General Discussion

Igel

(37,516 posts)

14. Most of the regions are historical names, Indian names, or geographical names.

Wed Jun 25, 2014, 02:06 PM

Jun 2014

The Bitterroots are a large mountain range in Idaho. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitterroot_Range.

Mohawks were a dominant tribe in that area and have a river named after them. "Algonquian" would have been clumsy, and the confederacy spread further than "Mohawk."

Most names are arbitrary. This is one man's arbitrariness. No worse than a state named after a French king ("Louisiana&quot or a Catholic holiday (Florida)--pascua florida.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Map With Only 38 States [View all] onehandle Jun 2014 OP

Ok - i get that they are named after geographical features - but Bitterroot? Superior? el_bryanto Jun 2014 #1

Most of the regions are historical names, Indian names, or geographical names. Igel Jun 2014 #14

"Superior" is the favored name for Michigan Upper Peninsula secessionists caraher Jun 2014 #20

Mohawk, really just one of the five nations! whistler162 Jun 2014 #35

Personally I think Biscayne stinks as a name csziggy Jun 2014 #37

Much simpler idea... DAMANgoldberg Jun 2014 #39

That map doesn't make a lot of sense pscot Jun 2014 #2

Not sure the current one makes sense either CreekDog Jun 2014 #29

Folding Wyoming, Idaho and Montana pscot Jun 2014 #31

*pats Dr Pearcy on head* Um, ok, no, but thanks for playing NightWatcher Jun 2014 #3

Why this would never fly with Washington Takket Jun 2014 #4

The names are going to frost those "english only" people. uppityperson Jun 2014 #5

Also... he has 3 territories that border Lake Erie, but the Erie territory does not. *facepalm* Takket Jun 2014 #6

That state would be known as "Buckeye Nation" anyway. So it doesn't matter. (nt) Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2014 #25

K & R for an interesting idea Coventina Jun 2014 #7

Sounds like the poor sections of states would just get more poor Boom Sound 416 Jun 2014 #8

Exactly right. djean111 Jun 2014 #27

al franken would have to relearn how to draw the country! unblock Jun 2014 #9

Suck it up, Al! nt onehandle Jun 2014 #15

It is an interesting concept sarisataka Jun 2014 #10

Alaska is definitely a mess in this scheme caraher Jun 2014 #21

This is what comes from an academic. Jenoch Jun 2014 #11

right. more to the point, states *exists* for historical reasons. unblock Jun 2014 #18

I would not be in favor of 'federal legislative districts' Jenoch Jun 2014 #23

the idea of federal districts is that it would allow for regional differences unblock Jun 2014 #24

Well, it was a high cost, Jenoch Jun 2014 #34

it doesn't seem to reduce the number of large cities within states at all muriel_volestrangler Jun 2014 #12

i think the point was to reduce problems like chicago, which spills into indiana unblock Jun 2014 #16

I am totally into this. The_Commonist Jun 2014 #13

That was pre-Reagan. Taxes are now too local. ieoeja Jun 2014 #17

Reccing because I like weird maps A Little Weird Jun 2014 #19

This makes too much sense tabasco Jun 2014 #22

Why would you rename Hawaii? Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2014 #26

Good question. And, as long as we're radically reconstructing the country, why not liberate them? Coventina Jun 2014 #38

Put this on the shelf for another 50ys until the climate change effects are better understood. CK_John Jun 2014 #28

Not a bad idea, but I dont like his selection of colors. Just sayin. nm rhett o rick Jun 2014 #30

I guess I don't see the point or advantage fishwax Jun 2014 #32

The population of various parts of the country has shifted since 1973. surrealAmerican Jun 2014 #33

I can't imagine that getting many votes in The Senate. Motown_Johnny Jun 2014 #36

Actually we should double everywhere RobertEarl Jun 2014 #40

Four Senators from North and South Dakota is ludicrous. Split California into 10 States, with 20 Fred Sanders Jun 2014 #41