camps. At some point, I am sure people will start wondering why the cities name would be glorifying a war, and likely slightly offensive to the French population as well. If we truly actually did thorough research on war, all wars, including recent actions, I think many wouldn't want to be associated with the horrendous acts of violence against innocent people (victims of war - collateral damage). I by this, I mean villages and towns being raided, women and children being murdered and/or raped. Lots of nasty stuff.

While I don't have an answer, but I did see this posted somewhere:

"History is not there for you to like or dislike. It is there for you to learn from it. And if it offends you, even better. Because then you are less likely to repeat it. It's not yours to erase. It belongs to all of us!"

I think it brings up many valid points. Is there valid reasons for erasing our history? If we erase Kitchener, would we not also decide to erase Waterloo? As I said before, you start opening Pandora's box, and you may not be able to stop it.  But then again, perhaps that's what people want.

I don't think our fellow citizens of Pakistani and Indian origin would be too happy with "Mountbatten".  The Last Viceroy didn't do a great job with the British pullout from the Subcontinent, which ultimately led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions displaced!

I dislike the way the word "Kitchener" sounds and looks and not thrilled with the association with Lord Kitchener and his dubious past.  However I wouldn't rush to change the name because I believe that it is inevitable that KW will amalgamate at some point, either by choice or force.  I also believe that the amalgamated name would have to be "Waterloo" in order to secure a "by choice" amalgamation, and because we wouldn't want to lose both the "Kitchener" and "Waterloo" brands at the same time, with the latter obviously being much more valuable.

While I'm no war monger, I would disagree with any proposal to change Waterloo's name because of its association with a battle.  Some may call it glorification and some commemoration.  The reality, however, is that if you ask the average Canadian what "Waterloo" means to them I'd be willing to bet that most would respond that it was the prosperous home of UW or Blackberry.  Same goes for "Kitchener". Few will know who Lord Kitchener was or what he did.  To them it is (or was) simply an industrious working class town that is in the process of transitioning  to something different.  At some point the decades of accumulated history for a city or town has to count more than the tenuous ties to the foundation of it's name?

Saying that, I'm all for using the controversy over Kitchener's name to help spur the amalgamation of KW.  Amalgamation may or may not include Cambridge but I just don't see any practical reason for it not to happen with KW.  I've lived a substantial part of my life in both cities and really only ever considered it to be different halves of the same whole.

Just to note that I was thinking Philip and his descendants rather than Uncle Louis.  The timing seemed good, as one assumes that Philip will shuffle off this mortal coil before too much longer - his death could trigger the name change.  (cue the protests that Philip said racist things!  )