To Americans it will always be Iwo Jima until the next PC generation.

Link

Quote:

Webb wrote on Jun 20^th, 2007 at 11:22pm:


What is PC about this. Japan incorrectly translated the name and America used said incorrect name.

Matt

Felix/FFDS wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2007 at 11:11am:



Whist personally I don't care what they are called, as long as the Islanders have the right to determine their own future, the name Faulkland Islands is far older than Malvinas. In 1690 John Strong heading a British expedition made the first recorded landing in the Falklands. The British claimed the islands for the crown and named the sound between the two main islands after Viscount Falkland, a British naval official

It is not until 1820 that the Buenos Aires government, which had declared its independence from Spain in 1816, first proclaims its sovereignty over the Falklands.

Also the name Malvinas is of French origin: In 1764 French navigator Louis-Antoine de Bougainville founds the first permanent settlement, on East Falkland. During this time, a French fishery is manned by people from St. Malo, "Iles Malouines" from which the Argentine name "Islas Malvinas" is derived

So as the Islands already had a name for just short of 150 years before Argentine came up with the name Malvinas, I would say that the present name is the correct on. Not only that, but when Argentine was under Spanish control, both nations where happy with the name Falklands. 

Matt

Felix/FFDS wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2007 at 12:03pm:


hey, whoever gets their first names it.

expat wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2007 at 9:20am:


Back up a second.  I said the next PC generation will no longer remember Iwo Jima.

For the past 10 years or so Japan has actively attempted to play down its involvement in the instigation of WW2.

The renaming of this island is another step.  If the island of Iwo Jima no longer exists the battle that took place on that island, which the Japanese lost, will fade from memory.

If Japan succeeds in its rewriting of history future history books will read something like:

"World War II started as a military reaction by Germany and Japan against the imperialist policies of the United States ..."

expat wrote on Jun 24^th, 2007 at 4:55am:


I think that probably has more to do with it than anything else.  I just finished "So Sad To Fall In Battle" by Kumiko Kakehashi, the book that the movie "Letters..." was based off.  The Japanese military had no interest up till the movie's release to change the name, although they had many opportunities to do so.  I suspect "Flags..." and "Letters..." was cause to start up discussions in Japan about it's participation in the Pacific War that would prove quite embarrasing.  Especially, what was refreshingly frank was the author's assessment of the Japanese High Command's inept and criminally incompetent conduct during the war.  Essentially, she went into specific detail what many historians, including Edwin Hoyt have observed in general:  The Japanese military leaders wrote off Iwo Jima before the battle had even started.  They doomed 22,000 Japanese men to their certain and pointless deaths at the stroke of a pen and a nod of agreement.