Iran is seriously ticked off and the reason this time has nothing to do with Israel or nukes. In its latest issue The Economist magazine labeled the Persian Gulf as "The Gulf." This has angered Tehran so much that The Economist is now banned in the country.
The anger comes from historical and national pride. For centuries (at least) the gulf in question was labeled as the Persian Gulf. This changed in the 1960s with the rise of pan-Arab nationalism. The western coast countries, all Arab, began to call the gulf the "Arabian Gulf."
Iran, never a fan of Arabs and their nation-states, has been fighting ever since to keep the term "Persian Gulf" in use. The many that cross them are quickly attacked. In a recent case National Geographic used "Arabian Gulf" in parentheses only to be banned by Iran and forced to change due to the outcry.
There is plenty of historical evidence and other reasons (PDF) to keep the name "Persian Gulf." But does there need to be this big of a backlash? Are there not bigger problems Iran faces?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I decided to do an atlas count to see where my three Atlases stand:
Category:
Geopolitics
4 comments:
I think you'd like catholicfundamentalism.com
The link above expresses heresy.
"The Church has longed teach that not all parts of the Bible can be literally true. The Book of Judith begins talking about the reign of Nebucannezer, King of the Assyrians. Nebucannezer was King of Babylon and the use of this obvious falsehood is a tool to tell the reader that only religious truth and not literal truth matter.
Saint Augustine was converted after he was told and realized that the Bible is 100% religious truth and not necessarily factual truth in all areas. The Church has strongly stressed this.
The strong point of the Catholic Church is its combined thinking in both religious and scientific thought. Fundamentalism itself in Christianity comes from Protestants and has never been found in the orthodox catholic tradition."
I won't touch the previous comment, but have to ask - a geographer with a clear case of cartophilia that has only three atlases?
That would be the Catholic ranting in me. :)
I have plenty of atlases. It's just that those three are of the entire world at the present time. Many of the atlases I have are historical, regional, or of a particular thing (national parks in Hungary).
Post a Comment