Wednesday, March 05, 2025

So if there's a Calexico across the Mexican border from Mexicali, when you have Kanorado near the Colorado border, why don't they have "Colosas" on their side of it?

 

So if there's a Calexico across the Mexican border from Mexicali, when you have Kanorado near the Colorado border, why don't they have "Colosas" on their side of it?

I also wonder why Kansas City, Missouri isn't "Missouri City" since there's already Kansas City, Kansas, and why Texarkana's sibling city in Arkansas isn't "Arkanexas."

 

 

all 7 comments

[–]krisalyssa 9 points  

Kansas City, Missouri was originally Kansas, Missouri, before Kansas was even a state. When the state joined the Union, the city was renamed to cause less confusion. Whether or not this was in the long run a good idea is debatable.

[–]Objective-Staff3294 3 points  

It could have been named Westport or Possum Trot maybe. 

[–]krisalyssa 6 points  

Westport was already a different town. If the city of Kansas had been renamed to Westport, that would have been more confusing than Kansas City.

[–]Ok_Investigator1492 5 points  

To add to the confusion the City of Kansas, MO was renamed Kansas City, MO in 1889 while the old Kansas City, KS was founded in 1872. The new Kansas City, KS was incorporated in 1886 with the merger of old Kansas City, KS , Wyandotte, Armstrong, Armourdale and Riverview despite the fact that Wyandotte was larger (pop over 4,000 to old KCK 1,400 something) and older (founded in 1857 and where the current Kansas Constitution was formed). Personally, being a KCK resident, I think the name Wyandotte should have been adopted.

[–]monkeypicklead Astra 1 point  

WYCO/KCMO is such a better combo.

[–]Bobby_D_Azzler 4 points  

Some things just roll off the tongue better.

[–]No-Cat-6830 2 points  

Manifest destiny is the simplest way to answer this. People moved west across America and founded towns. That didn’t happen much in the other direction.

No comments:

Post a Comment