Hacker News Reader

Comment by Grustaf | Hacker News Reader

Putting aside the fact that it technically IS named "Republic of the Congo ", technically Mexico is named "The United States of Mexico", that's not really important.

People who claim that "The Congo" is offensive don't say that because it's not the official name (which it is), I guess they just presume that there must be some colonial racist reason, and not just the fact that it's named after a river.

"Republic of the Congo", or "République du Congo" in French, "du" being a shortened form of "de le", "of the". Other French speaking republics just have "République de N".

View on HN

People who claim that "The Congo" is offensive don't say that because it's not the official name (which it is),

Except it isn't. Not without "The Republic of ..." (or "The Democratic Republic of ..." if we're talking about that other much larger country the phrase usually refers to) in front. And given that there are two such countries -- there's absolutely no modern use case for "The Congo" as a country name in any case.

I responded to this: > neither of those has “the” as part of its official name

which is clearly untrue.

Yes, there are two Congos. Both of them have "the" in their official name:

-République du Congo (The smaller one, with Brazzaville)

-République démocratique du Congo (The larger one, with Kinchasa)

It is true that the official "Republic of the Congo" is typically shortened to just Congo" in everyday speech, my original point was just that there is nothing "racist" or colonial about say "The Congo". It is not called that as a slur because it's somehow lesser than e.g. Namibia, it is just that it's named after the Congo river. But I have heard many people who like to be offended have a vague idea that the "the" is somehow offensive because most countries don't have it.

There is nothing "racist" or colonial about say "The Congo".

As regards the river basin. When applied to the respective countries individually (and without the "Republic of" qualifier), which are after all the context we're talking about here (not the river basin) it has an entirely different connotation. And again, there's simply no modern use case for "The Congo", by itself, as a name for either of these countries.

Whatsoever.

> it has an entirely different connotation

What connotation is that exactly? Does "The Virgin Islands", or "The Hague" for that matter, also have that connotation in your mind?

I am again just saying that there is nothing racist about the "the" in "The Congo". It is just a natural way to shorten "Republic of the Congo". It might be unusual nowadays, but that does not mean that there is anything pejorative about "The".

"Use case" has nothing to do with it, nothing about language use is fully "rational" or "optimal". It is obviously _possible_ to make do without the article, but what I am getting at is the misdirected anger some people seem to feel towards it.

What connotation is that exactly?

The connotation of intentionally ignoring their very, very, very clearly stated preference as to what their official name is. Neither of these countries refer to themselves as "The Congo" as such, and they've made it known that they would prefer that you not do so as well. That's all there is to it.

"Use case" has nothing to do with it,

Au contraire. Language is all about use cases.

It's use cases über alles, in fact.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com