Depends what the implications behind the name change are. The name Van Diemens was scrapped because of the penal and other negative connotations felt by the locals to the 'rulers' so the change of name also signified a change in attitudes to the present as well as the past, which shows that, they may refer to the same piece of rock, but they are different places to live and the history is rewritten in a way that reflects that.
What part of the history of that island was re-written? When the name was changed to Tasmania the previous history including the name Van Diemen's Land remained. I'm sure if you ask one of the islanders today they would be happy to tell you the previous name. If in ten years we are called Hull Tigers and someone asks about the club, they will be told our existing history including when the name was changed. You can argue about a pedantic point, but most supporters will always know the club is about a hell of a lot more than a name.
They'll tell you the name, but as history tends to be written by the victors, are at least those in power, it'll have changed from the benefits of colonialism to the respect for indigenous cultures. It's not a pedantic point at all, it's quite a key element in various aspects of history. The name is more than the letters, it can also symbolise the mind set of the people, politics and culture.
History be rewritten if someone decides to rewrite it and nobody objects, then time passes and memory is the written record - so if the written record is a lie, the figment of some manipulative and devious persons imagination, then yes, history can be rewritten. Now who do we know who lies, brow beats, manipulates and deceives; someone who buys off e fools with PL football? Answers on the back of an postcard to the pro-name change campaign headquarters.
And how do you know enough about the history of that island to make your comparison? Clearly the Van Diemen's Land history has survived which contradicts you. Whatever the island has become while being named Tasmania includes it's previous history. The idea that history ends with a name change is false.
Clearly it isn't false as history itself shows. The name symbolises so much more than you seem to want to claim. But in any event, there can be no further Hull City history without a Hull City to make it.
If the name is changed. I will still regard it as the same club with the same history. The vast majority of our supporters will think the same. The Press and Media will think the same. The football historians will think the same. People who argue the point that our history ended when the name was changed will be seen as amusing eccentrics.
Probably not, but do you think there would be any member of this forum at Wembley on that day who wouldn't celebrate? Why? Because whatever the name the supporters know it's the same club they've always supported.
Your right Craig, history won't end if Assem Allam changes the name to Hull Tigers, just has Wimbledon's history didn't change when they became MK Dons and moved to Milton Keynes. All that changed was who could claim that history. Winkleman gave up the claim to Wimbledon's history and claimed that AFC Wimbledon had no claim to the history either. The simple fact is that Hull City will end. It will be known as Hull Tigers FC. What will also end is the identification of some Hull City supporters with Hull City Tigers Limited and its football club Hull Tigers FC.
I imagine some, like me, wouldnt go to watch them. I support Hull City, not Hull Tigers and seeing them win would have the same impact as seeing a Brentford win.
To use the same comparison our club would have to be re-located miles away from our fan-base as theirs was. There are no plans for that and if there was I would be completely against it. Let's discuss one possibility at a time eh? It saves confusion.
The history books will show that the club formerly named Hull City AFC won the FA Cup under the new name Hull Tigers.
It won't, it'll show Hull Tiger's the same as would be etched on the trophy, as that's the name. You ca't have both, it's not on offer. But even in your scenario, you're acknowledging that the history of Hull City AFC would end with the name change, it can't not. It may well be that some still talk of 'City' but there's possibly some still talk of Van Diemens land and how life was different under the old regime.
