Do you consider Overland Park a suburb of KCMO or KCK? (Kansas City: transplants, living in)

[aragx6]

If nobody cares, why is this one of the longest threads on the first page?

[Samantha S]

Originally Posted by kcmo

Not true at all. Almost everybody I know from the MO side cares when people refer to KC (or Royals, Chiefs etc) as being in Kansas or as KCK as being the primary city of the metro.

It's the Kansas side people that generally don't care about the topic or try to blow it off as insignificant and I can understand why.

But most MO people do care, especially those that grew up in the area.

I don't agree with you.

I don't know anyone who gets as bunched up about this kind of stuff as you do.

I think you either hang out with people who are as easily bunched up as you, or you attribute your bunched up opinions to people who in reality don't give a rip other than to say, "No, it's actually in Missouri."

It's probably a combination of both.

Originally Posted by aragx6

If nobody cares, why is this one of the longest threads on the first page?

Are you new here?

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by Samantha S

"No, it's actually in Missouri."

That's all I ever say 99% of the time. Point being I care enough to say it and so do others.

[MOKAN]

KCMO-

I know Northbound posted it here, but I've seen you suggest several times over the past several years that Kansas was named after the city of KCMO. I doubt this. And that is just as troublesome to others as people mistaking KCMO being in Kansas.

I don't have the time right now and will look into it later, but I believe Kansas City, MO, or the Town/City of Kansas, was named after the Kansas River, a river in Kansas. If that is, in fact, true, would it bother you? Of course, the Kansas River and territory was named after the Kansa Indians who lived along and used the river.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by MOKAN

KCMO-

I know Northbound posted it here, but I've seen you suggest several times over the past several years that Kansas was named after the city of KCMO. I doubt this. And that is just as troublesome to others as people mistaking KCMO being in Kansas.

I don't have the time right now and will look into it later, but I believe Kansas City, MO, or the Town/City of Kansas, was named after the Kansas River, a river in Kansas. If that is, in fact, true, would it bother you? Of course, the Kansas River and territory was named after the Kansa Indians who lived along and used the river.

I never said that. I know Kansas City (town of Kansas etc) was named after the kansa indian tribe just as Kansas was.

It has been stated that Kansas City, KS named themselves after Kansas City, MO when they combined several cities into one. The reason they did that was to hopefully capitalize on KCMO’s success and image, which at the time was becoming a large and popular city. That is something you can find in history sources about KCK and KCMO.

The point is that the fact that the primary and urban core of KC is in MO is simply confusing to people and the easiest way to explain it to people is to say that the City of Kansas City, MO was a city before Kansas was a state, which is a fact. That usually helps people understand the odd naming.

I don’t care that people think KC is in Kansas as much as I care what that image creates. I know that the difference between KS and MO is minimal in the KC area. But in most people’s minds, Kansas just has a more negative image than Missouri and that image (flat, barren, boring, treeless, bible thumping, tornados, wheat, oz etc) creates a weird impression of Kansas City to those that think the city is in Kansas and have little knowledge of the area.

Kansas is the exact opposite of urban, metropolitan, sophisticated, attractive etc to people and while MO shouldn’t really be thought of as any better, it generally is. MO really doesn't have much of an image but the image it has is pretty much it's more green and generally a more attractive and livable state with more interesting topography etc. People think rivers, st louis, lakes, etc when they think of MO. While KS has just a terrible image of wide open nothing and a boring turnpike that crosses it that can't possibly have an actual major metropolitan and urban city within its confines.

I'm not the only one that corrects people when they say Kansas. Most people I know take it as an insult when they are called Kansans when they live on the MO side., especially those from urban kcmo.

It doesn't mean they hate Kansas. It's just that KS is not where they live and what people imagine KS to be is typically nothing like where they live in MO.

Imagine being from say....Cincinnati and people just assuming you are from a boring part of South Dakota and Cincy is like well, Topeka, maybe a little bigger than Topeka, but not much, but certainly a older, ugly and small city with little to do out in the middle of nowhere flat and treeless KS where people go to church and hunt for most of thier entertainment.

That’s what I deal with all the time out here .

[MOKAN]

I can't prove that you've suggested the state of Kansas was named after the city in Missouri, but I know I have seen you say that. Whether you're just lying or don't remember it doesn't change that fact for me.

You are biased and a little delusional.

Kansas City (KCMO) is the same city, regardless of which state it is located. If Kansas City were so great, its image and reputation would supersede that of the state it is in or associated with. Think New York, Chicago, St. Louis.

It seems that cities hold their own in regards to their image and reputation. When people think of states, except for maybe a few exceptions, I don't think they think of things like urbanity and sophistication.

I think the problem is with Kansas City itself, not the state it is in or associated with. While some of us think it is great because of emotional attachment, on the grand scale it's really not that great or significant of a place. It's surrounded by an industrial landscape and is very blue-collar, not that there's anything wrong with that, but it is what it is. Kansas City's roots as a large city are agricultural and industrial, and the landscape and population both reflect that fact. Industrial-driven cities peaked in the 1970s, beginning the decline of Kansas City. Then there are the racial issues, the school district, and the city government.

Kansas City essentially has cancer and societal cancer, unlike medical cancer, is contagious - people do not want to be subjected to that. That's part of the reason KCMO is so polarized and segregated, both by class and race, and mostly lacks a middle-class. The upper-middle class and upper-class in the city are able to remain because of private schools and social indifference, which serves as a barrier that allows them to live amongst the poverty and social issues to the extent they do. And there are of course a handful of young people fresh out of college still in a haze that want to play city, many of which will move to the suburbs eventually. This situation just doesn't make for a healthy community.

As far as companies and jobs going to JoCo, that goes back to KCMO too. If KCMO were the place to be, that wouldn't be happening so much, but the fact is the city is not that attractive.

It's reality, it has to be accepted before things can change.

It seems like you realize all of the above, but simply blame Kansas and in other cases St. Louis, when you suggest Missouri government pays far more attention to and favors STL. Which, in turn, you will blame Kansas for, for having nearly half of the metro population.

[Samantha S]

Originally Posted by kcmo

in most people’s minds, Kansas just has a more negative image than Missouri

You know, you really should stop trying to speak for "most people"

Kansas may have the image you describe to "some" people. People like you maybe. But I would argue that "most people" aren't as negative as you are in general.

Kansas also has an image of Breadbasket, Amber Waves of Grain, wholesomeness, beautiful sunsets ....

That you hate something, doesn't mean that "most people" do too.

Kansas is the exact opposite of urban, metropolitan ...

And "most people" in Kansas would say, "YES! And THANK GOD!"

while MO shouldn’t really be thought of as any better, it generally is.

And the jackass hits just keep comin' ...

Most people I know take it as an insult when they are called Kansans when they live on the MO side.

Maybe you should hang out with a more secure group of people. Try making some friends in KS!

[kcmo]

That's just it samantha, I'm from Kansas "city", not Kansas. I'm a city kid. Grew up in the city.

Breadbasket, Amber Waves of Grain, wholesomeness, beautiful sunsets? Great. But that's not KC, although doesn't every place have some nice sunsets???

Just like people from Salina are not Kansas Citians. People from KCMO are not Kansans.

Pretty simple really.

[Samantha S]

Originally Posted by kcmo

Pretty simple really.

You missing the point? Yep, pretty simple, and nothing new.

[aragx6]

The only way to solve this is to ask 100 audience members "What do you think of when you hear the word 'Kansas'"