I would sincerely suggest that areas that were not occupied by any Great Power in history should get their current name.
So if anybody founds a colony in lets say Africa then it should get the current name.
Btw. some city spots in India should get English (or Portugese and French) names not because the English settled them first , but because the English encouraged cities in these spots.
Bombay and Calcutta come to mind.
Certainly Bombay (Mumbai) was inhabited by Indians before the British, but it was nothing but a bunch of fishermen villages. Moreover it was marshland.
Only under British rule the city developed. The swamps got filled up and out of seven small island the core of Bombay got created by land gaining.
In this sense you can say that the English, but not the Indians founded Bombay. And this is just one example.
(don't forget before the British arrived India had fallen back into stone age,thanks to numerous conquests and raids undertaken by the various neighbours to the west (Arabs, Persians and Afghans). Not to mention the neverending wars between the local lords among themselves. Only with the Pax Brittanica India started to redevelop. If you so want most of the cities in India were razed, India collapsed and improvements were gone )
Hence it makes sense to have European names in India as the English, Portugese and French started efforts to build cities again .
