> I am not arguing for any side, but I do acknowledge that the Amazonian community's right to the name rests on a very good argument. I'm also not arguing for

> I am not arguing for any side, but I do acknowledge that the Amazonian community's right to the name rests on a very good argument. I'm also not arguing for any side, but I don't think your "bond" argument is particularly convincing. Namely, it strikes me as too vague in the general case and thus too hard to adjucate. The things you use to nail it down (tribe, home, history) are specific to this case, but don't generalize well. Even if you were able to address those problems, it doesn't compell me to think that these people deserve the English name for the geography in question (perhaps especially if those people don't really identify with the geography in question, but rather as nations who happen to live in that geography?). In any case, it's a puzzling and interesting question.