What's In A Name?

 "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name, would smell as sweet". The Bard is never all wrong. That's my favorite quotation when it comes to name changing and I am no stranger to it. When my first name was not used and I was called always my pet name, I decided to make it legal while retaining my given first name. Name changing is a complex process and the certificate for doing so, even if you have never been called by any other name in your life, needs to be retained just as importantly as a death certificate. There is a sect that does, in fact, believe that one's name has great meaning and part of the process in their belief system is for their members to change their names in order to "balance" their lives.  In law, women who marry now, may choose to take their husband's surname or keep their birth name. One of the more controversial movements these days is the changing of names as a form of retaliation to negate what happened in history.  Others want to replace present names with traditional names. Some names should be changed.  Hogtown is not a pleasant name for a city, admittedly but I am one who doesn't agree with the removal of names and replacing them. I do agree with adding a second name, however, to locations. The unfortunate part of the motivation for this disturbing modern development  is that changing a name, does not wipe out its history.  If we changed the name of Earth, would the earth then become something new and different and exciting and we, therefore, would be able to wipe out all past natural disasters?  Something to think about. I am in favour of adding traditional names to streets and places and so on, but not to destroying the historical names thinking that it will change things and make them better. That's like applying a kind of  history band aid. The indelible "scar" remains. History cannot be changed by changing a name. History happened, both  the good and the bad.  Remembering our history is a necessity in that its existence is our teacher. Human beings learn from their history in all nations and cultures of the world. We learn from our history about what worked and didn't and how we can add our part to that knowledge. We can learn from our history, what not to do so  never to do it again. Neither aspect of history should be wiped out because if we don't pay attention to the bad stuff, how do we know how to keep it fixed? It seems that some want to be selective about history and toss out certain parts, while retaining others. Book burning was once thought to be an effective way of destroying  thought and expression. That move didn't work. Even the ancients knew that they should  preserve history. They marked even the worst and scariest of it, by making it  their illustrations, folk tales legends, music and dance and tellings.  Their wisdom taught them how important it was, and is, to keep histories alive on down through the generations.  They knew that if they did not retain their history their children wouldn't know about their people and their journey to be where their people are. They knew how to use the gift of history and to add their part and make a new "history". No. We must not think that destroying symbols and words and legends and names is a good thing to do. We need to keep what was, and change by actions and developments, what needs changing. History deserves our maintenance and respect, not its destruction. History earned its permanence and is, whether we like it or not, a part of us all. History is all we have and made, and all that we are.