Yael wrote:
> >Is the supposed arrogance in the founding fathers deciding that > >"America" would be part of the country's name? Well, why not? Other > >countries could have done the same, yes? I think it's because that was what it was commonly called way back in the old days. > i just spent a few minutes searching, and i can't find the source and the > story, but i know that the naming of the "United States of America" was a > compromise between the states. I remember there were some other names up > for consideration... Columbia was one of them. > I think they stuck with the dull (comparatively) > "United States of America" because the states were wary of getting sucked > into a Union and losing their individual power... That's a good point I had not considered. When anyone asks me where I come from I say "California" to people from other countries and "L.A." to people from the U.S. (Gawd, how arrogant is that - treating California as if it is its own country?! ;-) And since half of California is not on the North American continent but is part of the Pacific Plate, we may not technically be be included. Maybe that is part of Oceania and we could call ourselves "Ceani's" for short. Like John's idea of Turtle Island very much. We could call ourselves "Turts." Kakki
