Hi, Daniel!
> > Only half-related: Did you know that Venezuela used to be called the > United States of Venezuela? :-) Neat! That would have been an honor! > > Yeah. And I can see that there's nothing in "United Staes of America" > that is really distinctinctive. > Well, it wasn't "English Colonies", it made clear that the States were "United" as one nation. Very important when dealing w/ Europe back then. So, while not very pretty, it did describe the nation. > > HHHmm... it's a thought. But it'd be easili mixed up with Colombia. > Especially since near the beginning, Colombia was a fairly large country > spanning what is now modern day Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador. And it > looked like it might expand to Peru and Bolivia. > Yeah, and imagine the confusion it would cause in the "War on Drugs"! ;-) > > I'm actually surprised that South Americans don't try to change the > > name of their continent and fully disassociate themselves from the > > problem altogether! Come on, Daniel, let's have some ideas about > > that! > > Bolivaria! That would be a good name, but what about "Bolivians", > > then? > > That's a thought. Argentinians and Brazilians would throw a fit. But oh > well... ;-) Yeah, and the Colombians and Venezuelaians, too! :-\ > > That's a thought... Maybe Amazonia? > "Amazonia" would be very good for South America. I always thought "Laurentia" had a very cool ring to it for North America, maybe it's available now that the ancient, massive continent has been changed to "Laurasia". Laurentia and Amazonia. Much more distinctive! And we USians could then have total claim to "Americans"! Whooo Hoooo! We could end this discussion and get on to the next great earth-shaping topic! ;-) But boy this is fun! ;-D -Greg
