THE CHECHNYA FALLACY

The "Chechnya fallacy" emerged for the first time in 2000 in connection with EXPO 2000 in Hannover. I do not remember all the details, but the point was that the letter "h" in the word Czechia which occurred somewhere (maybe in the map of the exhibition premises) was changed into "n" – either through a typing error (in a printed text) or by physical breaking off (in three-dimensional letters) and the word could be read as Czecnia. A journalist blew up this triviality to mean that the Germans mistake us for Čečna (as it is spelled in Czech language). In the medial turmoil which followed, nobody took notice of the fact that the name is quite different in English (Chechnya) and that the discussed region is not an independent state and cannot have its own exhibition hall at EXPO. A "problem" emerged and a new pseudo-argument against Czechia was born. But it is a mere fallacy for several reasons:
1. Names of states are anchored in history; in most cases – including ours – they come from the name of the majority nation who founded the state, who wanted it and worked on its formation (it is not essential whether its territory is also inhabited by members of other nations and ethnic groups). In our own language the attribute for the nation is český (Czech in English), the inhabitant is a Čech/Czech, we are Češi/Czechs, and so we can only form a český/Czech state, that is, Česko/Czechia.1 The root čech- (pronounced [t∫ek] in English) must logically, in various types of spelling, occur in other languages, and it really does (see Item 2). There is no other possibility. The fact that there are nations in the world whose names can sound similar, and accordingly also states whose names can – to somebody – sound similar, is only a secondary consideration. We have no choice but to teach ourselves not to confuse Austria with Australia, Thailand with Taiwan, Serbia with Siberia, Georgia (USA) with Georgia (a state in Transcaucasia), two Congos, two Koreas, three African Guineas (plus Papua-New Guinea), Iran with Irak (and Ireland), Prussia with Russia, Niger with Nigeria, Antigua with Anguilla, Gambia with Zambia, Zambia with Zimbabwe, Mali with Malawi, Columbia with British Columbia (Canada) and the US District of Columbia, Slovakia with Slovenia and Slavonia (a region in Croatia), Latvia with Lithuania, Libya with Liberia, various "Saints" – Saint Kitts, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, Saint Pierre..., all the Central Asian "-stans", and God knows what else could anybody confuse. However, none of these countries applies the "directions for use" conceived by our propagators of the Chechnya fallacy! It would be an unprecedented sign of weakness, uncertainty and, above all, political immaturity, which could even raise doubts about such a country´s right to its own independent existence.
2. True, somebody may confuse Chechnya with Czechia, but this rather demonstrates the person´s complete ignorance of geography than the "impropriety" of the name Czechia. If we took the Chechnya fallacy very seriously, it would, in the end, necessitate changing our nation´s name.
3. An argument in the style of the Chechnya fallacy could never occur to any clear-headed person as it is absolutely erroneous and, in fact, unique. It actually says the following: if nation A finds out that a few individuals – foreigners – confused the state of nation A with another geographical formation B (not necessarily an independent state), nation A should change the name of its own state or choose another solution which will finally be less convenient. In my opinion such a passive and even dangerous method of thinking is really absurd.