An Attempt at Analysis of Resistance to the Czech State's One-Word Name

One day, almost twenty years after the establishment of the modern Czech state, one of the most active fighters for the one-word name of this country said: „I wonder why such a united front opposes the name Česko and its English version. Just only the English version. We should call a symposium on this subject“. I shared both his astonishment and his exhaustion. Right, the meaning of his question was the rhetorical „Quo usque tandem…..“. Still, I decided to try a possibly thorough analysis of this phenomenon, which is surviving persistently in all layers of Czech society.

I. Reasons

In the beginning, let us examine some facts that fundamentally determine this phenomenon, even if they do not touch it directly and thus escape the standard detection methods. As we know, the attitude of the average Czech to his homeland is more indifferent than other Europeans´ relationship to their own countries. The mentioned characteristic makes the citizen less resistant to external and internal pressures and, consequently, unable to understand (let alone protect) his vital interests. If these statements are correct, we should ask about the reasons for this situation. They are the following:

 1  The historical loss of national self-confidence, a late offspring of the "Munich" complex. Back in September 1938, the lack of courage showed by the state's political representation paralyzed a large part of the nation. As a result of this psychological trauma, the people patiently surrendered to fate, and their morality disintegrated without recovery. This subject deserves a much more detailed analysis, which falls outside the scope of this article. There may be different views on how we should or should not behave at a historically significant moment. Still, one thing is sure: The decision to act so that the majority of the people survive physically, resulted in the downfall of national pride and damaging the people's characters, despite the heroic deeds done by those who did not accept the situation.

 2  The Czechs' high degree of identification with the Czechoslovak State. Few people are aware that the Czech National Revival was essentially all-Slavic. This movement was the intellectual center of the emancipation of Slavic peoples in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Therefore, the Czechs spontaneously adopted the feeling that they are "Czecho-Slavic" or "Czecho-Slovak". So, the Czech legions in WW1 called themselves "Czechoslovak," although we could only exceptionally find any Slovak soldiers among them. A similar situation was in the fight with Hungary over Slovakia's southern border in 1919. During the existence of Czechoslovakia, the Czechs usually did not hesitate to call themselves Czechoslovaks, but we could hardly find a similar approach beyond our present-day eastern border. The state was much more Czech than Slovak, and so its break-up affected Czechs much more deeply. We feel the results of this disillusionment up to the present day.​

 3  A "flagellant syndrome", which manifested itself in the prominent politicians' activities after the "velvet revolution“. So, for example, the Czech-German declaration in the 1990s, "solving" seemingly after years the problem between Czechs and Germans after WWII: while the German side included the expressions "we admit that..." and "we are aware of..." (six years' terror and genocide in Czechia), the Czech part says humbly and faithfully "we regret" (meaning the crimes committed during the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans after the war). Good from the Czech side, but, the term is not merely a sign of goodwill for Germans: it is a sign of weakness.

 4  Praising and admiring the incompetent multiculturalism as against the precious domestic cultural values which disappeared from people's consciousness. Getting to know one's roots is a necessary step to universal values and cannot be labeled as nationalistic. The universally proclaimed cosmopolitanism and post-positivism have never worked as a real striving for the world's civil society but as an escape from responsibility for one's environment. Only if we respect our own identity, we become a creative and beneficial part of the world. If not, we join the grey average and fall into oblivion. Still, from the viewpoint of the "citizens of the world", the feeling of being a Czech is a sort of naive, faded junk that turned into a social faux-pas.

 5  A complete departure of foreign policy from the traditional friendly relations and bonds which had inspired the international respect for our country. As we have already mentioned, it was in the 19th century that the Czechs constituted the intellectual center of the Slavic nations´ striving for emancipation. During the twenty years´ existence of the modern state, we managed to bury forever the remnants of these traditions (the official recognition of Kosovo, among others). We presented ourselves as opportunists who refuse to learn not only from negative but - beyond common sense - even from positive experiences of our past. Metaphorically, the foreign policy of the modern Czech state is the policy of a paper-boat captain on Victoria's waterfall. To put it bluntly, there is no foreign policy, there is merely servility to the powers; the only difference from the previous (communist) practice lies in the direction of its vector to one or the other cardinal points.

 6  The tragic level of education and information sources in general. The schools and the media often ignore or discredit historical and cultural milestones, personalities, and events on which a citizen could authentically build his national pride. On the contrary, education in this country resembles something like instruction in the inferiority complex. The media, nowadays a universal source of knowledge, play a significant role in this process. They find support in the current quasi-critical historiography, which emphasizes historical antagonisms and does not help the citizen to come to terms with the country's history.

As a result, national pride is mostly present when the "Czech Republic" wins a sports championship, and it lasts as long as the proud citizen gets sober and returns to everyday reality. This sort of patriotism manifests itself by the fans' jumping and shouting, "Češi, do toho!" - "Czechs, ahead!" One would expect the name of the country instead, but the Czech Republic is too long to chant, the acronym CR a bit weird, and Česko? No, the Czechs do not like it. Why? The answer is obvious: Because they subconsciously feel as if something were missing. Moreover, people do not know the real reason for their frustration and intuitive disagreement with the name. Therefore they invent arguments against its (nonexistent) linguistic and aesthetic weakness.

II. The problem "Česko"

We are finally getting to the core of the matter: Why is the name "Cesko" and the English equivalent Czechia to so many people so difficult to adopt? What is wrong with them? Is there anything missing?

 1  The citizen misses some visible and audible element of dignity and respectability in the name. Therefore he is so keen on using the word "republic" as if it were a magic wand that can provide the country with noble and distinguished character. "Česko" seems too short, and hardly worthy of notice. Where does the feeling come from? It is easy to guess: "Slovensko" is missing. The division and shortening of the name make one think of the loss of the territory, which the Czechs have never put up with. Therefore the young people, free from the weight of the past, would have no problem with "Česko" unless their teachers insisted on "Česká republika."

 2  Aesthetic euphony is another necessary quality in which the name Česko is lacking, says the general public. Some poets and writers (more or less competent) specify the complaint: “Česko sounds hard and hissing, it has not the poetic charm which is so typical of our language and country!” Sadly, they do not bring any proposal, what the name should look like. Instead, they prefer the Republic – a word whose “poetic character” might fascinate, at best, an author of ministerial circulars. In any case, a country's name is one of the terms that require accuracy of meaning, not a superficial likableness. The opponents also ignore the fact that other countries´ names originated by a similar word-formative process; maybe they think “the others” do not have to sound beautiful.

 3  Not universal but frequent is the Moravian complaint about neglecting the eastern part of the country in the state's name. The criticism does not include any proposal but only the erroneous idea that Česko is identical to Čechy. (In English, the names Czechia and Bohemia are not alike, so the confusion does not occur.) Surprisingly, the title Česká republika is acceptable. This longer name seems to substitute the traditional non-official expression “české země” (the Czech lands). We asked the Moravian movement representatives directly, why they reject Česko and accept Česká republika, but we only received an evasive answer. If I were a “moravist,” I would not be satisfied; from their point of view, the only solution would be “Čechy a Morava” (“Bohemia and Moravia”), as it was under the Protectorate.The former state´s name Československo (Česko-Slovensko in 1918) did not include Moravia, either. Why they do not mind this „omission“is a mystery.

 4  Finally, let us mention a marginal fake argument about the “wrong” spelling of Česko. It should be written as “Češsko” demanded the opponents, claiming wrongly, that the name of the country is derived from the names of its inhabitants (Čech, Češka). It was easy for linguists to disprove the claim because the names of the country are derived in Czech language from the adjective form (český - Česko, slovenský - Slovensko, polský - Polsko etc.). The form "češský" has never existed.

     Do the principal reasons for rejecting „Česko“ come from a curious remnant of national pride? Certainly not. In the first case, it is resentiment; in second one, the citizen wishes to present his homeland as a „paradise on earth,“ as the national anthem has it. A genuine patriot would adopt a name that reflects the country´s historical and cultural development. Political attributes limit the name's validity. „Česká republika“ is the title of the current state-political formation in the country and society. It does not cover the 1100 years´ statehood of the territory. Sadly, few people worry about it. So we witness tragicomic phenomena, such as a renowned historian´s wording „působení Cyrila a Metoděje v České republice“ („the activities of Cyril and Methodius in the Czech Republic“ - 863 AD!!!! and many other nonsenses arising from wrong universal use of the current political name. ​

We have listed some principal reasons for rejecting the name Česko. Now let us examine why the word “republic” meets with approval and favor. Here are some of the reasons:

 1  A “republican” tradition developed due to the establishment of the new Czechoslovak state in 1918. The term “republika” indicated people's pride in independence and freedom and became accepted usage. The following decades brought many historical and political changes; accordingly, the state´s name was changing. If we do not mention the degrading period of the Protectorate, there were the attributes Czechoslovak, Czechoslovak Socialist, Czech and Slovak Federal, and finally Czech; the only permanent element was the Republic. This fact may be a reason for mechanical clinging to this word. To some extent, it is understandable.

 2  A remnant from the communist era, when it was a routine to use only the state titles. In this way, the “Peace Camp” members differed from the others at first sight. Naturally, the primary purpose was to pretend that these states were governed on the “res publica” (“public affairs”) principle. Thus the media articles and news were teeming with People´s, People´s -Democratic, and Socialist Republics. Since the complete titles of states would need almost more space than the message proper, the writers and speakers used acronyms, such as (in Czech spelling) SSSR, ČSSR, ČSR, SSR, MLR, PLR, NDR, ČLR. A remnant of them is the frequent ČR, or in transcription CR (which makes the confusion even funnier because CR is the ISO code of Costa Rica).

 3  Many years' everyday excessive use of the word “republic”, even in small talk, makes people take it for a part of the country's proper name. The Republic means nothing else than a type of political management. Many people get astonished or excited when we alert them to the problem.We can call a person by name, or we can also mention his/her social or professional position. Sometimes we have to cite both, another time it may be highly inappropriate. We can tell the difference in everyday life. However, we fail to distinguish when the state's name is concerned. As if there were only „the accountant Mr. Karásek“, but no „Mr. Karásek“. We can imagine embarrassing and funny situations concerning Mr. Karásek's introduction; concerning the country's name, fun disappears, embarrassment and faux-pas remain. 

III. The problem "Czechia"

How easy and logical presentation proposal (of  course, rejected by institutions responsible for it) - using unversally applicable, timeless name of our country. The reasons for rejecting „Česko“ are self-evident. Still, the name makes progress and we can assume that it will eventually become accepted usage because there is no other choice. On the other hand, why is there a similarly strong resistance against the English equivalent „Czechia“? Why does a citizen oppose it so vehemently, even if his knowledge of English may be poor or zero?

Having created the „problem Česko,“ the Czechs transferred it automatically in the „problem Czechia.“ Why just in the English equivalent? A vast majority of the population have no idea about the natural existence and function of the country's one-word name in other languages (Tchéquie in French, Chequia in Spanish, Cechia in Italian, Chéquia in Portuguese, Tschechien in German, Tjeckien in Swedish, Tsjechië in Dutch, Чехия in Russian, Çekya in Turkish, צ'כיה in Hebrew, etc.). They hardly notice that these names are formed identically or similarly as in English. Even if they saw the fact, they would not care. But English is the universal means of communication in the present-day world; despite poor education in languages, an individual cannot but be aware of it, thus making it most relevant. For this reason, he immediately sees a problem in it, similar to „problem Česko“.

A rank-and-file citizen can influence the usage of his native language. On the other hand, the English version of the country's one-word name depends on the respective state institutions and organs. Sadly, the persons working there suffer from identical prejudice and errors or even create and spread them. They often use and misuse their power to fight against the one-word name. So, for the most part, it is the Czech political representatives' fault that the name Czechia occurs marginally, and its future is indefinite. Unfortunately, anglophone countries declared in 1993 that the choice of the English name is a matter of our government. It is then the government's fault that Czechia disappeared from the vocabulary of many foreign media and institutions in anglophone territories. In case the Czech side uses the name, the respective institutions repeatedly declared their positive attitude to Czechia. It never happened. On the contrary, "Czechia "was often blocked by Czech ambassadors. So the problem spread to countries that had adopted respective equivalents of "Czechia", which started to prefer the formal political title.

It was necessary to give some reasons for the negative approach. For this purpose, several myths were invented. They worked sufficiently; the public's dislike of "Czechia“ grows from personal feelings and emotions, and so every reason is welcome, however weak it may be. Since there are no facts to form a basis of the refusal, some distorted information must replace them. The most frequent fake arguments are as follows:

a) a dubious origin of the word

b) its overall weakness

c) maybe even an insulting character

d un-English character

e) historical inaccuracy

Medial misinterpretation plays a vital role in the origin of such myths. In the beginning, a respected authority utters a careless, irresponsible, purely subjective comment. The reporters take the words up and adapt them to attract public interest. Next comes an average reader/viewer, who usually has insufficient language knowledge but feels free to profess his opinion. 

By far the most cases result from a lack of education and responsibility. An uneducated person is not dangerous because he or she can eventually change his wrong attitude. On the contrary, the genuine enemy of the country´s name Czechia is a half-educated individual. A typical representative of this group is a politician who assumes that his position gives him the right to comment on everything. His self-confidence results from his obsessive urge to feel educated. Therefore he fights against all arguments, however convincing they may be. If he did not, he would admit that there is something he does not know. Since the half-educated (and also unscrupulous) individuals make up a considerable part of this state´s parliament and government, they will respect, parrot, and protect all sorts of stupid opinions and viewpoints. Why? Because, if they did not, they might endanger their own re-election: they depend on voters of a similar character. In this regard, these politicians are extremely sensitive; on the other hand, they neglect the voters´opinion, in their own interests (power and money) are concerned. The false arguments that they use for this purpose penetrate automatically into the public. The resulting vicious circle offers no exit and can only be cut from outside. (That is the aim of our efforts.) We can list the said false arguments in the following order according to their frequency:

 1  The name is of „eastern“ origin and thus denominates something underdeveloped or backward. (Alexander Vondra: “We [who is „we“? - author´s note] don´t want it, it sounds like Russia.“) , Mr. Vondra does not know that „Czechia“ and all similar variants come from Latin, and he is not concerned with its origin. He would hardly say what he said if he knew that the Latin form Czechia or Cechia reaches back to the ear 17th century. Moreover, an average inhabitant, missing reliable mental support, cherishes a mental rescue-crutch: a feeling of superiority over everything that exists to the east of him. It is the other side of his inferiority complex. As far as the names are concerned, he cites, for example, Bulgaria, Latvia, Armenia, but forgets Bohemia, Moravia, Austria, Australia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Columbia, and others. It is one of the unfortunate consequences of the absence of Latin in present-day secondary education.​

Concerning this category, we can mention the (artificially produced) "Chechnya affair". Rumour had it that the names Czechia and Chechnya were similar enough to be confused, and if so, it could damage our tourism. Who would visit a country where a permanent war is going on? In reality, Chechnya not only sounds quite different but also does not constitute an independent state. In the end, the real story emerged: In comments on the Boston marathon bomb attack in 2013, Chechnya was confused with the Czech Republic, not with Czechia. The myth was dead, but it survived in the media and in the heads of its inventors, who never interpreted the Boston story truthfully. In any case, an individual's lousy knowledge of geography is no argument against a government's option for the country's name. There is always someone who confuses cocaine with caffeine, astronomy with agronomy, or, among countries' names, Austria with Australia, Slovakia with Slovenia, but hardly anybody would require a change. By the way, if we were not confused with the incriminated far-away part of Russia but, say, the highly developed Sweden, hardly anybody would complain. This all results from the notion that our country is not sufficiently prominent or respectable on a global scale.

 2  The name lacks respectability (see above the passage "why Republic ") and may even be insulting. Those who share this opinion are not able to explain it. It comes from what we cite under 1) and also from would-be expert claims of some linguists or historians: they say that it is either derived - or directly translated – from the German "Tschechei. " In their opinion, this word is pejorative because Hitler used it, although it had existed long before. The pre-war editions of the German national Brockhaus encyclopedia define it as the standard "name of the western part of Czechoslovakia. "It survives in the vocabulary of border-area inhabitants, who naturally do not feel it as pejorative. After the negotiations with Czech representatives in 1993, the Germans diplomatically opted for "Tschechien“. The respective theorists probably based their proposal on materials from the early stage of the Protectorate when the name "Böhmen und Mähren "was not yet introduced. "Czechia", on the other hand, is 75 years older than Tschechien. In the 1920s-30s, the American media used it as a natural denomination of the Czech state in its historical context.

  3   The name is un-English or sounds „weird“ in English. This opinion also occurs, especially with those opponents who prefer „Czechland“ or „Czechlands. “ Yes, this alternative would sound more natural in English. However, contrary to „Czechia,“ it is an artificial neologism without any historical background. iI cannot „come from nowhere“, unless the English-speaking experts opted for it If they did, we would not object to their request. Some North-American names of non-English (Indian) origin, such as Saskatchewan, Idaho, Kansas, Wyoming, Massachusetts, do not sound English, but everybody uses them. And how about Lithuania, Chile, Zimbabwe? Do they sound natural? They are non-English names of non-English countries, so they do not have to sound natural in English. One more conjecture has appeared in the press: the name Czechia is linguistically wrong because it suggests the pronunciation [che-chi-ya] (chi like „chip“). This false argument is irrelevant. In many words, the written ch sounds k: architect, technic, archive, ache, chimera. Spelling is one thing; the correct pronunciation is another one: it is necessary to learn it. 

 4  The name does not correspond with history. Czechia never existed „de facto.“ This claim is the least frequent but the most dangerous. It originates among half-educated intellectuals who feel sufficiently qualified to force their opinions upon the public. They find a breeding ground on anonymous internet databases, such as Wikipedia, where they can modify the content like censors. Almost all of them rank among heart-and-soul bureaucrats. They cannot see a state in its historical and cultural continuity or distinguish between the letter of the law and its spirit. They argue that it is impossible to apply the name Czechia retrospectively to the „Kingdom of Bohemia“ or the „Crown Lands of Bohemia.“ They fail to notice that other states do so routinely; for example, Germany has existed as an integrated state only since 1871. Due to this absurd approach, the mentioned source of information inspires authors to produce absurd deductions as already was demostrated above (Prince Bořivoj and Charles IV. - extracts from a book on Czech history, written in English and based on information from Wikipedia.) Some of Wikipedia´s writers and administrators became aware of this absurdity. After long and thorough deliberation, they replaced this nonsense by another, even worse one: „...now the Czech Republic, previously the Crown Lands of Bohemia consisting primarily of the Kingdom of Bohemia and the Margraviate of Moravia.“ This muddle occurs in many articles dealing with Czech history.

The protagonists of this creed refuse to accept the following apparent facts:

 1  A simplified term is necessary for a nonprofessional recipient to understand the information; moreover, it is valid generally. Many books had the title „History of Czechoslovakia“ or „Czechoslovak History, “ although none of them covered only the period of the state´s existence, starting in 1918. On the other hand, the first „post-November“ team-work historical synthesis (also published in English) bears the title „A History of the Czech Lands, “ although this collocation has never been the Czech state´s official or political name. The authors did not apply the relevant, correct, and logical title „Dějiny Česka“/“A History of Czechia. “ However, it is a standard way the countries present themselves, even if some periods of their history do not apply the particular name. This sensible method helps the recipient to keep his bearings. We can see the difference when we compare the two headings: „A History of Czechia“ vs. „A History of the Czech Republic. “

 2  Their peculiar interpretation of terms is inconvenient: it baffles the standard recipient and inspires such informational gems as "Prince Bořivoj and Charles IV. "

 3  It is beneficial to offer a clear and transparent definition of our state and its continuity.

All kinds of information trying to set the myths to the right have insufficient coverage. The chief editors of the most popular media usually reject them; thus, the articles only appear in professional periodicals, on the websites of the Civic initiative Česko/Czechia and on the web of English Wikipedia (where they are systematically deleted by Czech administrators).

​

​

IV. Common Problem

The common problem concerning both Česko and its English equivalent Czechia is the would-be aesthetic assessment, "I do not like the name," declared without any justification. This irrational personal attitude is, by far, the most frequent. It would not be noteworthy if it only occurred with "rank-and-file "citizens. Surprisingly, we find an even higher percentage of this unprofessional approach in persons and institutions responsible for public affairs. The country's geographic name is not a mere object of aesthetic pleasure. First of all, it must serve the state's basic needs. Who else should be aware of this essential request, if not the state's representatives? 

The difference in meaning and function between the Czech state's geographic vs. political name is the core of the matter within its professional sphere. Oddly enough, some persons are unable or unwilling to distinguish, be it on account of ignorance or arrogance. We could hardly imagine a member of Parliament of the French Republic (République française) who would not know that his country, apart from the political title, also can be called France. In our country, however, we often witness the very opposite.

V. Substitutes

In daily life, the one-word (short, geographic) name is a natural and logical necessity. While the responsible persons or institutions ignore this need, the do-it-yourself public can invent a name. Since the upper circles reject the correct name, the people create a wrong makeshift: a simple (or rather foolish) abbreviation of the political title by omitting the "republic. "The resulting "Czech "works as an adjective, but not as a proper name of the country "Česko." In English, adjectives are never identical with the countries' names. It would be inconvenient, apart from other reasons. It is easy to succumb to the illusion if well-known institutions offer it. We adduce an example from sports: The Czech Olympic Committee and the Czech Ice-Hockey Union placed the wrong form on the sportsmen's outfit; as a result, many other unions believed that it was the adequate equivalent to the word Česko. The Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports (who distribute hundreds of millions from the state budget to particular sports and mainly to state representation) shared this trend. After long-lasting protests, the unions replaced "Czech "by another, but no less inappropriate inscription "Czech Team. " In vain were the logical objections that the "Czech Team "applies to the national representatives and equally, say, to Sparta Prague or the local Sports Club in Kotěhůlky.

The brusque „Czech“ survives in the names of many business companies and organizations (for example, Synlab Czech, Toyota Motor Czech, Huyndai Motor Czech, Gillette Czech, and others). It shows lack of knowledge and interest on the part of the corporations but also indifference and disregard on the part of Czech authorities.The gravest harm comes from the the world-renowned Pilsen Prazdroj brewery who have been labelling their export production „Pilsen – Czech“ for more than ten years now; they insist they do not mean the country but an attribute of the product – it is „Czech beer“. True or not, the wording of the message does not prove it. „Czech“ also decorates sports hats and T-shirts, and a variety of tourist souvenirs. This would-be name of the country does not result from anglophone speakers´ usage, as some of its advocates try to make us believe; it is typical „Czenglish“, a genuine product „Made in Czech“ (language). Understandably, its creators´ knowledge of English is low or limited to a narrow field of practical usage. On the other hand, it is alarming that some professionals in the field of English language sometimes accept it.

Thus it is no wonder that an average citizen takes this erroneous form for the correct translation of "Česko" into English. Contrary to the fuss over "missing euphony and dignity" in the word Česko, the public does not apply aesthetic criteria. People accept the one-syllable, brusque "check "-sound without reservation. Moreover, they use it as a source of would-be witty puns, such as "Czech it out "or the official ( ! ) Czechpoint. According to the law, the state's essential symbols must not be altered or abused; the name is undoubtedly one of them. However, this principle is often infringed even on international occasions, including the Olympic games. Examples: Individual and wilful versions of the name in the media; a sports team wearing T-shirts in the form of flags with reversed color order; heraldic errors in the state's coat of arms; wrong sizes of color parts in the state flag; the fans' ugly attributes made of incredible variants of the state's name, its flag, or coat of arms. All these occur every day.

The Czech politicians have tried hard to eradicate the country's correct name; they have done nothing to stop spreading garbles. They only wake up from their lethargy when somebody uses the proper form. At that moment, they open a fierce discussion. With a bit of exaggeration, we could interpret their approach: "Treat the country's name as you like, damage it as you wish, every atrocity (Czech Republike, Czech Rep, Team Czech) is permitted; only don't admit the correct title."

VI. Consequences

Linguistic, historical, and geographical arguments and political and social relations show that the one-word name is necessary and cannot be substituted by the political title. Every avoidance of this necessity leads to verbal and terminological chaos; it reduces the country´s ability to identify itself. This situation harms the state from outside and inside. In domestic politics, it contributes to disunity and dispute. On the international scene, it evokes intuitive doubts about such a unit; the more so because we are the only exception from Europe´s standard and one of four exceptions on a global scale. Symptomatically, our partners are the Dominican Republic, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Česko/Czechia is not a country of considerable prominence, concerning the size, the number of inhabitants, and the actual influence (let alone the long-time political indifference and minimal international activities of its representatives). The country´s image becomes the hazier, the less it can conventionally define itself. This handicap harms all spheres, particularly economics. Stability, reliability, and visibility are necessary for a trademark. The good old brand „Made in Czechoslovakia“ has logically one possible heir: „Made in Czechia“.

VII.Conclusion 

We are arriving at the core of the question that we asked at the beginning of this paper: Why does a part of the Czech population (with the political elite at the head) refuse so stubbornly and permanently to solve the issue?

After years of work in our Civic Initiative, after hundreds of articles, press conferences, requests, appeals (mostly without response), we can give a plain answer: The public does not feel a necessity to appear as a well-established, locally and historically anchored state. Thus, the state´s management takes an opportunistic, inconstant line without a vision and idea, as if the leaders had lost or reversed the essential scale of values. 

Some time ago, the President used the name Czechia in a conversation with a foreign politician. The media faced it as a novelty and opened discussions on the (non-existing) choice „either the political title or the one-word name. “ With only minor exceptions, a vast majority of the renowned authorities showed that they were far from understanding the proper crux of the issue. (Let alone the journalists, the would-be „experts“ in various professions, a crowd of bloggers and internet chatters.) The most contributions to this dump of opinions consisted of vague emotional responses whose authors could not understand WHAT was said and WHO brought up the old problems.

In an imaginary vote (based on the wrong task „either-or“and resulting in the relation 2-3: 1), we proudly declared that common sense gets a bad deal and that we do not want to have a name. The future will show the consequences. The vital issue is more profound and broader than our ignorance of the problem in its linguistic, historical geographic and political context; it is the fact that we do not feel the necessity of possessing a permanent value. Because, if we did, we could easily understand the partial attributes of the matter. 

Vladimír Hirsch (2013)

Translation: Eva Horová

 

The Munich "Legacy"

The Munich Agreement, called in Czechia “the Munich Dictate” or “Munich Betrayal”, permitting Hitler's Third Reich the annexation of 1/3 of the area of Czechoslovakia by friendly democratic states, is considered by many Czechs an absolute failure of democratic powers - Great Britain and France. As was later confirmed, their politics of appeasement was shortsighted and only enabled and facilitated Nazi Germany to start WWII in the optimal situation. President Beneš predicted it: „I do not believe that joining the Czechoslovak border region after the Munich dictatorship would be enough for Hitler, he expected to try to get much more.....“ or „the fate of France is clear. If Paris continues in its current policy towards us, it will be so far that Germans will conquer the Maginot line by our cannons and our tanks and Paris will bomb by our aircraft …" He was right......

Many decades after the Munich dictate, there are still conflicts about whether we should have faced the enemy and lead more or less clearly a previously lost struggle. Many books and treatises on this subject have been written, and the interest continues, although history is irreversible and the subject is predominantly presented in the form of the unnecessary "what would have been if", combining reflections and speculation about the real possibilities at that moment. Experts - and not just military ones - analyze the chances of our defense, and they mostly lead to an unambiguous result: defeat would have been inevitable, just as a matter of time. 7 millions Czechs against around 100 millions of Germans (hard to count with Slovaks, who directed to fascist regime, which was confirmed after complete occupation of Czechia, when they immediately left Czechoslovakia and became an ally of Nazi Germany, however not all Slovaks agreed with it and some of them later joined Czechoslovak foreign units, fighting again Germans), being practically surrounded geographically by German territory, unfinished and not well armed border fortifications, not very good state of some kind of military technique, above all obsolete types of aircrafts and anti-aircraft weapons as a result of old-fashioned military doctrine (but our tanks, cannons and some aircraft were later used by the German army as Beneš predicted :-( ), pro-German politics and not friendly relations of the other neighbors (Poland and Hungary, participating in the annexation), but, enormous enthusiasm and will of people to fight, thus, high morale of soldiers on the other side. Our political representations at that time did not think about positive factors, and I would like to say that they committed one of the most significant, perhaps the most significant, mistake in the modern history of our country. People declared their disagreement by demonstrations, but the decision to accept the dictate by politics did not change. At that time, the Czech people felt betrayed by both friendly powers and Czechoslovak government.

Today, after so many years, the situation seems to be a little bit different. Regardless of some lack of interest in the society, blaming us for the situation is in a minority. By far the most frequent argument of pragmatists, as well as in the fateful moments of President Beneš and other political representations of the state, the declared responsibility for the countless sacrifices of lives that the armed resistance would have brought is in the lead and that if we had rejected MA and defended our borderland, we would have been immediately accused of aggression and declared initiators of the war. Maybe, but the fault was on both sides.

At all events, the historical result of the Munich dictate (“crowned” by the occupation of all Czechia in March 1939) is a permanent deep and open wound. We live in a long-term complex that has its roots right at that time and that situation (despite a number of people who did not resign and left to fight against Nazis outside of our territory). If we felt this historical failure also as OUR fundamental mistake, we would not have to suffer by it, being aware and prepared to not to repeat it.

Homeland should be defended at all events. More, if we had decided to fight it would have changed the history of WWII, because Germans would have made obvious all their real intentions to all, which could have been the moment of awakening or dawning of other nations and some blaming us for initiating the war would have become absurd.

                                                                                                              Vladimír Hirsch (2018)

Czechia vs. Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia

Wikipedia - "Wise men of Gotham"

Motto: 

When some unaccustomed idea of common sense appears in the world, 

you may know it by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against it

Paraphrase of the quote from Jonathan Swift's

"Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting" 

Despite repeated protests, the articles about the name CZECHIA and also many minor edits mentioning the name, have been continuously deleted from English Wikipedia by several administrators, especially by "Yopie" and "Mewulwe" admins (nicknames), but also some other, predominantly Czechs, who have been focusing their efforts on erasing the word Czechia for years. Some journalists suggested it is a result of the struggle between supporters of the name "Czechlands" and "Czechia," but that information is not based on truth. The reason is both simple and absurd. All of those admins prefer to use "The Czech Republic," in every case, also in historical connotations and all of them do not like geographical name Czechia. Really great visiting card of unbiassed encyclopedy!

To "solve" the problem with historical issues or themes, which are somehow out of the time of existence of "the Czech Republic", some "salvation idea" came to their minds: they decided to put everywhere in articles of that kind some "introduction", how everybody should understand what is meant by e.g."Literature of the Czech Republic" and there is (as everywhere) written, it is the production of all history of the Czech state and mentioned all state formations in Czechia during centuries. This preface should help the reader to understand what country they keep in mind. This Kocourkov's (Czech Gotham) application overcrossing all absurdity conjoined with brainless insisting of exclusive use of the political name of the country. Of course, it cannot help at all, because usual reader is only totally confused, and, in addition, surprised by the presence of such as introduction, but mainly, it is spreading of untruth, because "the Czech Republic" does and cannot have that action potential, even if its lovers repeat it million times. The result is only confirmation of stupidity and POV (point of view, thus, subjective opinion), so frequently used by themselves in accusations of people, who are so "impudent" and "pushing", that ask for using geographical name of the country, which is universal and therefore can be used in general context without any idiotic and mendacious prefaces, presented by "Wikipedia wise men" on every page, which theme goes beyond their "Czech Republic".

On top of all, there is only one case in all English Wikipedia, where some country operates under two names in one issue, resp. when we can find two articles about the same theme - "Music of the Czech lands" and "Music of the Czech Republic" All that idiotic circumvention only for "the highest and most sacred goal" not to use the word Czechia at any cost. Thank you, wise men of Wikipedia!

Nonsense can generate only another nonsense and, in this awkward case, the production of other nonsenses - based on absurd false statement, that "The Czech Republic can represent (with "proper" explanation) all history of Czechia - which is copied or taken over into other media, considering Wikipedia reliable source of information is overwhelming. Absurdity has been spreading all over the world. This is the reason why we can find "pearls" like: "11th century in the Czech Republic", "Antonín Dvořák, a composer from the Czech Republic", "Charles IV was a king of the Czech Republic", "Prince Bořivoj was born in the Czech Republic", "...when Constantin and Methodius came to the Czech Republic" and many others products, "illuminated" by Wikipedia editors.

Poor Charles IV - if he would know
he was the king of the Czech Republic .....

Our article "Czechia - the one-word name of the Czech Republic" was deleted not only from Wikipedia pages but also from personal page of contributors, so dangerous it seems to be. In the case of the second contribution of us, "Czechia - the name dispute," a vote was held about the wiki page deletion and despite the outcome being favorable for retaining the article, it was deleted. All protests against that behaviour were ignored or repeatedly followed by threats of blocking the user, later by definitive block, when there was a struggle to repost and keep the information online. The "objectivity" of Wikipedia is sufficiently highlighted by this situation. The word CZECHIA is simply prohibited there. Who is that much interested in it being hidden is a mystery, but a particular political reason seems highly probable.

Vladimír Hirsch

Czech terminological pathology and its consequencies

The long-lasting negative attitude to this country´s geographical name Česko and its English equivalent Czechia from the political representatives of the state and also from some media exhibitionists, is a gross and detrimental error: the state, being deep-rooted in history, urgently needs the name.

Why? First, it is useless to distinguish between "short" and "long" names. This typology ignores the essential attributes – the political name and, on the other hand, the geographical name. Also, surprisingly enough, there still survives a wrong assumption that the geographical name aspires to replace the political one, although nobody has ever claimed anything like that. It has always been about natural co-existence of the two names. The point is, how and when each of them should be used. While the political name is only applicable in official documents, such as international treaties, the geographical name has its clearly defined natural function in all other cases. In the said "all other cases", the political name can never replace the geographical name because, unlike the latter, it has a temporary character ignoring the historical continuity of the state, and so its function is limited to the current state subject. Using it without time limits is wrong, confusing and inappropriate. 

From this point of view it is quite irrelevant whether or not its geographical equivalent was used in the past because it is clearly defined at present time, in spite of all efforts to call it in question. The implications of words are subject to changes and it depends on the use or institutionalization, how the respective meaning is understood. The decision was made as early as 1993 and any recall is useless. Česko is clearly defined as Čechy & Morava & Slezsko (Czechia = Bohemia & Moravia & Silesia) and thus the name covers the entire territory of the state. 

Oddly enough, the Czech leaders do not dislike the fact that their "ČR" - or "CR" in English texts - is the only state in Europe which does not use its own geographical name. (Moreover, CR is the two-letter ISO code of Costa Rica.) Whatever the reason may be - local patriotism (the "movements" Moravané, Za Moravu, Naša Morava etc.) or quasi-aesthetic prejudice – it is nothing else than a feeling-based, subjective, short-sighted viewpoint. But the name of the state should meet objective criteria, being intelligible, plain, and clear. In Mathesius´ words, it is necessary to subject the language to such simplification that allows further work on it.

The name Česko, Czechia in English, perfectly fulfils this requirement, and it is quite irrelevant whether or not I like it: this name does the state a good service because it bridges and welds together its various forms in the course of time. By the way, how would the vast majority of the states whose territories underwent various social-political changes in the course of history, present themselves, if they insisted - for similar trifling reasons - on the respective occasional names? Apparently, the result would be quite confusing. The same applies to this country. A well-established subject needs a simple brand which makes it transparent and stable. As with persons, it is primarily the name. In the 20th century, the name of the present state was changed six times, although it continued as one historical unit. A state that changes its name with every change of its political or constitutional system (in this country, this occurred six times in the 20th century) will naturally be considered as underdeveloped and unstable: its brand, a kind of fundamental credit, will prove vague and indistinguishable, with negative consequences in general and in economic activities in particular.

Some excuses are based on generally accepted myths, e.g., the name in Czech language was invented artificially, the English equivalent can be mistaken for something else, and many others. Not only are these myths false and can easily be dispelled with appropriate arguments but, primarily, they are irrelevant to the essence of the problem. That is to say, even if they could not be dispelled, we would lose the chance of presenting this country as a stable, continual and indisputable state unit, independent - historically and geographically, from within and from without - of political and social changes. Obviously, the clumsy "Made in the Czech Republic" does not represent the country positively. Aware of this, a few entrepreneurs recently suggested a comeback of the brand "Made in Czechoslovakia", a desperate idea which contradicts international law. Although the natural solution – "Made in Czechia" - was close at hand, the problem was not tackled but avoided. It is a frequent habit to cite some states which do not use any one-word name, and to claim automatically that our state does not need it either. True, there are a few of them among the almost two hundred states but this fact is no argument. States such as the Dominican or the Central African Republics do not use the geographical name because, unlike our country, they have none. Moreover, they do not have such historical continuity which would allow to erroneously apply the political name (as in our case).

Those who refer to "the United States" or "the United Kingdom" compare the incomparable. The size of these countries in political and geographical maps is enormously different from ours and, moreover, while you can hardly find any names of this kind in the maps, you will certainly find more than a hundred republics. As far as the United States are concerned, the name does not imply any particular political system: the word "state" is universal and relates to any form of state organization. It follows from the above that rejecting the geographical name, which is politically neutral, universal, and naturally applicable in common speech, is as tragicomical as sawing off the branch we are sitting on.

Vladimír Hirsch

Published in editorially modified form on 24th March 2015 under the name
"Náš stát název Česko nutně potřebuje (Lidovky.cz - Česká pozice)

Czechia, not "Czech Republic", in common language

Emi Rizzi: Acousmatics - "Behind Pythagoras' Black Veil"

.......Vladimír Hirsch started out as a classical/romantic composer from an early age, switched to rock/punk as he became a teenager but then started applying his classical knowledge of music onto electronic and analog music, which resulted in him forming his own style of industrial music.

Vladimír Hirsch

 The best example of the industrial style of Avant-Garde he developed is the composition called “Iscariot.” Very dark synth sounds , unnatural and almost grotesque voices (like sounding to construction workers over a PA), and mechanized sounds (machinery working, pressure whistles, etc.) constructthe „dark ambient‟ sub-genre he is well known for. This is also present in his “VII. Ritual Of Betrayal” which is less on the „conventional Avant-Garde‟ side. It is very rhythmical and seems more like straightforward action-movie background-music for the constant percussion rhythm (although, this may be industrial sound-design made to sound like a drum-set). However, the audience is presented with dissonant chords and other unidentifiable sounds alongside threatening (in timbre as well as in content) voiceover male-vocals, but the piece finally switches back to a more Avant-Garde-style at around 3:43 minutes in, until a beautiful melodic section is introduced; demonstrating that he has not forgotten his classical training. Many of his works feature a combination of dark dissonant drones, unusual chords (diminished fifth/augmented fourth intervals, among others), but most importantly: industrial sounds. Sounds that have been taken from the real world and ‟spewed out‟  again through sound editing, to get exactly the sound he wanted. Pierre Schaeffers influences, as a musician in addition to being a supplier of the concept of acousmatics, are obvious when comparing Hirsch‟s and Schaeffer‟s music.  (See “Etude aux chemins de fer” or “Études de bruit” by Pierre Schaeffer where there are an abundance of industrial-like sounds as seen

in most of Hirsch‟s works, such as “La Dernière Défense” –  where the sounds are slowed down, but still present) Also, see “Jericho” for an example of a composition by Hirsch without industrial sounds, but made only with synthesizers. All his non-classical and non-punk band works, all the Avant-Garde works he is better known for, contain the same themes and motifs based around machinery and other sound-concepts that have a relationship to the industrial. His, almost 40-minute long, “Part II. Contemplatio per affirmationem” features this, as do most of the others mentioned above. 

Vladimír Hirsch - Contremplatio Per Nexus

Taken from Emi Rizzi - Avant-Garde (Assignment 2), Academia

Independent.Academia.Edu, San Francisco, CA , USA, 2014

Olivier Bernard: Anthologie de l´ambient

Part III B: Une artist très intéressant dans la mouvance martial/neoclassical ambient est le Tchèque Vladimir Hirsch. Hirsch possède une formation classique, mais s'est  très tôt tourné vers le punk, et tous types de musique expérimentales (du rock au jazz en passant par l'électronique). Il va fonder deux groupes essentiels pour le genre qui nous intéresse : Skrol (composé de Hirsch, Tom Saivon et Martina Sanollová) et Aghiatrias. Au sein de ces formations, Hirsch est le compositeur attitré, réalisant des morceaux néoclassiques, saupoudrés de rythmes martiaux. Le mélange est très avant-gardiste, souvant expérimental. Skrol utilise des instruments à cordes, des cuivres, de l'orgue, avec beaucoup de percussions et des textures électronique dark ambient. Cela est particulièrement audible sur l'album Heretical Antiphony de Skrol, paru en 1999. Des chants masculins et féminins apparaîtront petit à petit, pour laisser place à plus d'émotions dans cette atmosphère bruyante, inspirée par l'emphase de certaines pièces de musique classique moderne. Aghiatrias s'est créé en 1999. C'est un projet de «musique intégrée», mené par Hirsch et Tom Saivon. Aghiatrias se veut moins imposant que Skrol. Ne délaissant pas l'élément martial de leur musique, elle se veut plus calme et méditative, plus proche du dark ambient et de l'ambient industrial que Skrol, avec l'accent mis sur les structures de la musique classique contemporaine. Aghiatrias sortira un album dark ambient en 2004 su le label tchèque Epidemie Records, intitulé Regions Of Limen.

A very interesting artist movement in the martial / neoclassical ambient is the Czech Vladimir Hirsch. Hirsch has a classical training but has turned to the early punk, and all types of experimental music (from rock to jazz to electronics). He founded two essential projects for the genre we are interested in: Skrol (Hirsch, Tom Saivon and Martina Sanollová) and Aghiatrias. Within these trainings, Hirsch is the resident composer, realizing neoclassical pieces, sprinkled with martial rhythms. His works are very avant-garde and experimental. In Skrol, he uses strings, brasses, organ, with lots of percussion and ambient dark electronic textures. This is especially audible on the album Heretical Antiphony Skrol, published in 1999. Male and female vocals appear gradually for giving way for more emotion to this noisy atmosphere, inspired by the emphasis of certain pieces of modern classical. Aghiatrias was established in 1999. It is a project of "integrated music", led by Hirsch and Tom Saivon. Aghiatrias project is less imposing than Skrol. It does not abandon martial elements, but wants to be more quiet and meditative, closer to the dark ambient and ambient industrial than Skrol, with the focus on the structures of contemporary classical music. Among others, Aghiatrias released distinctly dark ambient album in 2004, entitled Regions Of Limen.

Published by Camion Blanc, 2013

Czechia - myths and facts about the short English name of the Czech Republic

Myth No. 1: Czechia is an unknown and possibly grammatically incorrect short name for the Czech Republic. Czechia is rarely used in English because native English speakers do not like to use it.

Fact: The Terminological Committee of the Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadastre officially codified Czechia in 1993 in its publication “Names of States and their Territorial Parts”. Therefore, Czechia is the grammatically correct short name of the Czech Republic and the English translation of Česko (the short name of the country in Czech). Czechia is not well known and infrequently used because the Czech state and its institutions have not used it despite recommendations issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Education in the 1990s. A short country name that is not used by the state itself and by its institutions cannot become well known and recognized abroad.

Myth No. 2: German, Russian, Chinese and other foreign languages have spontaneously used their translation of the short name Česko. However, the Czech Republic has become widespread in English-speaking countries. It is pointless to try to convince the English-speaking world about using Czechia as a short country name for the Czech Republic.

Fact: The Czechs have to start using their short country name first, after which English speakers will adopt it in a way similar to the way they adopted short country names such as Belarus, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Eritrea or Myanmar. These countries adopted and let the world know their proper short names. The Czechs need to do the same. Authorities of English speaking countries expressed clearly their consent.

Myth No. 3: Czechia is unofficial and has not been approved because Česko is not mentioned in the Czech constitution.

Fact:  A short country name does not have to be spelled out in the Constitution. Československo (Czechoslovakia) was not mentioned in the Czechoslovak Constitution either. Czechia is an official short (geographic name) of the country.

Myth No. 4: The name Czechia is a neologism.

Fact: The first recorded use of Czechia was in 1569 in Latin and in 1798 in English. Many other historic evidence of the use Czechia in English is from English, Australian and American press in 19th century. U.S. newspapers commonly used Czechia between 1918 and 1960 to refer to the western part of Czechoslovakia (as opposed to Slovakia, its eastern part) i.e. to the contemporary Czech Republic.

Myth No. 5: Czechia is not a word. It sounds strange.

Fact: Czechia is originally derived from Latin, which is common for numerous other country names in English, such as Austria, Australia, Croatia, Virginia, California, Indonesia, Slovakia, Latvia, Colombia and many more, also including Czech geographic names such as Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. Czechia might sound strange to some people but so do numerous geographic names derived from foreign languages that are commonly used in English, such as Idaho, Utah, Massachusetts, Lithuania, Zimbabwe, and Belarus.

Myth No. 6: A short geographic name (Czechia) is unnecessary. A political name (the Czech Republic) is sufficient.

Fact: The political name of a country is transient and ignores the historic continuity of a given state territory because it is limited only to the existing state form. In the case of the Czech Republic, it is incorrect to use its political name for various state forms that had existed on its territory before 1993. As such, the political name can never fully replace a permanent geographic name that does not change in response to changing state forms in a particular territory. The use of a contemporary political name for a period before the existence of the current state form is incorrect and impractical. The need for a short name is demonstrated by the fact that the Czech Republic is often erroneously shortened to Czech, Czech rep., CR, C. Rep. or Czecho. In many cases, foreigners continue to use the name Czechoslovakia, although the country has not existed since 1993, and even Czech businessmen have attempted to restore the brand “Made in Czechoslovakia” since “Made in Czech Republic” has failed to become a familiar brand around the world.

Myth No. 7: Czechia is an inappropriate and imprecise historical name because the Czech state had not used it in the past and has used different names instead.

Fact:  Other countries, such as Egypt, Greece and Poland, use short geographic names despite the fact that they experienced major territorial changes in the past and had various names throughout their history. Being a neutral country name, Czechia can be used in historic, cultural and spiritual contexts. The transparency and relative simplicity of a short country name will facilitate its international acceptance.

Myth No. 8: There are other countries that exclusively use political names without any problems. Examples include the Dominican Republic or the Central African Republic.

Fact: Although that is true, the vast majority of countries use short geographic names. The Dominican Republic and the Central African Republic are the only two countries in the entire world that do not have readily available short names. With Czechia being standardized and readily available as a short name, the Czech Republic is not the same case. Furthermore, the history of Czech statehood is much longer than its republican political system. Czechia can be applied throughout the entire history of Czech statehood and irrespective of its actually existing political system. 

Myth No. 9: The name change from the Czech Republic to Czechia would be too expensive and overall harmful by interrupting the continuity of the Czech Republic. The Czechs need to worry about much more important problems than their short country name in English.

Fact: No change in the country name is involved since the Czech Republic as a political name remains in place and unchanged. The Czech Republic will still be used in situations such as matters of national and international diplomatic protocol and international treaties. It is more appropriate to use Czechia in situations when other countries use their short names. The introduction and the use of Czechia instead of the Czech Republic in these situations can be done gradually with no or minimum expense during the update of the country’s promotional materials. Any additional expense will pay for itself in the form of increased international recognition of the country because of its clear and unambiguous name, including its international brand name “Made in Czechia”. 

Myth No. 10: Czechia has the same meaning as Bohemia. Czechia thus excludes the regions of Moravia and (Czech) Silesia from the Czech state.

Fact: The same wrong argument can be made that the Czech Republic does not include Moravia and (Czech) Silesia in its name and the same could be said about the Czech lands. Czechia covers exactly the same geographic area as the Czech Republic and it is therefore composed of Bohemia, Moravia and (Czech) Silesia. Although Czechia was originally also used as a synonym for Bohemia, it has not been used in this sense since the beginning of the 20th century. Since then Czechia has been used to denote the entire territory inhabited by the Czech speaking population, which is composed of three historic Czech lands: Bohemia, Moravia and (Czech) Silesia.

Myth No. 11: Czechia is less representative than the Czech Republic and it is confusing because it is ambiguous.

Fact: Undemocratic and authoritarian regimes around the world have frequently included “republic” in their country names in order to increase their legitimacy. As such, the term “republic” has lost its former glamour during the 20th century. Czechia [ˈtʃɛki.ə] is unambiguous in both spoken and written English. As a matter of fact, the Czech Republic [tʃɛk rɪˈpʌb.lɪk] is much more ambiguous than Czechia since the term “Czech” [tʃɛk] is pronounced the same way as check and cheque, which have several meanings as a noun and verb in spoken English, while “republic” is ambiguous because it is used in political names of the majority of countries.

Myth No. 12: Czechia ˈtʃɛki.əˈ can by pronounced as ˈtʃɛtʃi.əˈ

Fact: If this was the case then “Czech” [tʃɛk] could be pronounced as [tʃɛtʃ]. There are numerous words in English (286 to be exact) in which “ch” is pronounced as [k] and not [tʃ] and are pronounced similarly as “Czech” [tʃɛk], such as architect, ache, anarchy, anchor, chemistry, chaos, epoch, and mechanism. English pronunciation is variable and English speakers simply have to learn the pronunciation of particular words, such as blood – mood or head – steam.

Myth No. 13: Czechia is an unsuitable short name for the Czech Republic because it can be easily confused with Chechnya.

Fact: Poor knowledge of country names or geography by some people should not be a reason for refusing a particular country name. There are numerous countries with more similar names than Czechia/Chechnya, such as Austria/Australia, Iran/Iraq, India/Indonesia, Mali/Malawi, Niger/Nigeria, Gambia/Zambia, Slovakia/Slovenia and even Georgia/Georgia (a U.S. state). None of these countries has decided to give up its short name and use its political name exclusively because of a possible confusion with another country (region). Czechia can be confused with Chechnya in the same way the Czech Republic can be confused with the Chechen Republic. The chance of actual confusion of Czechia and Chechnya during various diplomatic, international scientific or sports events is almost zero since Chechnya is not an independent country and does not act as a sovereign entity at the international scale.  

Myth No. 14: Czechia is too similar to German „Tschechei“ that was used by Nazi Germany as a derogatory name for the occupied Czech territory during the Second World War.

Fact: Czechia is unrelated to the German term „Tschechei“ … and these two terms are pronounced differently in English and German. Although Germans had used “Tschechei” before the Nazi period, Czechia had been used many years before Germans first used  “Tschechei”. Today, “Tschechei” is rarely used in Germany because Germans use „Tschechien“. If “Tschechei” is used it does not need to be necessarily viewed as a pejorative term since it was created in a similar way as names for other countries in German, such as Slowakei and Türkei.

Myth No. 15: The selection of the proper short country name must be the outcome of a democratic public discussion.

Fact: The November 2014 statement of the Terminological Committee of the Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadastre states: “According to the article 3 of Act 1994/200 on Land Surveying, the standardization of names of settlement and non-settlement units is a land surveying activity in public interest and its results and recommendations should be followed by national and local state institutions. The position of the Terminological Committee of the Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadastre, an advisory authority of the Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadastre for the codification of country names, on the use of the name Česko and its foreign language variants (Czechia, Tschechien, Tchéquie, Chequia…) is positive. This position on the use of one-word name Česko and its equivalents in foreign languages has not changed since 1993. The experts unequivocally recommended the use of “Czechia” in English and its variants in other language (Tschechien, Tchéquie, Chequia etc.). This is not an opinion but the outcome of the process of standardization.” – This decision about the name “Czechia” has been made by those who are qualified by law to make it.

Vladimír Hirsch, Petr Pavlínek, Zdeněk Kukal

© Czechia Civic Initiative, Praha, December 2014

Czechia - the name dispute

“Czechia” (ˈtʃɛki.ə), the English short-form and geographical name of the Czech Republic has been disputed since the founding of the new Czech state, which was formed on January 1, 1993 with the dissolution of Czechoslovakia. Although Czechia has been occasionally used in the media and scholarly circles[1], the contemporary Czech state is the only one among the European countries without a widely used short name in English, while having its official equivalents practically in all other languages. Due to the unclear statements of Czech representatives to institutionalize the name, by restricting the denomination of the country only to the political name of the contemporary state “the Czech Republic”, Czechia remains lesser known in the general public and sometimes is substituted by the grammatically incorrect and practically confusing adjectival form “Czech.” This situation complicates a clear resolution of the Czech state in a historical context, both in general and particular levels of understanding the differences in the names[2].

Parts of Czechia

The history and origin of the problem

The Czech state consists of three historical lands: Bohemia (Čechy /ˈtʃɛxi./ in Czech) - the western part, Moravia (Morava) - the eastern part, and Czech Silesia (Slezsko) - the north-eastern part (see the map). Due to the fact that the Bohemian part of the country had a higher hierarchical status in medieval times, the three lands were for centuries together called the "Bohemian Kingdom," "Lands of the Bohemian crown" or simply “Bohemia” (Čechy) in a broader meaning. This is why the name Czechia, as well as "Česko" [ˈtʃɛskɔ] in Czech, has been felt, for some inhabitants of the eastern part of the country, as more favourable for the Bohemian section, though these names in English, as in Czech, have always been proposed as a denomination for all the Czech lands, that is, for the entire country[3]. This problem actually did not exist during the existence of Czechoslovakia (1918-1992) nor before, although the status of the individual parts of the land were changed several times throughout history. With the dissolution of the Czechoslovak state during the German occupation and the annexation of Slovaks into the Nazi regime "Slovak State" between 1939 and 1945, the country was called under German pressure "Bohemia and Moravia"[4], however for a short time in the beginning of the so called "protectorate", the area was mentioned as "Czechia" in the press of English speaking countries[5]. The problem with the denomination of the Czech state emerged in 1993, at first merely as a linguistic or quasi-aesthetic question, but later also as some local (in this case Moravian) reflection of the manifestation of general nationalistic or even separatist tendencies in post-communist countries (Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia).

The dispute course

Early in 1993, the name Czechia was naturally installed and incorporated into the United Nations´ list of geographical names[6] but, soon after, became a subject of discussion among Czech politicians and specialists, above all linguists and geographers., Primarily, however, the problem lied in different opinions of adopting the country´s appropriate one-word name in Czech language, i.e. “[ˈtʃɛskɔ]”, which was rejected by some authorities and also by a part of the population. Since there were no other reasonable options, the problem was not solved conclusively but simply abandoned without any definitive official decision. As a result, general usage has been limited to the political name only, i.e.,"Česká republika" in Czech, “the Czech Republic” in English, despite some recommendations in favour of Czechia issued by the The Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport[7] in 1990´s. After years of hesitation, the Czechs are finally getting accustomed to the country´s one-word name in their mother tongue, but the problem with its English form persists until today. Unfortunately, "Czechia" is currently not widespread, even though representatives of English-language countries repeatedly confirmed their preparedness to adopt it[8], and emphasized the fact that the decision depends on the Czech officials. Unlike "Česko", its English equivalent "Czechia" can responsibly be discussed by specialists (geographers, linguists) and/or people with advanced knowledge of the English language. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of the Czech population has an opinion on the matter, regardless of their education or knowledge of the English language; only a minimum of the persons questionned do not have any opinion on the issue. English speakers involved in the problem are also diversified. They usually focus on aspects of practical usage, such as pronounciation, whereas Czech participants are more concerned with other attributes including historical and economic reasons but also special problems of understanding the meaning of Česko / Czechia in relation to the names of the "historical lands".

Czech politicians seldom participate in the discussion. They do so only on demand and possibly on official request, otherwise they commonly ignore it. They are permanently unwilling to make an official decision, partly because they are accustomed to use solely the political name, partly for fear of promoting some separatist tendencies in the state. The problem of the name appears in Czech media only sporadically and without any substantial general impact.The results of the ambivalent attitude of Czech institutions is documented by the appellation of the country in a contemporary "Index of countries" of the Czech Statistical Office from 2012, where - besides the political name "the Czech Republic," - the short-form name is grotesquely given as "Czech republic (the)"[9]......

Throughout history, the status of many states change over time, including long-term loss of independence of the country. This seems to be one of the substantial reasons for the problem with the standardization of the Czech short name of the country, which was transported to English language in the circumvention of appellation by Czechs. The result of this confusion in English speakers (not only native), includes, among others, obvious tendencies to call Czech state throughout the history "the Czech republic", which is the blunder (including Wikipedia), because the republican system in the state did not exist until 1918. Probably the most obvious nonsense in Wikipedia can be found in the category "Centuries in the Czech Republic"[10].

Arguments

In the current dispute, the common reasons for or against using Czechia remain the same for years, despite concrete practical issues and inconsistancy with actual facts which have been continuously brought up. The ongoing inability to find a resolution despite its being constantly discussed has its origin and history in the English name itself: its linguistic form, pronunciation, meaning and various particular problems, the overwhelming majority of which arouse due to diverse explanations of the two names (both Czechia and Česko) in various parts of the Czech lands.

Comparative list of opinions, myths and statements

Other names

In some discussions, the expressions “Czechland”[25] or “Czechlands,”[26] were mentioned as possible candidates to the country´s short name but this form has never been officially discussed. It is barely used, sometimes it occurs as the collocation "Czech lands." The usage of the adjectival form “Czech” is relatively frequent in the general public, but it has never been officially accepted and it was completely rejected by specialists, regardless of their opinion on using Czechia. The reasons consist predominantly in grammatical incorrectness and impractical usage: it is a linguistic error where the nationality and adjective are interchanged with the name of the country, which is a rare case, if not non-existent case in English. The argument is documented usually in examples of a sentences like e.g. :”The usage of the word in Czech is not common,” from which it is not clear if the term refers to the language or country and subsequently, it all has to be explained by another sentence, or an example from some tourist guide “Beauties of Czech,” which evokes a connotation with the same characteristics of some person or language.

Vladimír Hirsch (2013)

#Czechia

References

1 Pavlínek P., Ženka J.: The 2008–2009 automotive industry crisis and regional unemployment in Central Europe (Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy & Society) 

2 Czechia, Czech lands or the Czech Republic (Interview with linguist Jiří Felix, opinion poll and discussion) - in Czech 

3 Krejčí P.: The Study on the problem of diferentiation of the terms Čechy and Česko in the Slavonic languages. 

4 The New York Times, March 16, 1939: Bohemia and Moravia likely to retain names 

5 Soviet Note to Germany, The New York Times, March 20, 1939 

6 Jeleček, L.: Czechia. In: Encyclopedia of World Environmental History. Eds. S. Krech III, J. R. McNeill, C. Merchant, Vol.I., A Berkshire Reference Works, Routledge, New York &, London, pp. 279–280

7 Recommendation of Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (1999)

8 Statement of British Embassy in Prague 

9 Czech Statistical Office: Index of countries 2012 (Číselník zemí ČSÚ - CZEM)

10 Wikipedia : Centuries in the Czech Republic 

11 Recommendation of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1998) 

12 The Mercury, July 21, 1866: Latest from Prussia 

13 Horová E.: “Where are you from?“ - “I am from Czechia. 

14 Hubálek Z.: Czechia, nebo Czechland(s)? 

15 Horová E.: Record of Proceedings of the 7th Public Hearing of the Senate, May 11, 2004 (in Czech)

16 Hirsch V.: Czechia - is this name really so big problem for English speakers ?

17 Mathesius V.: The Czech and general linguistics, 1947, s.159: In this connection, Czech supporters of the name "Czechia" usually cite linguist Vilém Mathesius: "A confusing wealth of facts is necessary to simplify to obtain such a system of knowledge, which is clear in itself and with which can be further to work“

18 The example of an error: "Czech may refer to anything from or related to the Czech Republic" 

19 Jeleček, Leoš (2009). Geografické rozhledy. 19 1 (Jméno Česko/Czechia po šestnácti letech): 19-21.: citation: "The question should not be WHETHER to use Czechia OR the Czech Republic - both are equally right - but we only need to distinguish WHEN and WHERE to use the first and (when and where) the second one"

20 Rechcigl.M: Usage of the Term "Czechia" or NNDB Rewrites the History 

21 Foreign Policy: Czech ambassador clarifies that Czech Republic is not Chechnya 

22 Krejčí P.: Don't be afraid of Czechia, it needs your help! (2008)

23 Munzar J., Drápela M.V.: Czechia = Bohemia + Moravia + Silesia (Moravian Geographical Report. Brno: Ústav Geoniky, 1999. s. 58-61. Moravian Geographical Report, sv. 7, č. 2.)

24 CZECHIA - the name of the Czech Republic / History [

25 Hubálek Z.: West Nile fever in Czechland 

26 Jeleček L.: On the geographic name of the Czech Republic