What would it mean for Portugal if Spain decided to change its name to Iberia?
This is exactly what is happening here. They want to be named after a geographical region which is way bigger than their borders.
This is exactly what is happening here. They want to be named after a geographical region which is way bigger than their borders.
Because you're misunderstanding the issue at hand.
Greece and Macedonia aren't having an abstract argument over sets. As the article explains, Greece has two specific objections to its neighbor using the name Macedonia: that the name (and certain actions) are thinly-disguised territorial claims against its own province of Macedonia, and are an attempt to lay lay claim to the historical/cultural legacy of the ancient Greeks.
This is why the US situation is the opposite, because the US as a separate nation predates all of the other nations you mentioned in the Americas. It therefore can't have been claiming territory of other neighboring states because there weren't any, nor were they claiming anyone's cultural legacy (except arguably the natives, but that's a charge that can be brought against every modern nation in the Americas).
It might help to recall that after the American Revolution the 13 colonies became 13 separate sovereign states that would only come together as a single nation in 1789 with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. The new nation was a union of all then-extant states on an American continent, hence the United States of America. That other independent nations eventually came to be in the Americas has no bearing on what America chose to call itself at the time of its founding.
Sounds exactly like the USA at the time of their founding, and is in no way describable as "the opposite".
FYROM (UN designated name) and to be Severna Makedonija has been actively teaching they are the descendants of Alexander the Great, raised statues [0](random article googled, you can find more) etc. Extremist groups also post maps [1] (also random googling you can find more). So I would say the claims are disguised only in talks with other country officials.
Don't take this dispute lightly; recall that country policies trying to force the dispute to end created the whole Middle East mess and the Balkan's has been a hotpot with the last war happening in the 90's (also because they forced together two different people (I am skimming on the subject please read into Yugoslavia)).
[0]https://www.pri.org/stories/2011-06-24/macedonia-gets-statue... [1] https://www.thenationalherald.com/172171/fyrom-map-claims-gr...
In Central/South America, it's generally taught that everything from Nunavut to Cape Horn is a single continent, America. When the US calls itself "America," that's seen as a deliberate attempt to claim primacy over the whole continent.
In English-speaking North America, it's generally taught that "America" is the country and "North America/South America" are the continents, so we're befuddled by the irritation.
This is why Canada, actually, doesn't appear to have an issue with the "America" thing.
aaaaaand you don't see any problem here, no?
Let's try again. With that logic, there'd be no problem with Germany calling itself "Europe":
"What's the problem? When we say 'Europe', we mean our home country, a large part of the region known as 'Western Europe', and disjoint from 'Eastern Europe' - everybody here is befuddled by why the Greeks are upset! The Austrians are totally on board with it, by the way."
In English-speaking cultures, North and South America are separate continents. "America" is understood to mean the USA. The polite term for someone from the USA is "American". Calling a Canadian "American" is impolite.
In Spanish-speaking cultures, América is a single continent. "Estados Unidos" is understood to mean "de América", not "Mexicanos". People from the USA are commonly called "estadounidense", "norteamericano", or "americano". It's polite for outsiders to use "estadounidense".
Neither language is indigenous to the Americas, so why not just use the polite words in each language?
The situation is way more complicated than people expect or are comfortable with. I am not objective in this situation to give you a full analysis, but I would suggest if you want to have a full picture to start by looking at Balkan Wars to get an idea about the imperialistic dreams of each country in the area and the events. WWI shows how things evolved afterwards. Just checking the alliances is enough.
Then read about WWII specifically in that area and about Josip Broz Tito [0] (for starters) and dig in why he introduced new history and an identity and what were the political aspirations after WWII and why Yugoslavia was created and the naming of its regions.
I tried to give an objective guide to read the situation. Again personally I am perhaps not objective, as I have a stake in the situation.
Ancient Athens once controlled the Aegean and its borders. Does this mean Anatolians should require Athens be re-named?
[1] http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/03/04/02/49CB53830000...
And no, large part of the population does not share those views. The reason is simple, those views are unrealistic and have no place in today's Europe.
There concerns would have been well founded, the issue was settled in 1922: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_%281919%E2%8...
Fairly sure they'd laugh at them, and then get on with their lives.
Surely that can't be the whole reason for this dispute. I mean, the name "United States of America" would also fall into that description, but nobody's up in arms about it.
Many people in South America think it's a ridiculous, pretentious name.
It's not even the only United States in America (for example, Mexico is formally United States of Mexico).
But nobody is that worried, it's true.