I agree with you but maybe because India tries to claim Buddha was born in India and Nepali Nationalist want to enlighten the fact among foreigners. About Mt. Everest thing, I once saw a post in Sajha. These mountains are nothing to be proud of. Mountains have always been the hindrance to our development. If mountains covered in snow were something to be proud of, Alfred Nobel would never have made dynamites.

Still today In Nepali society, we ask,

Tero Bau Ko Naam Ke ho? ( What's your father's name? )..Once you tell them your father's name, then they figure out your background in society.  Ramji Ko chora, Ganeshji ko Chora, Vishnu-ji ko Chora

So when people ask you, do you take your mother's name or father's name?

Mostly, people say father's name,  if so, then, that means you are giving less priority to your mother.  Think.!!

 @Sexy in Sari: i am wondering why you thought from a boy's persepective rather than a girl's perspective.
Ramji Ko chora, Ganeshji ko Chora, Vishnu-ji ko Chora which in your case should have been Ramji Ko Chori, Ganeshji ko chori, Vishnu-ji ko chori..................... if so, then, that means you are giving less priority to your mother and feminism.  ReThink.!!

 Mancini has a point. I concur!!

 This thread made me think, on a different dimension actually. I am a Hindu and I say that with pride. But do we have a solid chronology from history that establishes that Sita was born in blood and flesh? Ram ,sita, Ramayan are characters in scriptures. it is a religious story passed down, since I think, thousands of years. To the best of my knowledge, these anecdotes while have utmost respect, in reality, is a myth. there is no concrete number or proof that Ram & Sita existed in human capacity unlike Buddha. Now, I am saying that without belittling or deemphasizing the significance of Ram, Sita & Hinduism in our religious lives. But Buddha was a human being just like us who went on to become God-like and this we know from recorded history. This is probably the reason why the identity of nepal is synonymous with real and existing persons/objects and not with some thing that is based on myth or faith. The issues of sexism/gender should not be a consideration in this debate.

Buddha himself was never a buddhist. It's his followers who are Buddhists. He's an enlightened being meaning he doesn't belong to any group or people. He belongs to every one seeking spiritual awakening. He belongs to even those who's not seeking spiritual awakening. You see his statues/pictures cross-legged eye closed and you call 'bhagwaan Buddha'. But with different perception if we look at the same thing, he's asking you to do the same, have we ever tried that at all? Sit, close your eye and stay like that as long as you wish to. That's all his message. It's finding yourself, knowing yourself, finding peace and sending message to others the same way. Any westerner can be a Buddhist, any middle eastern can be a Buddhist, in face regardless of race or religion, we all can be a Buddhist, all these rituals that came with the religion are man-made and we sometimes, relate ourselves only to specific group and religion. Anyone, who truly follows his principles, knows that he is in fact a spiritual being who showed us our potential to find ourselves. We all have eyes, but we are blind inwardly. 

When Buddha was born, there was no Nepal, there was no India. Time and time again, I've been writing same things to questions like these but the way people think, it's so bland, temporal and lacking or they're just pretending. 

Why does it even matter where they're from, they were on the Earth(and yes there is moon, mars out there lol ). In 1000 years prolly there may not be many countries known today? Forget about it, stop satiating your stupid temporary quest for needless recognition. 

Nepal is a land of Rekha Thapa.