Change Kitchener's name back to Berlin?

[kps]

What I would say is that the actual name change was completely bogus, and done in an undemocratic way. My understanding is that “leave the name unchanged” wasn’t even on the referendum

A previous referendum decided to change the name.

[taylortbb]

What I would say is that the actual name change was completely bogus, and done in an undemocratic way. My understanding is that “leave the name unchanged” wasn’t even on the referendum

A previous referendum decided to change the name.

My understanding is that all the referendums had not insignificant voter intimidation. Regardless of the results they wouldn't meet any reasonable standard of a free and fair election.

[ijmorlan]

What I would say is that the actual name change was completely bogus, and done in an undemocratic way. My understanding is that “leave the name unchanged” wasn’t even on the referendum

A previous referendum decided to change the name.

I didn’t realize that. Still questionable, but at least the question of whether the name should be changed or not was asked separately.

[danbrotherston]

A dumbass name, by today's standards, yes. But don't we have better things to do than start arguing about a name change? Would we really get a much bigger turnout (than 15%) for a new vote on a name?

As the mayor said, "I think what's more important than what the name was, and the reason it was chosen back then, is really what our city has become."

What I would say is that the actual name change was completely bogus, and done in an undemocratic way. My understanding is that “leave the name unchanged” wasn’t even on the referendum, and it was a multi-option referendum, which requires ranked balloting or some similar arrangement to be democratically valid. The low turnout doesn’t help.

Additionally, my impression is that the person after whom the city is named is not someone we would want to name a city after.

But that being said, it’s all history, and there are much more important things to do than rename it now. Especially right now, as opposed to sometime in the next few years.

Anyway, if we keep moving services to the Regional level, the city and its name will just naturally become less and less important over time.

I generally agree, and I don't think it's really worth making a deal of, there are more important battles.  But the jerkoffs who think their family name means they have a special right to dictate the name, and are rudely dismissive of the legitimate concerns about the name sure make a strong argument for changing the name.

[panamaniac]

Say what???

[jeffster]

Say what???

Hoping for some clarity too.

As for the cities name, I think it should be left alone. I think by trying to force the issue, you could end up opening a Pandora's box, which means a poor outcome. From a provincial, national and international point of view, there is little value to changing the name. If you decide to have a referendum on changing the name, and the "No" side wins, you're going to end up with a lot of problems here. Once people have it set in their minds that the name has to change, regardless of consequences, a "No" outcome while using a democratic process is going to be ugly. If the outcome was "Yes", then deciding on a name has its own issues.

It is sad that we lost the name "Berlin", but at that point in our history, Germany had a poor reputation, and being named after a major German city had some serious consequences. By renaming the city to Kitchener, the city did get a boost in just about every way. At the time of the vote, there were other options, some of them good, some of them, well, Adanac, for example, was poor. But Lord Kitchener was considered a hero. In todays world, he'd be a creep and wouldn't be a hero anywhere.

Our city, though, has a reputation of being very progressive. The city has good policies of trying to help all people, not matter their background, be it religious, financial, ethnic, colour, nationality, etc. People need to remember this is what "Kitchener" means now. It's something the city does much better than many cities around the world. It's who "we" are, not what "Lord Kitchener" was.

At the same time, if we start going through names of everything, we're going to find that we'd need to change a lot of things. If anything, it can be a good history lesson for us.

[jamincan]

Often times history tends to smooth over a figurehead's rougher edges (Churchill being an excellent example), and commemorating that person is problematic. Kitchener's name seems different to me, though. It's not like there is a naive view of our eponym in the city. People are either ignorant of the name's origin, or understand the irony that in an act of what was essentially wartime political theatre, we discarded a name that now is perfectly uncontroversial and a nice reference to the history of Germanic settlers in the area, for the name of someone who's modern legacy is that he invented the concentration camp. It's not like there are a group of people who venerate Lord Kitchener and don't want people to tarnish his good legacy. If anything, it's a slightly embarrassing footnote in the city's history and a bit of a lesson in getting carried away in a nationalistic outrage.

With that in mind, in the spirit of being honest about our history and to avoid forgetting our blunder, in lieu of renaming the city (a move I'm mostly neutral on) it might be interesting if there was some sort of monument in Victoria Park that honestly explains Lord Kitchener's legacy and the history behind the renaming of the city.

[panamaniac]

Hmmm, perhaps just a plinth with no statue on it ....

[danbrotherston]

Say what???

Hoping for some clarity too.

As for the cities name, I think it should be left alone. I think by trying to force the issue, you could end up opening a Pandora's box, which means a poor outcome. From a provincial, national and international point of view, there is little value to changing the name. If you decide to have a referendum on changing the name, and the "No" side wins, you're going to end up with a lot of problems here. Once people have it set in their minds that the name has to change, regardless of consequences, a "No" outcome while using a democratic process is going to be ugly. If the outcome was "Yes", then deciding on a name has its own issues.

It is sad that we lost the name "Berlin", but at that point in our history, Germany had a poor reputation, and being named after a major German city had some serious consequences. By renaming the city to Kitchener, the city did get a boost in just about every way. At the time of the vote, there were other options, some of them good, some of them, well, Adanac, for example, was poor. But Lord Kitchener was considered a hero. In todays world, he'd be a creep and wouldn't be a hero anywhere.

Our city, though, has a reputation of being very progressive. The city has good policies of trying to help all people, not matter their background, be it religious, financial, ethnic, colour, nationality, etc. People need to remember this is what "Kitchener" means now. It's something the city does much better than many cities around the world. It's who "we" are, not what "Lord Kitchener" was.

At the same time, if we start going through names of everything, we're going to find that we'd need to change a lot of things. If anything, it can be a good history lesson for us.

Is that request for clarification for me? Which part?

There was someone with the name "Weber" in her name on facebook explaining that because she had Weber in her name her family had been here for a long time and no newcomer was going to tell her that the city should be renamed.  There were also some complaints about people being butthurt about a name, etc.

Just the usual trainwreck of a CTV FB thread.

I told her that when her family lived here the city was named Berlin, and that her family lived through at least one renaming, so she probably could deal with one too. I also pointed out that it's a rather dangerous view for a settler to take that people who have lived here longer get to dictate things.

In any case, I see the reason for changing the name, I don't think we can tell anyone what the name should mean to them, for me, it's nothing, I don't even care, it's the name of the place I live in, I have no attachment to it at all. So I don't care, but I do think there are bigger battles to fight. But I recognize that for others it means different things, and those beliefs are no less valid than my own, even if I don't personally see it.

....

With that in mind, in the spirit of being honest about our history and to avoid forgetting our blunder, in lieu of renaming the city (a move I'm mostly neutral on) it might be interesting if there was some sort of monument in Victoria Park that honestly explains Lord Kitchener's legacy and the history behind the renaming of the city.

This is probably the most meaningful compromise I've heard, this could be tastefully done, and most importantly, it should be a monument to Lord Kitchener's victims, not a statue of Lord Kitchener....but an opportunity to educate would be good.

[jeffster]

Yes, the choice of Kitchener is embarrassing. That name needs to go. Waterloo/Grand River City/Berlin/Whatev's  just not Mr. Concentration Camps.

How about Lyon, pronounced Lion, following on the tradition of the local Delhi pronounced Del-hi. Why Lyon? Only a King would now.

Not liking Lyon. Besides, King had a lot of skeletons too. It’s unavoidable when you start digging around. You could rename it after a city with good history. Unsure what city, though. Though a city that has been resilient and progressive. But again, just about any name someone is going to find offensive. But lets not name it after any man (or woman). Though I really don’t think there will be a name change anyway.

[jeffster]

With that in mind, in the spirit of being honest about our history and to avoid forgetting our blunder, in lieu of renaming the city (a move I'm mostly neutral on) it might be interesting if there was some sort of monument in Victoria Park that honestly explains Lord Kitchener's legacy and the history behind the renaming of the city.

I like this idea. Also replace the picture at city hall of Lord Kitchener with an explanation of the Berlin to Kitchener name change.

[Acitta]

It would cost a lot of people, especially businesses a lot of money. Think of how many things you have to change your address on when you move from one residence to another. Everybody would have to do that all at once. Businesses have a lot of things with their address on from websites to business cards to legal documents. I don't think that it is worth it. Also if you do change the name, then some future provincial government decides that Kitchener and Waterloo should be forcibly amalgamated under the name Waterloo and you would have to do it all over again.

[jeffster]

It would cost a lot of people, especially businesses a lot of money. Think of how many things you have to change your address on when you move from one residence to another. Everybody would have to do that all at once. Businesses have a lot of things with their address on from websites to business cards to legal documents. I don't think that it is worth it. Also if you do change the name, then some future provincial government decides that Kitchener and Waterloo should be forcibly amalgamated under the name Waterloo and you would have to do it all over again.

That's assuming that Waterloo would be chosen. Even then, you could get people getting upset with the name Waterloo and what most people (in the world) connect it to: Battle of Waterloo -- war -- and the 65,000 casualties, many who went missing. So just by that, Waterloo is a poor choice. No one today would name a city after a war.

Better idea is to start fresh. But use due diligence when renaming, or you'll get people upset a few years down the road.

[clasher]

Let's just call it urban district 17.

[jeffster]

Hoping for some clarity too.

As for the cities name, I think it should be left alone. I think by trying to force the issue, you could end up opening a Pandora's box, which means a poor outcome. From a provincial, national and international point of view, there is little value to changing the name. If you decide to have a referendum on changing the name, and the "No" side wins, you're going to end up with a lot of problems here. Once people have it set in their minds that the name has to change, regardless of consequences, a "No" outcome while using a democratic process is going to be ugly. If the outcome was "Yes", then deciding on a name has its own issues.

It is sad that we lost the name "Berlin", but at that point in our history, Germany had a poor reputation, and being named after a major German city had some serious consequences. By renaming the city to Kitchener, the city did get a boost in just about every way. At the time of the vote, there were other options, some of them good, some of them, well, Adanac, for example, was poor. But Lord Kitchener was considered a hero. In todays world, he'd be a creep and wouldn't be a hero anywhere.

Our city, though, has a reputation of being very progressive. The city has good policies of trying to help all people, not matter their background, be it religious, financial, ethnic, colour, nationality, etc. People need to remember this is what "Kitchener" means now. It's something the city does much better than many cities around the world. It's who "we" are, not what "Lord Kitchener" was.

At the same time, if we start going through names of everything, we're going to find that we'd need to change a lot of things. If anything, it can be a good history lesson for us.

Is that request for clarification for me? Which part?

There was someone with the name "Weber" in her name on facebook explaining that because she had Weber in her name her family had been here for a long time and no newcomer was going to tell her that the city should be renamed.  There were also some complaints about people being butthurt about a name, etc.

Just the usual trainwreck of a CTV FB thread.

I told her that when her family lived here the city was named Berlin, and that her family lived through at least one renaming, so she probably could deal with one too. I also pointed out that it's a rather dangerous view for a settler to take that people who have lived here longer get to dictate things.

In any case, I see the reason for changing the name, I don't think we can tell anyone what the name should mean to them, for me, it's nothing, I don't even care, it's the name of the place I live in, I have no attachment to it at all. So I don't care, but I do think there are bigger battles to fight. But I recognize that for others it means different things, and those beliefs are no less valid than my own, even if I don't personally see it.

....

With that in mind, in the spirit of being honest about our history and to avoid forgetting our blunder, in lieu of renaming the city (a move I'm mostly neutral on) it might be interesting if there was some sort of monument in Victoria Park that honestly explains Lord Kitchener's legacy and the history behind the renaming of the city.

This is probably the most meaningful compromise I've heard, this could be tastefully done, and most importantly, it should be a monument to Lord Kitchener's victims, not a statue of Lord Kitchener....but an opportunity to educate would be good.

Sorry, had a hard time understanding that one post, as some of the context was missing.

I agree with that last part of your post though, terrific idea. I think they could replace the picture of Lord Kitchener as you go into the mayors wing (just outside the glass doors) with this. And to be honest, I did know about Lord Kitchener, and his now poor reputation, and never understood why city hall has a picture of him that is almost life-size.