Change Kitchener's name back to Berlin?

[jeffster]

How about "Mountbatten", since "Windsor" is already taken?  Is there anyplace that already carries the name?

Seriously, if K-W can't be amalgamated into a new City of Waterloo, then I wouldn't be bothered to change the name.

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.

[ijmorlan]

If we were to amalgamate, we should not use Waterloo because this is Waterloo Region.  No other region I am aware of uses the name of the region in the name of a city within the region. York, Peel, Durham as examples.

It's a county rather than a region, but the city of Peterborough is in Peterborough County.

And Renfrew is in Renfrew County, but Perth is in Lanark County, not Perth County, and Prescott is in the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville, not the United Counties of Prescott and Russell. And of course the various Yorks within Toronto weren’t within York (well maybe at one time, but that’s a long time ago). Interesting bunch of historical accidents.

[GarthDanlor]

How about "Mountbatten", since "Windsor" is already taken?  Is there anyplace that already carries the name?

Seriously, if K-W can't be amalgamated into a new City of Waterloo, then I wouldn't be bothered to change the name.

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.

[Rainrider22]

How about "Mountbatten", since "Windsor" is already taken?  Is there anyplace that already carries the name?

Seriously, if K-W can't be amalgamated into a new City of Waterloo, then I wouldn't be bothered to change the name.

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.

WOW, I love that statement...  I will use that line.  So many people are in a rush to try and erase history right now, I find it sad..  If we don't remind ourselves of our errors, we will make the same errors again in the future...

[ijmorlan]

On a more trivial topic, does anybody remember the garbage cans that said “Keep Kitchener as clean as a kitchen”?

[panamaniac]

I remember when it was on the side of garbage trucks. That would have been back in the time when people in Kitchener still washed their sidewalks!

[jeffster]

On a more trivial topic, does anybody remember the garbage cans that said “Keep Kitchener as clean as a kitchen”?

I remember thinking, "they obviously have never seen my kitchen". And to be frank, if I can, I rarely have seen a 'clean' kitchen. Even when it's "clean", there is a whole bunch of clutter everywhere. When you have a new house build, and a model home, then you'll see a clean kitchen.

I honestly hated that expression though. Someone at city hall thought it was a good enough idea to put that wording on garbage cans.

Back on topic, I agree that Kitchener isn't a fabulous name. I don't like Waterloo either though. I do like Cambridge as a name. But we'd never go there.

[jeffster]

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.

I think at this stage of the game: 1) I don't think amalgamation is going to happen. If it does, it will include Cambridge and the 4 townships. 2) It will come with a different name entirely if the remote chance it happens.

Kitchener can't be used because of it's history (despite the belief that erasing history isn't always a great idea). Waterloo won't be used because of its naming background. All this because of the social movement that is hypersensitive to names.

The last few weeks we're getting a crash course in names and their backgrounds. Be it Kitchener, Aunt Jemima or Uncle Bens, people are taking note and want nothing to do with these. Any sort of name changes, some people are going to want a clean slate.

I'm just trying to envision if the name selected for Berlin had been Corona. That would have hurt.

[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!  )

[ijmorlan]

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!  )

I think only a tiny minority of monarchists would seriously suggest renaming the city after a recently-deceased Royal, and the proposal would go nowhere. We’re past commemorating Royal events with city renamings. I don’t even particularly expect to see any “Prince Philip School” or anything like that.

Maybe “King Charles” or “King William” when it happens, but even that is doubtful.

[ijmorlan]

I think at this stage of the game: 1) I don't think amalgamation is going to happen. If it does, it will include Cambridge and the 4 townships. 2) It will come with a different name entirely if the remote chance it happens.

I think you’re probably right. But if it did include Cambridge and the 4 townships, then “amalgamation” is just a single word for “move all municipal responsibilities to the Regional level”. I don’t see any reason to engage in a naming discussion at all under those circumstances.

[jamincan]

I don't normally visit the wikipedia frontpage, but today I accidentally stumbled on it and lo and behold, the featured article is about the change from Berlin to Kitchener: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_to_...ame_change

[KevinL]

Came here to post the same thing! You caught it just as it went up, they roll the day's topics over at midnight GMT (8 PM EDT).

[danbrotherston]

I think at this stage of the game: 1) I don't think amalgamation is going to happen. If it does, it will include Cambridge and the 4 townships. 2) It will come with a different name entirely if the remote chance it happens.

I think you’re probably right. But if it did include Cambridge and the 4 townships, then “amalgamation” is just a single word for “move all municipal responsibilities to the Regional level”. I don’t see any reason to engage in a naming discussion at all under those circumstances.

I dunno...it's probably a reason to move more than anything.

[ac3r]

That's a pretty good article. What a ridiculous part of our history. We get renamed from Berlin because everyone was hating on Germans during the war, only to become named after a guy that operated horrific concentration camps in South Africa and waged a war using some of the worst scorched earth military tactics, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. I'd rather be named Berlin.