Alaska's ‘Nazi Creek' renamed to honour Indigenous heritage
The United States Board on Geographic Names voted 17-0 to rename the 'Nazi Creek' to Kaxchim Chiĝanaa which translates to 'Gizzard Creek' or 'Creek belonging to Gizzard Island' in Unangam Tunuu, according to a report by the Alaska Beacon.
A nearby summit known by a slur for Japanese people was renamed to Kaxchim Qayaa or 'Gizzard Hill'. Both the names were derived from traditional Indigenous names for Little Kiska Island.
A report by SF Gate quoted Michael Livingston, a member of Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska, who led the campaign for change, said the elders of the community were happy with the name change. 'It's about making things better for our community, " Livingston said.
Livingston's efforts, the report added, were backed by local Native tribes, cultural institutions and civil rights organizations including the Museum of the Aleutians, Congregation Beth Sholom of Anchorage, and the Alaska chapter of the Japanese American Citizens League.
The origins of old names
The former names, as per the Alaska Beacon report, dated back to a 1953 US Army map, where cartographers assigned arbitrary names based on alphabetical order, an explanation critics said was dismissive and harmful.
Livingston said that these offensive terms were removed after World War II but somehow reappeared in mapping databases during the 2010s due to unvetted digitization of old maps.
The Aleutian Islands saw military action during World War II, including Japanese occupation of Attu and Kiska Islands.
The US government then had forced many Indigenous Unangax̂ people into poorly maintained internment camps. Many had died from illness and neglect in these camps.
Federal reparations for those actions, according to the Beacon report, were granted in 1988 alongside payments to Japanese Americans interned during the war.
Livingston's mission for change continues
Livingston, a former police captain, was inspired to push for accurate mapping after delayed emergency response in Anchorage in 2002 which was partially caused by map inaccuracies. That's when he came across 'Nazi Creek' while reviewing outdated maps and was appalled to see it still in use.
Livingston told SF Gate that to see 'Nazi' on a map in 2020s America was 'unthinkable'. His next target is Quisling Cove, a body of water named after Norwegian Nazi collaborator Vidkun Quisling. The renaming is currently under review.
FAQs
Q: What was 'Nazi Creek' renamed to?
It was renamed to Kaxchim Chiĝanaa, meaning 'Gizzard Creek' in the Unangam Tunuu language.
Q: Why were the names changed?
The names were considered offensive and rooted in arbitrary WWII-era naming conventions that ignored Indigenous history.
Q: What language are the new names from?
Unangam Tunuu, the traditional language of the Indigenous Unangax̂ people.
Q: Are more name changes expected?
Yes. A campaign is on to rename Quisling Cove, another WWII-era name referencing a Nazi collaborator.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Japan's Ishiba says he'll stay in office to tackle inflation and US tariffs despite election loss
Trump has added to the pressure, complaining about a lack of progress in trade negotiations and the lack of sales of U.S. autos and American-grown rice to Japan despite a shortfall in domestic stocks of the grain. A 25% tariff due to take effect Aug. 1 has been another blow for Ishiba. At a news conference Monday, Ishiba said his LDP and the Komeito have agreed to stick with their coalition while seeking further cooperation from opposition parties. Ishiba resisted calls for his resignation and did not say how much longer he planned to stay on. He is sticking around for the country and the people, not for self-interest, 'to put the pressing issues on a path to a solution," he said. Voters frustrated with price increases exceeding the pace of wage hikes, especially younger people who have long felt ignored by the ruling government's focus on senior voters, rapidly turned to emerging conservative and right-wing populist parties. Established liberal to centrist parties, including the main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, gained little ground. The Democratic Party for the People quadrupled its seats by campaigning for higher take-home pay. The right-wing Sanseito, running on a 'Japanese First' platform that puts tougher regulations on foreigners and brakes on gender and sexual diversity, surged to number three in the opposition. The LDP has lost support due to the people's discontent over the party's measures for rising prices, foreign residents and other reasons and that he will 'quickly analyze the results and learn the lesson," Ishiba said. None of the opposition parties said they want to form a full-fledged alliance with the governing coalition but are open to cooperating on policy. CDPJ leader Yoshihiko Noda told broadcaster NHK that his priority is to form an alliance among the opposition. 'Public opinion clearly said 'no' to the Ishiba government,' Noda said. Sanseito leader Sohei Kamiya told NHK late Sunday he is open to cooperating with the ruling bloc on conservative policies. While he said his party did better than expected, he would wait to gain more seats in the other house in the next election and attempt to form a multi-party coalition like in Europe. The Sanseito party's stance encouraged the spread of xenophobic rhetoric in the campaign and on social media, while also attracting people who are strugging with economic woes and looking for targets to vent their discontent and anxiety, experts say. The language triggered protests from rights activists and alarmed foreign residents.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘It's actually a Delhi Hindi': External affairs minister S Jaishankar is a polyglot, know what languages he can speak
When we think of politicians with a command over language, Shashi Tharoor — known for his eloquence and famously expansive vocabulary — often comes to mind. But Dr S Jaishankar, India's External Affairs Minister, stands not far behind. The career diplomat is a polyglot too, juggling a surprising mix of languages that reflect both his diplomatic career and personal life. In a recent candid chat, Dr Jaishankar spoke about the languages he knows.'Obviously, I speak English,' he said with a smile, a given for someone in his role. But the conversation quickly became more personal as he opened up about his connection to other tongues. When it comes to Hindi, he said: 'I speak Hindi… not at a very high standard, but with a kind of street smart fluency.' Then, with a bit of humour, he clarified what kind of Hindi that is — not the literary kind, not even the academic JNU kind — 'It's actually a Delhi Hindi. I was born in Delhi, so it's a very Delhi person's Hindi.' Though his roots are Tamil, Dr Jaishankar admitted that he never formally learnt the language. 'I can speak Tamil, but not with the kind of fluency and command of vocabulary that I would like,' he said honestly, showing the humility of someone who still wants to learn more. But his journey with languages didn't stop there. His time in the Foreign Service introduced him to Russian. 'Russian is different because I actually studied it in the Foreign Service,' he shared, showing that some languages entered his life through duty, not birth. In a moment that made everyone smile, he revealed that he even knew some Japanese. 'I have a working, rudimentary sense of Japanese… because I do need to talk to my wife from time to time,' he said, chuckling.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
How BRICS is chipping away at the Western order
The recent 2025 BRICS summit, held in Brazil, did not appear dramatic on the surface. There were no loud declarations or confrontations. However, the agenda was quietly ambitious, and the message it sent was unmistakable – the West no longer has a monopoly on how the world should work. BRICS is quietly rewriting some of the rules of global politics. From de-dollarisation to alternative development models, it is increasingly positioning itself as a challenger to the Western-led liberal international order. One of the fundamental starting points in international relations is the simple truth that there is no world government. Countries can agree on rules, but no one can force them to follow them. This is what some international relations scholars call an 'anarchic system,' not because it's disorderly, but because there is no overarching authority to enforce rules. Countries act in their own interests. Cooperation happens, but it's often fragile. Power matters. Strong states often do what they can. Weak ones suffer what they must (Recall the Melian Dialogue from Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War). Power is distributed unevenly, and when a few countries have more of it, they tend to shape the rules in their favour. The Western-led liberal international order grew out of this system after World War II. The US, along with its allies, built a network of institutions, like the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, that reflected its values and priorities. This order was based on free markets, democracy, and above all, the dominance of the US dollar in global finance. For a while, that order worked – at least for the West. But now, the rest of the world is starting to ask why a system created in 1945 should still define the rules of the 21st century. For a long time, emerging powers like Brazil, China, India, and South Africa largely accepted this structure. However, with the global economic landscape shifting and the world becoming more multipolar, they are pushing back. BRICS is the most visible platform for that push. One of the loudest messages from the BRICS summit in Brazil was about de-dollarisation. It sounds technical, but it's deeply political. This idea has been gaining ground for some years, but recent events, especially the weaponisation of financial systems through sanctions, have brought it to the forefront. The issue is that most global trade and finance depend on the US dollar. When India buys oil from Russia, it usually has to pay in dollars. When Brazil takes a loan, it often does so in dollars. When China invests abroad, the transaction typically moves through dollar-based systems like SWIFT. This gives the US not just financial influence but also political leverage. At the Brazil summit, countries once again floated the idea of a BRICS currency – not an immediate project, but a signal of intent. In the meantime, they are promoting trade in local currencies. Russia and China already conduct over 80 per cent of their trade in Roubles and Yuan. India has begun using rupees for some transactions with Iran and Sri Lanka. India and the UAE have begun settling some oil deals in rupees and dirhams. The New Development Bank, created by BRICS, is now issuing loans in local currencies to avoid dollar exposure. This is not just about saving on transaction costs. It's about creating freedom from a system that many in the Global South see as tilted against them. This is not going to be easy. The US dollar dominates because it is stable, widely accepted, and backed by a deep financial system. But the fact that BRICS countries keep returning to this topic shows how deep the frustration runs. De-dollarisation may not happen overnight, but the intent is clear – reduce exposure to a system controlled by Washington. BRICS claims to be a platform for those countries that didn't have a seat at the table when the post-war world order was designed. The group presents itself as a voice for the Global South. It talks about fairer development, more inclusive trade rules, and reforms in global institutions. It also backs concrete alternatives. The NDB offers loans without the political strings often attached to IMF or World Bank funding. BRICS countries are exploring joint investments in infrastructure and clean energy. There's talk of creating a BRICS rating agency to counter the dominance of Western credit rating firms. BRICS also pushes for reforms in the UN Security Council and the World Bank's voting rules to give more voice to emerging powers. Here, Brazil, India, and South Africa play a bridging role. They are democracies with growing economies, often seen as more acceptable faces of BRICS to other developing countries. China brings deep pockets and strategic weight. Russia, increasingly isolated from the West, is strengthening its ties with non-Western partners. This effort to build new platforms and institutions reflects a shared frustration that the rules of the global system are often written elsewhere, by people who don't face the same challenges as those in the Global South. Together, BRICS is trying to change not just policies but also the narrative about what kind of development is legitimate and who should lead. Notably, international relations theory can help us understand why the BRICS came about, what it aims for, and why it matters. Realism Realism, one of the oldest schools of international relations, sees power as the main force shaping global affairs. States act primarily in their own interest. Institutions and alliances matter only if they help countries protect or expand their power. From this perspective, BRICS is not a community of like-minded nations but a strategic arrangement – a balancing act against Western dominance. When Russia promotes de-dollarisation or China supports the NDB, they are not guided by ideals of fairness or cooperation. They are responding to the realities of power politics. A good example of this logic came after the US froze Russian central bank assets following the Ukraine war. Many countries saw how exposed they were if their reserves were held in dollars. The concern wasn't ethical. It was practical. It was about survival. Liber theory On the other hand, liberal theory, which posits that cooperation is possible and institutions matter, would argue that if the global order is unfair, countries will attempt to establish new institutions. That's exactly what BRICS is doing by creating alternatives to Western-run systems, not through war, but through investment, banking, and trade. It believes that the way to change the system is to create better alternatives within it. The NDB isn't just a protest against the World Bank. It's a real bank giving loans, financing projects, and developing regulations. That's classic liberal theory in action – solving global problems through cooperative institutions. Constructivism Constructivist theorists go a step further. They argue that power is not just about money or military strength, but about ideas. It's also about whose story is seen as legitimate. BRICS challenges the idea that Western liberal democracy is the only valid model of progress. It says there are many ways to grow and that the West doesn't have a moral monopoly. BRICS is trying to shape new meanings about sovereignty, about development, about who gets to lead. It wants to change how the world imagines power, not just how it distributes it. When BRICS leaders speak of 'mutual respect' and 'non-interference,' they are offering a different political culture – one that appeals to countries tired of lectures from the West about democracy and governance. Whether this rhetoric matches reality is debatable, but the narrative matters. These theoretical perspectives are not mutually exclusive views. They all help explain why BRICS is doing what it's doing and why the West is starting to take it more seriously. However, none of this means that the Western-led order is collapsing. The US dollar still dominates global trade and finance. Western-led institutions still make the rules. The US still has unmatched military power. Western technology and capital continue to dominate global supply chains. At the same time, BRICS has its own internal differences. China and India are locked in border tensions. Russia is diplomatically isolated. Brazil and South Africa are wary of being seen as backing an anti-Western front. The NDB is still small compared to the World Bank. However, the system is no longer a one-way street. Something is shifting. The fact that major economies are even talking about bypassing the dollar or creating their own financial systems was unthinkable two decades ago. The fact that they are acting on it, even though cautiously, means the world is entering a new phase. This isn't about tearing down the West. It's about making space for the rest. The BRICS summit in Brazil didn't create headlines because it didn't need to. It was not designed to shock. It was designed to show that the world is no longer waiting for change from the West. It is building change elsewhere. One of the fundamental starting points in international relations is the simple truth that there is no world government, prompting some international relations scholars to call the international system 'anarchic'. Comment. How is BRICS rewriting some of the rules of global politics, and increasingly positioning itself as a challenger to the Western-led liberal international order? BRICS is trying to shape new meanings about sovereignty, about development, about who gets to lead. It wants to change how the world imagines power, not just how it distributes it. Evaluate. By claiming to be a platform for those countries that didn't have a seat at the table when the post-war world order was designed, BRICS presents itself as a voice for the Global South. Do you agree? How do theoretical perspectives, realist, liberal, and constructivist, help explain why the BRICS came about, what it aims for, and why the West is starting to take it more seriously? (The author is a Professor at MMAJ Academy of International Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.) Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
