Southern Cameroons–Ambazonia: History, Identity, and the Politics of Naming: Why Dual or Evolving National Names Reflect Historical Reality Rather Than Division

Around the world, history shows that identities subjected to suppression often re-emerge stronger. Names survive because people refuse to forget them. And in this case, the direction of movement is unmistakable. Southern Cameroons–Ambazonia is not confusion. It is continuity.

By Ali Dan Ismael
Editor in Chief, The Independentistnews, London Bureau

In political struggles, battles are often fought long before weapons appear. They are fought in language, in memory, and in identity. Names become frontlines. Erase a people’s name, and you weaken their claim to history. Preserve it, and you preserve their existence.

This is why the designation Southern Cameroons–Ambazonia is not confusion, contradiction, or division. It is clarity born from history and necessity.

Yet some observers continue to claim that using both names signals internal disagreement or political uncertainty. Such claims collapse under even basic historical scrutiny.

Across the world, countries and peoples have long carried multiple names or evolving national identities without confusion. Britain is also called the United Kingdom or Great Britain. The Netherlands is often referred to as Holland. Deutschland is known internationally as Germany. Burma became Myanmar. Swaziland transitioned to Eswatini. None of these naming realities fractured national identity or created diplomatic chaos.

Why then should Southern Cameroons–Ambazonia be treated differently? The answer lies in politics, not language. Southern Cameroons is the historically and legally recognized name of the territory administered under British rule and later involved in the disputed post-colonial arrangements of 1961. The name appears in United Nations records, colonial administrative documents, and international legal discussions. It anchors the terr⁹1itory within recognized historical frameworks.

Ambazonia, meanwhile, represents the political reassertion of identity—a declaration that the people of this territory are not merely a geographic appendage of another state, but a people with their own historical continuity and aspirations.

The name Ambazonia, sometimes historically referenced as Ambaland, is itself rooted in geography and history. It derives from Ambas Bay, the natural harbor along the Atlantic coast that historically served as one of the principal maritime gateways into the Gulf of Guinea. For centuries, Ambas Bay functioned as an entry point for trade, missionary activity, and early administrative contact with the hinterland. The coastal settlements around the bay became strategic connectors between inland communities and the wider Atlantic world.

Thus, the term Ambazonia is not an invented slogan but one grounded in historical geography. It reflects a territorial identity linked to a real and historically significant gateway through which commerce, culture, and international engagement flowed. In adopting the name, political leaders sought a designation distinct from colonial administrative constructs while still anchored in the region’s historical landscape.

By contrast, the broader colonial designation Cameroon itself traces its origin to the Portuguese expression Rio dos Camarões, meaning “River of Shrimps,” a name reportedly given by early Portuguese explorers after encountering large quantities of shrimp in coastal waters. Over time, this colonial label evolved into Kamerun under German administration and later into the modern state names used today.

But like many colonial-era names, it reflected European encounters rather than indigenous political identity. Across Africa and the wider world, nations have since replaced colonial labels with names reflecting their own histories and aspirations. Upper Volta became Burkina Faso. Dahomey became Benin. The Gold Coast became Ghana. These changes did not erase history; they restored dignity and ownership of identity.

In that same historical logic, many argue that a colonial descriptor rooted in European maritime observations carries limited legitimacy in defining modern identities and political realities within today’s Ambazonian context.

The combined expression Southern Cameroons–Ambazonia therefore serves a dual protective function. It preserves the internationally recognized historical identity while affirming contemporary national self-definition. This dual naming did not arise by accident. It arose from experience.

Over decades, deliberate administrative and political strategies attempted to erase the political memory of Southern Cameroons. The dissolution of West Cameroon’s federated status and its replacement with provinces controlled from Yaoundé marked a turning point. Even provincial names were redesigned in ways that diluted or replaced earlier political identities.

The objective was simple: eliminate the name, and eventually the claim disappears with it. But identity is not so easily erased. The necessity of maintaining the Southern Cameroons designation became even clearer when official rhetoric began conflating the territory with generic “southern regions,” deliberately blurring historical distinctions. Without clarity in naming, international observers could easily mistake colonial-era Southern Cameroons for administrative regions within another state.

The adoption of the dual expression therefore became an act of historical preservation. Far from being naive, the leaders and people who insist on this distinction understand that political struggles are also struggles over narrative control. Nations that fail to defend their story often watch others rewrite it for them.

And today, despite years of pressure and attempts at assimilation, the opposite of erasure is happening. Cultural consciousness is deepening. Diaspora engagement is growing. Younger generations are rediscovering suppressed histories and reclaiming political memory. The debate over naming is therefore not semantic. It is existential.

Those who prefer to adopt narratives that dissolve this identity into broader political constructs are free to hold their views. But historical facts remain unchanged: Southern Cameroons existed, its identity persists, and Ambazonia expresses the modern political will of a people seeking recognition of that identity.

Around the world, history shows that identities subjected to suppression often re-emerge stronger. Names survive because people refuse to forget them. And in this case, the direction of movement is unmistakable. Southern Cameroons–Ambazonia is not confusion. It is continuity.

And whether critics accept it or not, the journey of identity restoration is already underway. The train has left the station—and history is moving with it.

Ali Dan Ismael
Editor in Chief, The Independentistnews