On 10-Sep-2015, at 8:03 AM, James Bonilla <callmejb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There is much to be said for leaving historical names alone. But there is > much precedent for renaming roads (but not countries) named after a > "favcorite bad guy". Agree? Disagree? Comments?
Having seen various renames of roads here in Chennai, south India, and other renames of cities (bombay to mumbai, formally - or the local / informal / most likely racist abbreviation of “ahmednagar” in maharashtra to just “nagar” or insisting on pronouncing “ahmedabad” in gujarat as “amdavad”) - my reaction is to simply continue calling the city by its old name. Calling a road by its old name is just fine, and a best common practice - no cabbie or auto driver or anybody else is going to recognise what you mean when you say APJ Abdul Kalam Road instead of Aurangzeb Road, or, to pick an example much closer to me, “Ramachandra Adithanar Road” instead of Gandhinagar 4th Main Road (which is surrounded by other Gandhinagar Nth main roads all of which retain their old names). There are still areas of Chennai known by the names of long demolished landmarks - such as asking people to meet you “near the Eros Theater” - which has been replaced by a mitsubishi dealership for almost two decades now. —srs
