How toponymic erasure becomes a strategy of cultural domination
For many unrepresented nations and peoples, place names are more than geographical labels, they are expressions of cultural identity, historical continuity, and collective memory. They are often deeply connected to the land in which they reside, and hold spiritual meanings that can date back centuries or longer. The deliberate replacement or suppression of place names by state authorities is not a neutral act; it is a political strategy aimed at weakening the connection between peoples and their lands. Globally, members of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation (UNPO) continue to face such symbolic erasure.
A recent example is the Chinese government’s increased use of the term “Xizang” in place of the internationally recognised name “Tibet”. While framed as a linguistic or administrative update, this shift is deeply political (1). The Tibet Autonomous Region carries with it centuries of cultural, religious, and political significance, including demands for autonomy and the preservation of a distinct Tibetan identity. Replacing the name with “Xizang” is an example of the Chinese Communist Party attempting to reframe the region’s narrative and assert full state control, not only territorially but also ideologically. Attempts to change this narrative have reached international levels, with six short films of Chinese origin listed at Kathmandu Film Festival in Nepal incorrectly naming the Tibetan Autonomous Region as “Xizang” (2). This has sparked calls for rescinding the films from the festival, with international critique on Nepal for supporting Chinese propaganda on an international level.
Crucially, self-determination and the ability to control cultural and territorial narratives are also deeply tied to social development, affecting access to education, political participation, and equitable resource distribution. Without the recognition of an identity or a place of belonging for many peoples, broader development goals remain out of reach.
This principle aligns directly with the UNPO’s Universal Declaration of the Rights of Peoples, adopted in Tallinn in 2001, which affirms that:
“All peoples have the right to self-determination…and freely determine their economic, social, and cultural development.” (3)
Similar issues of cultural repression are evident among other UNPO members:
In Kabylia, the Algerian government has systematically Arabised place names, sidelining the Amazigh language and denying recognition to Kabyle cultural heritage. The Algerian government continues a campaign of Arabisation that extends to public signage, road names, schools, and administrative designations. Pressure on Kabyle-language media and education efforts illustrates how linguistic repression accompanies toponymic erasure (toponym referring to the term of a place name). As UNPO has reported, Algeria’s policies not only suppress Tamazight naming, but also obstruct Kabyle self-identification through legal and economic pressure. (4)
In Iran, Kurdish, Ahwazi Arab, and Baloch communities face the Persianisation of local names, with villages and towns often replaced with Persianised versions, erased from official maps, textbooks, and municipal signs. In Khuzestan for instance, several Ahwazi Arab-majority villages acquired new Farsi names aligned with the national narrative, a pattern repeated in Kurdish and Baloch regions, where traditional toponyms are systematically replaced, leaving their cultural landmarks increasingly invisible.
In the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh, Indigenous Jumma peoples have long contested the renaming of villages and administrative areas in Bengali. These name changes coincide with violent demographic transformation, including armed confiscation of land and the settlement of Bengali farmers, eroding Indigenous and local governance systems. 2024’s surge in ethnic violence around Khagrachari and Rangamati, which saw Jumma villages attacked and hundreds displaced, underscores how geographical renaming can be embedded within broader strategies of cultural and territorial marginalisation. (5)
Since Russia’s 2014 annexation, Crimean Tatar place names have been replaced with Russian or Soviet-era names, a continuation of policies dating back to 1944 deportation. In contrast, Ukraine has recently enacted legislation to restore original Tatar names. A high-profile initiative by the Crimean Tatar Resource Centre, backed by Ukrainian laws condemning Russian imperialism, aims to return over 70 place names across the peninsula. (6)
These examples illustrate a common pattern; states use toponymic policies to assert control, construct dominant narratives, and displace alternative histories. The impact of such measures is far-reaching, when communities are denied the right to name their own places in their own languages, they lose more than cultural or linguistic recognition, they face the gradual erasure of their cultural identity and historical presence in a region. UNPO has consistently emphasised that the right to preserve and use traditional place names as a vital aspect of self-determination and cultural rights. Place names are not only markers of land, but also of belonging. They reflect traditional knowledge systems, sacred geographies, and intergenerational connections to a territory. Their preservation is therefore essential to the survival of distinct identities.
In this context, international institutions and governments must recognise toponymic erasure as a form of cultural repression. Protecting the rights of unrepresented peoples includes safeguarding their ability to name, and remain named, in their own terms. Critically, such erasure is rarely an isolated act. It is often part of a wider strategy to undermine the autonomy and self-determination of marginalised communities, reshaping not only the physical landscape but also historical and political community identities. By stripping communities of the right to define their own lands, states seek to erase land claims, history, and governance. The importance of reclaiming place names, therefore, is not merely symbolic, it is a form of resistance, a means of asserting identity, reviving suppressed histories, and a step towards greater self-determination. For UNPO members and other unrepresented peoples, the act of naming remains a powerful expression of sovereignty, resilience, and hope for the future of a people. Crucially, self-determination and the ability to control cultural and territorial narratives are also deeply tied to social development, affecting access to education, political participation, and equitable resource distribution. Without the recognition of an identity or a place of belonging for many peoples, broader development goals remain out of reach.
1- https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/online-exclusive/beijing-wants-to-erase-tibets-name-dont-let-them/#author2
2- https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/chandigarh-news/tibet-groups-call-on-nepalese-film-festival-to-cancel-xizang-panorama-101748461969380.html
3- https://unpo.org/universal-declaration-of-the-rights-of-peoples/
4- https://unpo.org/kabylia-mep-questions-treatment-of-the-kabyle-people/
5- https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/renewed-violence-chittagong-hill-tracts-bengali-settlers-target-indigenous-jumma-communities?utm_source
6- https://ctrcenter.org/en/the-crimean-tatar-resource-center-continues-the-campaign-lets-return-the-names-lets-return-crimea?