4 ms·
To be fair though, that horse bolted a couple of centuries ago. What other name would you call it by? There's another "united states" on the same continent. The
by triceratops 7mo ago
To be fair though, that horse bolted a couple of centuries ago. What other name would you call it by? There's another "united states" on the same continent. The country to the immediate south is formally known as the "United Mexican States".
- Brian_K_White 7mo agoBut the whole hemisphere is not "Mexico". USA and Canada are not also "North Mexico". Their harmless little reminder is more correct than any of the attempted arguments against it.
- triceratops 7mo agoIt was the first group of united states on the continent. North America was, relative to the land that became Mexico, thinly peopled. Unlike in Mexico there was no pre-colonial, indigenous empire that had ruled and named the land which eventually became the 13 colonies. So there wasn't necessarily a better alternative to put after "United States of" at the time. Do you know of one?
- nobody9999 7mo ago>Unlike in Mexico there was no pre-colonial, indigenous empire that had ruled and named the land which eventually became the 13 colonies. Actually, there were multiple indigenous political entities both along the Eastern Seaboard (where we find those 13 colonies) as well as across what is now the US and Canada[0]. We just took their land and killed most of them, but they were still pretty organized -- with political groupings of various types. [0] https://scholar.flatworldknowledge.com/books/32177/ourhistory_vol1-32698-20190228-133137-189989/preview https://scholar.flatworldknowledge.com/books/32177/ourhistor...
- triceratops 7mo agoWhere's the Tenochtitlan of the 13 colonies? Of course colonists committed genocide against indigenous people everywhere they went. No one's denying that. I'm addressing precisely what you yourself said > there were multiple indigenous political entities both along the Eastern Seaboard They were fragmented and smaller than the Aztec empire. That doesn't make it right to take their land. It does explain why their names didn't apply to the entire land. Because none of them was so big and centralized. If you look at the geographical features of the Eastern seaboard - mountains, lakes, streams, rivers, cities and towns, even 2 states (Massachusetts, Connecticut) - native names abound. The lands that became the US and Canada really did have fewer people living on them than the lands that became Mexico. [1] Again because Mexico had centralized states and large-scale agriculture capable of supporting large populations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indi...
- nobody9999 7mo ago>They were fragmented and smaller than the Aztec empire. So what? Portugal was smaller than the Aztec Empire too. As was the Netherlands. And England. Should we pooh pooh them as unimportant as well? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salish_peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salish_peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestral_Puebloans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestral_Puebloans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algonquian_peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algonquian_peoples And many others. Just because they had brown skin and often didn't engage in wholesale slaughter doesn't make them unimportant -- or not political entities.
- triceratops 7mo agoYou're putting words in my mouth. I don't see the point in continuing this conversation.
- 7mo ago
- ciupicri 7mo agoIf I'm not mistaking the name "United States of Mexico" appeared in 1824, whereas "United States of America" appeared earlier in 1787.
- gib444 7mo agoHow about its real name, the USA? Crazy idea I know