Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if you really care that much--start a petition or something.
I care more about the truth. When posters like lvmensch start denying historical facts and science I insist on the truth from these history or science deniers.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. Should the city of York be renamed because some bloke became a Duke of the place? There have been loads of 'Dukes if York' have they all been racists!?? Who knows! What about renaming all the cities in the Southern States of the US because 'racists' used to be mayor's or sheriff's of them? Just plain daft! New York is named after York, York is a city not a bloke. I get the impression that the writer of that piece didn't even know there was a city of York!
People used to be referred to by their titles. Thus calling the Duke of York by the shortened York would not have been uncommon. That is why they named the city York instead of James.
All very logical until you remember it was New York. If we go along with the cockamamie idea that it was named for a person, the qualifier implies the existence of an old York. So - who was that?
All very logical until you remember it was New York. If we go along with the cockamamie idea that it was named for a person, the qualifier implies the existence of an old York. So - who was that?
I have provided 4 different links that all say it was named after the person who:
1, helped capture it for Britain.
2, was given sole possession over it, he literally owned all of the colony.
3, went by his title, the Duke of York (until he became King).
That person is James II who went by the Duke of York.
All posters like lvmensch has provided is emotional denials of historical facts.
If you are cool with towns being named Columbus or New York after slave traders that is your right. You aren't entitled to make up and deny facts.
I have provided 4 different links that all say it was named after the person who:
1, helped capture it for Britain.
2, was given sole possession over it, he literally owned all of the colony.
3, went by his title, the Duke of York (until he became King).
That person is James II who went by the Duke of York.
All posters like lvmensch has provided is emotional denials of historical facts.
If you are cool with towns being named Columbus or New York after slave traders that is your right. You aren't entitled to make up and deny facts.
It is NEW York. As opposed to York or Old York. That references the place not the person. And yes it was named after York to honor the Duke of York. So what? It is still named after the old place not the guy.
It is NEW York. As opposed to York or Old York. That references the place not the person. And yes it was named after York to honor the Duke of York. So what? It is still named after the old place not the guy.
You are a history fact denier. Do you deny science too?
I have provided 4 historical links.
His title was the Duke of York.
Everyone knew him as the Duke of York.
People in colonial New York knew it was named after him and knew that he owned it up until he became King.
All you have provided is a highly emotional and illogical argument about you being born there and an argument that doesn't comprehend titles.
Is this because you accept cancel culture, but not when it strikes close to home?
Such a simple distinction, yet so out of reach for so many.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.