Ah, interesting: a couple of web sites say that Shropshire was originally intended to be renamed Canberra, but as the US Navy had already decided to name a ship after the Canberra, they decided to keep the name Shropshire! I guess to avoid possible confusion then?

Simpler than that – it’s just very, very unlucky to rename a ship. That’s how the British ended up with a ship called “Temeraire” – captured from the French – and the French with the “Swiftsure” – vice versa.

HMAS Canberra actually ended up being sunk by the US navy – not accidentally, but after being irreparably damaged. That was probably a bit politically embarrassing, and naming a ‘Baltimore’ after Canberra would have helped mend fences.

Meanwhile, on the other subtopic: In my own view it would be good for Australia to be included in various “Asian” networks and organizations, for many of the reasons others have already expressed. But it’s not my call. It’s not for us (non-Asians) to say who is Asian, whether based on the width of various bodies of water, the languages spoken, or the patterns of trade, any more than I, a non-Catholic, should decide who is a member of the Catholic church based on my understanding of their doctrine. It’s not unreasonable for them to have their own rules and their own interpretations thereof, however wrongheaded they may at times appear to us.

On a third hand, of course, Australian exports to Guangzhou are likely to go round the side of the Phillipines rather than over New Guinea by land …

I’m only speaking for myself here, I’m sure that 99% of Australians have never heard of HMAS Canberra or Savo Island; if they’ve heard of any Australian warship in WWII it would be the Sydney, which crops up in the news from time to time. I mentioned that the USN had named a ship after the HMAS Canberra during a seminar class on WWII in the Pacific a couple of years ago, and none of the other students (nor indeed the American lecturer) knew this.

I’ve known that Canberra is the capital of Australia since I was four years old (and Harry Truman was president then).

If it isn’t out anyone’s span of interest, I would be curious from the Australians that frequent this weblog to know if they (or their grandfathers) were offended that (a) the USN named a replacment ship for the HMAS Canberra that was sunk at Savo Island, (b) some rather poor recon work and communications had to do with the Canberra being sunk, and© the replacement treaty cruiser that Australia got from the British kept its name as “HMAS Shropshire.”

I remember seeing the Canberra docked in San Francisco when SF was still a big navy town. Still, the most beautiful warship I ever saw was the New Zealand cruiser Black Prince (another retained name, I’m sure) the year before it was scrapped.

Assuming this is a legitimate question, not a rhetorical device, the answer is fairly simple, if not entirely happy. “Regions” are defined by their constituent parts along whatever lines they feel like. Turkey may or may not be part of Europe, depending on what the EU thinks, and at least part of their thinking is racial/cultural. Similarly, Australia may or may not be part of Asia, and is primarily opposed by those thinking in racial/cultural terms. This viewpoint – associated most prominently by Malaysia’s former PM, Muhammad Mahathir – is, in my opinion, an unfortunate one, but there’s nothing particularly illogical, much less illegitimate, about it.

After all, if Australia is part of Asia, then what’s to stop Asia there? Why not New Zealand? Fiji? Tahiti? Chile? (Once you’ve dabbled in the field of “Pacific Rim” studies, your mind gets easily twisted this way.)