Say No to #Safaricom’s Interference with Local Names

The recent suggestion by Safaricom to change the name of a local school has raised important questions about corporate influence on local identities and traditions. At its core, this move highlights a complex tension between brand image and community heritage. Why would a company like Safaricom, which enjoys a robust market presence, feel the need to involve itself in the naming of a local school? From a layperson's perspective, this question is both puzzling and concerning.

Across the world, many places are known for their resistance to name changes, preserving the original names of places and people as part of their cultural heritage. This tradition is not just about holding onto the past, but about respecting the history and meaning that these names carry. For example, in the United States, military helicopters are often named after Native American tribes, a practice that maintains a connection to the country’s heritage and acknowledges the deep cultural significance of those names. Such naming conventions reflect a broader trend of valuing historical and cultural identity.

In contrast, Safaricom’s suggestion to change a name might be rooted in the fear that an unfamiliar or "difficult" name could reflect poorly on the company's image or make their support seem less relatable. However, should this be a reason to alter names that have been cherished by communities for generations? The suggestion to change a name like Ochot Odon'g in a place like Homa Bay could ignore the cultural and historical significance that such a name holds for the local community, despite its complex pronunciation for outsiders. A name carries the identity, history, and essence of a place, and altering it for convenience strips away part of that identity. Would Safaricom then prefer names like Ludhe Dongo, simply because they are easier to pronounce or more marketable? Such a suggestion would be a clear case of undermining the deep connection people have with their localities.

Moreover, the potential loss of a project or sponsorship due to sentiments over a name suggests a more concerning reality—one where economic considerations overrule cultural respect. Are we saying that a community must change a name, perhaps one with hundreds of years of history, simply because a corporation does not find it suitable? If this is the case, we are treading into dangerous territory where corporations dictate not only economic but also cultural aspects of local life.

From an anthropological perspective, such actions can be seen as pseudo-ethnocentrism. It implies a superficial attempt to understand and integrate into a community while fundamentally disregarding its core values and traditions. By advocating for name changes, Safaricom risks being perceived as imposing its cultural comfort zone on communities rather than truly embracing the diverse heritage that makes each place unique.

Let us say no to Safaricom's suggestion to change names and to any other corporate attempt to alter the essence of our communities. Supporting a school, region, or project should not come with conditions that undermine the cultural identity of the people it seeks to help. True corporate responsibility involves respecting local heritage, even when it challenges comfort zones. Names, no matter how complex or unfamiliar, carry stories, history, and pride. They should be preserved, not altered for convenience. Safaricom, as a brand that has thrived by being a part of Kenya’s communities, should recognize this and uphold the values of respect and inclusivity in its support—much like how other places around the world honor their history through the names they keep.