Originally published on Shahrvand English (N° 10) – December 7, 2004
It all probably started when one day, an Iranian who had just purchased the newest version of the National Geographic World Atlas (8th edition of the famed atlas), opened the giant map of the world and looked towards his homeland and noticed, what surely looked like, a misnomer to him. He looked at the body of water, south of Iran, separating the Persian plateau from the Arabian Peninsula and noticed that below the name ‘Persian Gulf’ was written, parenthetically, ‘Arabian Gulf’. If this did not suffice to blow a fuse in his patriotism fuse box, then all he had to do was look a few centimetres over to see the names of three of the small Iranian islands, with the (unfounded) emendation that they are rather ‘occupied’ by Iran and claimed by the UAE (a country which was founded no earlier than 33 years ago).
No doubt, in a matter of hours if not minutes, emails were being sent back and forth on the World Wide Web, between Iranians, trying to bring awareness and making comments on this new indignation against the homeland by a foreign publication.
Now, whereas we Iranians, as a people, are made of many diverse groups, be it culturally or ideologically, if there is one thing which will always unite us, it is our nationalism. To put it more precisely, we will never stand for anybody slighting us when it comes to our history and our heritage.
The news spread throughout the Iranian community abroad as well as inside Iran, as quickly as a Bush Administration joke spreads on email lists. And with even more speed, people began to take action. Some started to send emails and letters to the National Geographic. Others boycotted the Journal, while the ever-present Persian blogging community quickly went to work on a ‘Google Bomb’ (all you have to do to find out what a google bomb is, to type a search for ‘Arabian Gulf’ on Google, and then hit the ‘I’m feeling lucky’ button and see what comes up!). Google bombs have been previously used as political jokes/satirical statements, best exemplified by doing the similar search in Google for ‘miserable failure’ and getting George W. Bush’s White House webpage.
All joking aside, the fact remains that the body of water between Iran and the Arabic states of the Arabian Peninsula has been known as the Persian Gulf since time immemorial. And the islands of Abu Musa, and the Greater and Lesser Tunb’s have been part of Iran’s soil for just as long.
When faced with the overwhelming response from Iranians, the National Geographic was forced to put forth an explanation for their changes to the world atlas. They explained, that “it has been the Society’s cartographic practice to display a secondary name in parentheses when use of such a name has become commonly recognized.” They further stated that “the Arabian Gulf is as a variant naming of the Persian Gulf” and that the NG “seeks to acknowledge sometimes conflicting naming claims involving bordering bodies of water”. They went on to say that, regarding the islands of Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunb, “National Geographic’s research determined that these islands are currently the subject of a dispute between Iran and the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.). While Iran controls these islands, the U.A.E. claims them.”
The last statement is odd, since here they mention that Iran ‘controls’ these islands, whereas on the map it is stated that Iran ‘occupies’ them. The difference between controlling something and occupying it is a marked one; yet the statement simply brushes it off as a non-issue it seems. Furthermore there are other inaccuracies and inconsistencies in this response.
The arguments against these claims have been many and all have their merits and downfalls. They bring forth some great arguments against the new practices that have been adopted by the world’s foremost geographic journal. However the best arguments against them which point out its flaws, shortcomings and inconsistencies have been voiced by Rouzbeh Gerami and Touraj Daryaee, both academics from the U.S. West Coast.
Mr. Gerami argues that there is a difference between internationally recognized names and locally given names. There are lots of names one geographic location might have in the local languages, but that does not merit all of them being shown on international maps. If the NG gives local area names too, then the West Bank and Gaza Strip should be named as Palestine since that is the name it is known by in the area, and it should also be stated, parenthetically of course, that it is ‘occupied by Israel’.
Mr. Daryaee, who is a professor of ancient history, argues that “It was only with the recent appearance of Arab nationalism or so-called “Pan-Arabism”, spear-headed by former Egyptian President Gamal Abd Al-Nasser, who was hostile to the late Shah of Iran”, that the Persian Gulf was rechristened as the Arabian Gulf, and that only among the Arab states in the region. In fact he explains that the name ‘Arabian Gulf’ was the name given to the Red Sea by the Greeks and the Romans. He also says that if giving the local name is the consistent practice, then the Shat-al Arab should also be named Arvand Rud, which is the name given to it, in Iran.
This entire affair has caused a bigger stir than expected by most. Iran has banned the sale of the Journal in Iran until the supposed errors are addressed by the National Geographic. Meanwhile many websites such the Persian Gulf Task Force (www.persiangulfonline.com) are giving information on this controversy and urging all Iranians, within and without, to voice their dissatisfaction with the publication by writing to them. On the other hand the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) in the US is set to meet with the National Geographic executives over this matter. And, as always, the Iranian blogging community will keep up its vigilance until a satisfactory response is received.
The point that one reaches at the end of this affair, is that reasoning presented by the National Geographic is inconsistent and unconvincing at best. This can only lead one to conjecture that this move to change the naming of this strategic and political body of water, at such a critical time, may and in all likelihood has, taken place with ulterior motives in mind (or in pockets as suggested by some).
