What's In a (Country) Name?

After recently travelling in Myanmar (Burma), I realised that country names are not quite as innocent as they seem - pretty much every label will piss off someone, somewhere, for its bias, for its refusal to recognise history, for its air of cultural superiority.

I love the eytmology (great word) of country names. Here are some of my favourites:

Argentina (Land of Silver) - far from such with its recent monetary troubles
Australia (originally Terra Australis Incognita, or Unknown Southern Land) - all those bastards who wrap themselves in flags on January 26th have no idea what it means
Bahamas (Shallow Seas) - Pretty much describes the Caribbean
Britain (Painted Ones in Celtic) - Named after the tattooed early inhabitants.
Burkina Faso (Homeland of the Incorruptible) - Nine out of ten military dictators would dispute that title...
Cameroon (River of Shrimps) - That's a lot of prawns.
Canada (Village in Iriquois) - Maybe a little bigger than a village, now.
Chad (Lake) - Named after Lake Chad. Or Lake Lake.
China (Centre Country) - In the middle, according to the Chinese.
Cuba (Centre Palce) - Don't tell the Chinese.
Ecuador (Equator) - Original.
Ethiopia (Of Burnt Visage) - Racist.
Gambia (Exchange, from the Portuguese, Cambio) - Obviously a trading area, then.
Guatemala (Place of Many Trees) - Not since United Fruit raped the place.
Honduras (Depths) - Opposite of Bahamas.
Hungary (Alliance of the Ten Tribes) - Sounds pretty ancient to me.
Iran (Land of the Aryans) - Don't tell Hitler.
Ireland (The Fertile Place) - Well, they don't like using condoms.
Israel (He Struggles With God) - And all of his neighbours.
Kazakhstan (Land of the Cossacks) - And also Borat jokes.
Kuwait (Fortress Built Near Water) - Easily captured by Saddam Hussein.
Leichtenstein (Light Stone) - Or Land of One Thousand Tax Scams.
Luxembourg (Little CasSouth)tle) - Little country, too.
Madagascar (End of the Earth) - Certainly a long way from anywhere.
Mali (Hippopotamus) - Fair enough.
Mongolia (Brave or Fearless) - Genghis? Yep.
Namibia (Area Where There is Nothing) - Good name for a desert country.
Palestine (To invade) - Probably a better name for the Israelis, at this juncture in history
Romania (Roman Realm) - And indeed it was.
Samoa (Place of the Moa) - Named after a now extinct bird.
Spain (Land of Hyraxes) - The Phoenicians mistook Spain's hares for hyraxes...
Sudan (Land of the Blacks) - Yep, pretty close.
Tonga (South) - Of Samoa, that is.
Uruguay (River of Shellfish) - And no mention of steak at all.

"I wish I'd never been to bloody Memphis."

A bit of a frivolous post today. You see, I've locked myself out of the house, and I'm stuck for something to do for the next twenty minutes. So I thought I'd draw your attention to one of my favourite Priministerial (my own word) myths: the Memphis Trousers Affair.

It's not really a myth, but more of an amusing anecdote that has acquired an air of mystique. The story is simple, and goes like this:

Malcolm Fraser, former Australian PM, and a man of undeniable gravitas and decorum, was visiting the USA three years after his election loss to Bob Hawke. He was there in his capacity as chairman of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group. His presence would have barely elicited interest, were it not for the fact that he was found wandering in the lobby of his hotel, clad only in a towel. And that he was in a dazed and confused state. And that he had lost his trousers. And that his hotel, the Admiral Benbow Inn, was of the type preferred by society's seedier individuals.

The 'Memphis Trousers Affair', as it became known, has become steeped in mystery, since Mr Fraser himself refuses to comment on the episode. Those who witnessed the former Australian premier wandering, pantsless, around a Tennesseean hotel, are of the opinion that he was most probably drugged by a lady of the night, who then stole his trousers; or that he was the victim of an elaborate practical joke by his colleagues on the commonwealth junket.

This begs several questions. If the former occurred:-

1) Why did the woman steal his trousers?
2) How did she drug a former Australian Prime Minister?
3) Where are the trousers now?

If the latter:-

1) How do you become a member of the Eminent Persons Group, if you are capable of stealing another man's trousers for the purpose of humiliating him?
2) Where are the trousers now?

I could go on analyising this story, but I just love re-telling it. I'd welcome any other amusing priministerial anecdotes too.

Quantum Theory

Those people who know me are probably well aware that I'm something of a James Bond tragic. Whether its Sean, George, Roger, Tim, Pierce, or Daniel appearing in the film, I suck them down like three measures of gin, plus one of vodka, poured over half a measure of Kina Lillet, shaken till ice-cold, and served with a large, thin slice of lemon peel.

I watched Quantum of Solace today. Great movie, with plenty of bone-crushing fight scenes, pant-searingly awesome chases, sexy, sultry women, and another ice-cool performance from Daniel Craig.

The bad guys in the film are a bunch of shadowy transnational terrorists known as Quantum. Not your Al-Qaeda types, but white guys in suits with lots of guns and money.

Now, a few years ago, I wrote my History Honours thesis on the first 19 Bond films. I analysed the historical accuracy of each one, especially in regards to how they dealt with the pressing geopolitical issues of the time.

The myth was that Bond was the ultimate Cold Warrior, the perfect defender of the capitalist West: wealthy, educated, sophisticated - a jet-setting executive supplied with all the technological marvels the capitalist boffins could muster.

However, once I watched the movies again, I realised how far from the truth this was. Far from being an ideological defender of the faith, Bond is actually a defender of the status quo. He does not go out seeking trouble with the villain of the moment - Communist Russia, Red China, the Ayatollah's Iran, or Osama's foot soldiers. He reacts when the globe's stability is threatened - usually by a lone maniac, or imaginary terrorist organisation. He neutralises the threat, so that the world can get back to where it was before - even if that means going back to having the West and the East fighting a Cold War.

As an example: Bond did not directly battle a representative of the Russian government until nineteen years into his film career!

Hell, in some movies he even helps the Soviets.

I could bore you with the 20,000 words I wrote on this for my thesis...but instead, I think it may be most instructive to look at who exactly Bond faces in each of the films, to give you an idea of just how apolitical and non-ideological our dinner-suited friend really is:

1) Dr. No (1962) - crazy half-Chinese doctor, working for SPECTRE, a transnational terrorist organisation
2) From Russia With Love (1963) - mad Irish assassin and rogue Russian agent, both working for SPECTRE
3) Goldfinger (1964) - mad British millionaire intent on robbing Fort Knox, plus his hat-throwing Korean sidekick
4) Thunderball (1965) - mad SPECTRE number two, determined to steal some NATO missiles
5) You Only Live Twice (1967) - maniacal SPECTRE head, Blofeld, stealing rockets from the Russians and the Yanks
6) OHMSS (1969) - Terrorist Blofeld again, this time planning to spread a virus around the world
7) Diamonds Are Forever (1971) - Blofeld now plans to use a giant laser to blackmail the whole world
8) Live and Let Die (1973) - tinpot Caribbean dictator tries to flood the US with cheap drugs
9) The Man with The Golden Gun (1974) - lone gun Scaramanga plays off the Chinese and the West for his own gain
10) The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) - mad terrorist tries to destroy Moscow and New York
11) Moonraker (1979) - mad industrialist plans to destroy the world
12) For Your Eyes Only (1981) - Greek commie stooge working with the KGB - finally, a socialist villain!
13) Octopussy (1983) - renegade Russian agent tries to plunge Europe into war (so he's not working for the Russkis)
14) A View To A Kill (1985) - crazy industrialist plans to drown Silicon Valley
15) The Living Daylights (1987) - rogue KGB general does lots of bad stuff, in league with an American arms dealer
16) Licence to Kill (1989) - South American drug baron
17) Goldeneye (1995) - Treacherous former British agent aims to create world financial meltdown (we didn't need 006 - the banks did it for us!)
18) Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) - mad British media mogul plays the Chinese and Brits off so he can sell newspapers
19) The World Is Not Enough (1999) - anarchist terrorist villain steals nuclear device from former Soviet republic
20) Die Another Day (2002) - rogue North Korean officer takes on bond without the permission of Kim Jong-il.
21) Casino Royale (2006) - financier of global terrorism plays baccarat with Bond
22) Quantum of Solace (2008) - shadowy international terrorist group

So - there you have it: only once does Bond directly face villains owned and operated by a rival international power. The other 21 times, he saves the world by taking on terrorists, rogue agents, greedy capitalists, and treacherous Brits.

Makes you love him even more, doesn't it?

Heil Ranga!

I received my weekly online gossip email today, popbitch, which has recently been revealing some famous redeheads from history. A few we know: Winston Churchill, Alexander the Great, Eisenhower. A few are more surprising: Lenin, for example, who must go down as the most important ranga in the annals of history.

Apart, that is, from popbitch's famous redhead today: Adolf Hitler.

Could it be? Was Adolf really a ginge?

I have nevr encountered this myth before, and I have been scouting the net all evening for some tidbit to support this assertion. but I have found just one comment, on one dodgy blog, that backs it up. This blogger reckons that Hitler was a reddie, and that he died his hair black to cover it up.

This would make sense, considering Hitler's view of redheads. There is a fair bit of evidence that says he thought gingers were unnatural and were not to be tolerated bypeople from good Aryan stock.

However, I have never read or heard anything about the fuhrer's predilection for black hair dye. So I decided to look at the photographic evidence. Surely, if Hitler was ginger, he would have been so as a youngster, and surely, he wouldn't have started dyeing his hair until he was an adult.

Here's the earliest photo of our Adolf:


His toddler's mop does look pretty dark, doesn't it?

How about as a school boy? (I do love his arrogant gaze in this photo, it speaks volumes of the person behind the eyes...):


Again, unless Frau Hitler was colouring his locks, I reckon he was a brunette. I'm definitely calling popbitch on their Adolf Ranga claim.

Now, a very quick one...was Hitler actually a fanatical vegetarian, as we are so often told?

This one is interesting, and pretty easy to dispute. Despite his claim to be a vegetarian from at least the early 1930s to his death, there are ample sources indicating that he (albeit infrequently) partook of animal products over this time. Cooks, secretaries, doctors, and eyewitnesses have mentioned episodes where Hitler ate liver, sausage, squab (young pigeon, if you didn't know), animal fat, pork, caviar, and medicines derived from animal products.

So, even though he delighted in disgusting dinner guests by describing his visit to a slaughterhouse in the Ukraine, it seems that Hitler would occasionally enjoy a morsel of the meaty stuff. True, he didn't eat much (mainly for health reasons, it seems, though there is a crackpot theory that conjures up the philosophy of Richard Wagner), but he was not a true veggo by today's standards.

Alright, that's enough Adolf. Auf wiedersehn.

Burning Questions

Hi folks. It's been a while since last I wrote, and there are many topics on my mind for the next few Histbusters. But today I am feeling very contemporary, so I thought I'd answer a couple of myths currently doing the rounds...

1. Is Barack Obama a Muslim?

This isn't even a real question. All the shock jocks in the US are implying it is true, as though the implication that you are of the Islamic faith is some sort of badge of shame. The true answer - it doesn't matter one iota.

Sadly, Barack seems to think it does. His official website for denying untrue rumours about him, states quite plainly:

"Barack Obama is a committed Christian, not a Muslim." (Their emphasis)

Just to sate your curiosity - because we are all dying to know just where he got that interesting name: 'Barack' was his dad's name; 'Hussein' was his grandfather's name; his dad was 'atheist' according to Obama (although he would say that, for electability purposes, but again, does it matter?); his mum's side were strict Protestants; he discovered Christianity in the 80s, and has been a devotee ever since.

However...one, perhaps more interesting myth...

2. Did Barack Obama attend a madrassa (religious college) when he lived in Indonesia?

I didn't even know that Barack had lived in Indo until the other night. I knew all the other stuff - Kenyan dad, white mum, grew up in Hawai'i, befriended terrorists, desires the forcible takeover of the US government by the faithful martyrs of Allah - but the Indonesian link had passed me by. And apparently, those very same shock jocks who keep going on about Obama forging his birth certificate, and being a closet Islamist, have been telling their listeners all about his attendance at a devout Islamic school, of the type frequented by the Bali bombers or the Taliban.

According to Newsweek, and various other journals, this is patent bollocks. During his five years there, he attended a Catholic school, then a public primary school, where religion was taught once a week. Of course, being a Muslim country, this would have been the basics on Islam.

That's enough Obama. One final question from this week's news...

3. Is Kim Jong-Il dead?

Apparently, the Dear leader is on his deathbed, or completely well, or has been dead for ages. That's the best I can come up with from scanning the web for info on this crazy character.

We all know that someone thinks they saw his son maybe contact a French doctor who has perhaps gone to Pyongyang, where possibly he is treating the leader for a mystery illness.

We have also recently heard that he groomed four lookalikes to impersonate him in public, for fear of an assassination attempt, and that, since his death in 2003, one of these has stood in for him.

Plus we know that he hasn't been seen in public for a couple of months.

So is he dead?

First, the idea that he has been replaced by an impersonator is pure, deluded, spybook fantasy. Discount it immediately.

And the fact that he could have died, but the world has not found out? Again, far from possible, in this day and age. There would be someone in North Korea with something to gain from such information leaking out. If any world leader dies today, we will all know tomorrow. That goes equally for Kim Jong-Il. Just because he is a crackpot, doesn't mean his nation believes it can't go on without him. They managed well enough after the death of his infinitely more popular and indispensable father, Kim Il-Sung, back in 1994.

When Kim finally kicks the bucket, this is what will happen: an announcement will be made, a grotesquely massive funeral service will be held, some general will be promoted to President, and Kim will recieve the same accolade as his dear, dead, dad:

"Eternal President of the Republic (2)"

Financial Crisis Schimancial Crisis

I was just watching Kevin Rudd on the telly. He told me that this was the worst financial crisis in a lifetime. Mine or his, I don't know, but I suspect he meant the worst in a long time.

A guy worth $60million, telling me the economy is a mess.

Bugger off.

This event will not touch him, except in his capacity as Prime Minister. The crisis will come and go. He will glide through, politically. Or he may be voted out. That is still two years away. Whatever.

He will still be a rich bastard in 2010, or 2012, or whenever. Fluctuations mean nothing to a man of his wealth. Even if his personal wealth 'collapses' to 2 million bucks, he' s still a rich bastard.

Companies and banks collapse, and here are national governments, propping up these gambling, risk-taking bastards.

"Oh, please help me, I only got a $35 million bonus last year, and I need $2 billion to bail out my failing investments".

You can bugger off rich boy. You gambled other people's money, and you lost.

If I borrowed $50 from my mates, stuck it in a pokie machine, and then lost it, I would be rightly labelled a 'loser'. You are called an investor, and then handed lots of tax payers money (you know, the money you don't like to pay?) to correct your dodgy calculations.

If the US government gave a trillion dollars to homeless people, it would be hounded from office. It hands it over to rich bankers, and we're all supposed to bloody cheer because we're being 'saved' from the 'crisis'.

Vive la capitalisme.

What is wrong with this world??

What's in a name?

Macedonia. I often find myself thinking about this small, landlocked, hilly Balkan nation. Which probably tells you something about me, but there is actually a reason for my Maco-ponderings. You see, this 15-year old country still labours under the rather unwieldy label of 'The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia', or FYROM for you abbreviation buffs.

Now, apart from making Macedonia sound like the international affairs version of the Artist Formerly Known as Prince, this is a mightily intriguing name, and one which I have finally looked into.

I always presumed that FYROM (as I shall now call it, to avoid any ugly diplomatic disputes) had adopted its strange nomenclature to keep the former Yugoslavia (i.e. Serbia) happy, and make for an easier transition to its own independence. That is, a bunch of Very Important Balkan People got together, and the Macos said, 'Look, Serbia, we don't want to annoy you, but we'd love to leave the federation, so how about we do so, but keep Yugoslavia in our name, so we don't look like we can't stand being in the same room with you?'

But that's not it. The truth is rather more interesting, if indeed you are interested in such hot topics as How Countries Got Their Names.

No, the country that has the shits in this matter is Greece. They have their own province called Macedonia (well, Μακεδονία actually), which is culturally, ethnically and linguistically Macedonian. And, as we know, their Macedonia has a proud history reaching back to before Alexander the Great.

They object to FYROM (or Македонија, as the FYROM-ers call it) using the name without a geographical qualifier. The dispute has continued since the early 90s, and no solution is yet in sight. Greece refuses to recognise any permanent name that mentions 'Macedonia'; FYROM refuses to drop the word.

It has actually led to some fairly amusing diplomatic gyrations. In their discussions, the two countries have been referred to officially as 'the Party of the First Part' and 'the Party of the Second Part', simply to avoid Greece having to call its neighbour 'Macedonia'.

Greece has suggested some alternative titles: Vardar Republic, and Republic of Skopje, are two of them. However, if you translate them to their Australian equivalents - Murray-Darling Republic, or Republic of Canberra, you can see why the FYROM might be opposed.

Possible compromise ideas include: New Macedonia, Upper Macedonia, Slavo-Macedonia, Nova Makedonija, and Macedonia (Skopje). All pretty innocuous, but still Greece is opposed to the use of the 'M' word.

It's all completely mad when one thinks about it. Greece (with a Macedonian minority of less than 1%, whose historical heyday was over two millennia ago) is upset that a country which is 65% Macedonian, is trying to call itself Macedonia.

Everybody knows that FYROM is actually Macedonia. Greece is fooling nobody. So what if Alexander the Great came from the Greek part? That was 2300 bloody years ago.

My advice? Let's all drop the FYRO, and call a Balkan republic a Balkan republic. And Greece, take your bloody hand off it.