Different name for Chihuahua as a US/CS state?

Chihuahua will likely have more Mexicans than Anglos for a while so I’m positive the Anglos will pick up the Mexican pronounciation and not vice versus
 
Other way around. Juarez (Paso del Norte) was more important than El Paso (and the two cities were basically one city anyway due to the complete lack of border control until the early 20th century). They might as well both be called "El Paso" anyway.

I wanted to build on this. Before it was renamed Ciuadad Juarez, the official name of the town on the southern side of the Rio Grande was El Paso del Norte. It was a much larger town throughout the 19th century than the el paso come lately on the northern side of the river. Usually the town in Texas was referred to as El Paso, while the other older town was referred to as del Norte (IIRC).
 
A. ...and I live in Alabama, which is named after the AlabamO (alternately, the Alibamu) Creeks. Note that final vowel sound. See how it changed? That changed the entire pronunciation as it shifts the emphasized syllable giving us that more emphasized "BAM" in there.

Which was never called by Anglos "Alibamu", "Albaamaha", or anything more authentic to how the Alabama people pronounced their name, which is typical given the disregard for locals.

B. Multiple people have given you examples of a variety of established place names whose pronunciation changed.

They aren't wrong, but looking at certain prominent examples of toponymy, the pronunciation isn't too far removed from the original (i.e. Tanasi vs. Tennessee). Even the common pronunciation of El Paso (or San Francisco, etc.) is just an Anglo version of a more proper Spanish.

C. Pronounce the following: Saucier, Biloxi, Cantonment, Dauphin Island, Conti.... these colonial era names are all within 100 miles of me and I'd almost guarantee you failed to pronounce them correctly if you spoke them as the original namers said them. The "locals" would call you an outsider for trying to say them that way. Tsk tsk

Said local toponymy derived from various origin (all French, except Biloxi which is an Indian group and Conti which is Italian

D. No one ever said the government of anywhere would change the pronunciation of any place. Where did you even get that? Society does that. It does it to a fairly constant degree as well. Mobile has been sitting here since 1703. It's changed hands several times. The streets were already there, though. The rivers, islands, and inlets were already named. When the new people arrived they just pronounced things as they saw them. Conti street went from "Con-tee" to "con-tie". Conde from "Con-day" to "con-dee". Joachim from "Wa-keem" to "jo-ak-um". There was no proclamation on how anyone was to say these things. They just happened. Because that's how the English language works and that is particularly true of conquerors moving into new territory. Move a bunch of Appalachians to Chihuahua, wait a few decades, and then ask them to pronounce things. You will find that things have changed.

It's still "San Wa-Keen" regarding the San Joaquin Valley of California from what I know, but I've never been there (although I've met Californians--one Anglo, one Hispanic) who pronounced it that way, along with their set of pronunciations for California place names of Anglo, Hispanic, or indigenous origin.

And finally:

"Based on what evidence"

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the fact that you can't piss out your doorway without hitting a street named after a confederate traitor down here? (There is literally a very large subdivision less than a mile from me where every street in it is named after a confederate general... except for one very short street named Farragut, which I find sort of deliciously petty if I'm being honest) That we still have legal proclamations of state holidays for Lees birthday? That there are monuments to those traitors in front of over half the courthouses in the South? There are still dozens of counties named after confederate traitors? There's even still a state that incorporates their disgraced banner in its state flag with 3 others having incorporated elements of it in theirs. The people in charge of the confederacy were a cabal of rich sociopaths who liked putting their name and symbols on things. They passed that on to their kids and their grandchildren.

You aren't wrong. But while the Lost Causers and their supporters had a century to remake the South in their image, they didn't go for something as big as renaming a state after a Southern hero. Or even renaming an important city (Elyton, Alabama's transformation into Birmingham, named for the English city, seems relevant). Streets, statues, of course, and I'm well aware of the context local and state governments ordered them in. Smaller towns, sure, local counties (both USA and CSA will want the system extended to Chihuahua), you bet, but major cities, I doubt. Chihuahua City is still likely to keep its name, and the province as a whole won't get renamed after Jeff Davis, Jackson (Andrew or Stonewall), or someone else.

Barring some sort of communist Confederacy, where they're more likely to engage in the sort of naming scheme the USSR devised, but they'll find a very different sort of heroes to name their cities after.

"The CSA viewed themselves as the 'real' Americans after all."

Based on what evidence? Seeing themselves as ALSO American isn't the same as seeing themselves as the REAL Americans... which is convenient since every man, woman, and child who supported the confederacy was literally a traitor.

Because they were fulfilling what they thought the Constitution really meant, which those dastardly abolitionist Yankees (and other Northern forces in Congress who were probably secretly supporting said abolitionists, and the idea of "slave power" is totally an evil Yankee conspiracy BTW) and such was destroying? It's been presented since the Civil War (Marx and Engels argued this) that an intention of the CSA was to "reform" the US, and the CSA gladly would accept new states to join in their rebellion after all.
 
"Which was never called by Anglos "Alibamu", "Albaamaha", or anything more authentic to how the Alabama people pronounced their name, which is typical given the disregard for locals."

1. Calling the largely Irish/native settlers of Alabama "Anglos" is racist and offensive, dude. Pick a new term that doesn't directly refer to a group of people (the English) that attempted a genocide on them.

2. It's an example of people in the 1800s trying to find something to call their new state and picking a name that they'd never heard out of a book listing a tribe that had been gone for decades.

"They aren't wrong, but looking at certain prominent examples of toponymy, the pronunciation isn't too far removed from the original (i.e. Tanasi vs. Tennessee). Even the common pronunciation of El Paso (or San Francisco, etc.) is just an Anglo version of a more proper Spanish."

You're just choosing which examples you'll use and ignoring the how common the issue that was raised is. Nice blinders you've got there.

"Said local toponymy derived from various origin (all French, except Biloxi which is an Indian group and Conti which is Italian"

Curious; are you an actual person or do you choose to speak in such robotic pretention on purpose?

You also have no idea how to pronounce those words in modern parlance. A bunch of $5 words doesn't change that. Again, the point wasn't about etymology. It was about modern pronunciation and how that differs from the original. Do keep up.



"It's still "San Wa-Keen" regarding the San Joaquin Valley of California from what I know, but I've never been there (although I've met Californians--one Anglo, one Hispanic) who pronounced it that way, along with their set of pronunciations for California place names of Anglo, Hispanic, or indigenous origin."

Again, you're choosing which examples you want and disregarding any evidence that contradicts. No one said EVERY word gets changed, just that many do. California is probably the most densely populated place we'll find these names and has probably the highest proportion of native Spanish speakers.... and yet if you ask someone to pronounce the state name that -ia part will be said as "ya" rather than the traditional "eea". That is exactly the type of pronunciation shift I'm talking about happening on a larger scale in a low population desert state suddenly deluged in people who, at the time, might barely be considered to be speaking English.. much less Spanish.


"You aren't wrong. But while the Lost Causers and their supporters had a century to remake the South in their image, they didn't go for something as big as renaming a state after a Southern hero. Or even renaming an important city (Elyton, Alabama's transformation into Birmingham, named for the English city, seems relevant). Streets, statues, of course, and I'm well aware of the context local and state governments ordered them in. Smaller towns, sure, local counties (both USA and CSA will want the system extended to Chihuahua), you bet, but major cities, I doubt. Chihuahua City is still likely to keep its name, and the province as a whole won't get renamed after Jeff Davis, Jackson (Andrew or Stonewall), or someone else."

Oh good grief. The city was built under a mountain of iron ore not far from a coal mine in the middle of an empty cotton field. To call anything around it a town is stretching it. It was built to mimic the British Iron City. It was a marketing ploy to get financing. That said: 1 out of every 12 counties in Alabama is named after Confederates. Counties are the larger political unit to cities. Birmingham is significantly smaller than Jefferson County in both size and population. 4 states have Jefferson Davis counties. 8 have counties named after Lee. There are 620,000 people living in Lee County, FL. That's bigger than Birmingham. Over 400,000 in Pasco County FL (confederate soldier).


"Because they were fulfilling what they thought the Constitution really meant, which those dastardly abolitionist Yankees (and other Northern forces in Congress who were probably secretly supporting said abolitionists, and the idea of "slave power" is totally an evil Yankee conspiracy BTW) and such was destroying? It's been presented since the Civil War (Marx and Engels argued this) that an intention of the CSA was to "reform" the US, and the CSA gladly would accept new states to join in their rebellion after all."

Everything about that was postwar spin, though. It's the old "it was all about states rights" mess. The state right they were fighting for was slavery. The planter class didn't care about America. They only cared about themselves.
 
1. Calling the largely Irish/native settlers of Alabama "Anglos" is racist and offensive, dude. Pick a new term that doesn't directly refer to a group of people (the English) that attempted a genocide on them.
Claiming that the English tried to genocide the Irish is also racist and offensive.
Unless of course your meaning of genocide differs from the standard one.
 
"Which was never called by Anglos "Alibamu", "Albaamaha", or anything more authentic to how the Alabama people pronounced their name, which is typical given the disregard for locals."

1. Calling the largely Irish/native settlers of Alabama "Anglos" is racist and offensive, dude. Pick a new term that doesn't directly refer to a group of people (the English) that attempted a genocide on them.

It's not the best term, but one which is used by historians regardless when relating to British or US colonialism (and I'm just copying books I've read, professors I've had, etc.). "Euroamerican" is the most precise term I admit, and the most common one which you'll find in modern history books.

2. It's an example of people in the 1800s trying to find something to call their new state and picking a name that they'd never heard out of a book listing a tribe that had been gone for decades.

"They aren't wrong, but looking at certain prominent examples of toponymy, the pronunciation isn't too far removed from the original (i.e. Tanasi vs. Tennessee). Even the common pronunciation of El Paso (or San Francisco, etc.) is just an Anglo version of a more proper Spanish."

You're just choosing which examples you'll use and ignoring the how common the issue that was raised is. Nice blinders you've got there.

Sure, but those examples exist and are equally valid. But American settlers approximated as many local (indigenous) pronunciations as they butchered or outright ignored them.

"Said local toponymy derived from various origin (all French, except Biloxi which is an Indian group and Conti which is Italian"

Curious; are you an actual person or do you choose to speak in such robotic pretention on purpose?

You also have no idea how to pronounce those words in modern parlance. A bunch of $5 words doesn't change that. Again, the point wasn't about etymology. It was about modern pronunciation and how that differs from the original. Do keep up.

No, I just try to be polite and my reading has led to a stilted and neutral style. I'm a transhumanist, but not (yet) a robot. I'm just stating a few facts since your example seems irrelevant.

"It's still "San Wa-Keen" regarding the San Joaquin Valley of California from what I know, but I've never been there (although I've met Californians--one Anglo, one Hispanic) who pronounced it that way, along with their set of pronunciations for California place names of Anglo, Hispanic, or indigenous origin."

Again, you're choosing which examples you want and disregarding any evidence that contradicts. No one said EVERY word gets changed, just that many do. California is probably the most densely populated place we'll find these names and has probably the highest proportion of native Spanish speakers.... and yet if you ask someone to pronounce the state name that -ia part will be said as "ya" rather than the traditional "eea". That is exactly the type of pronunciation shift I'm talking about happening on a larger scale in a low population desert state suddenly deluged in people who, at the time, might barely be considered to be speaking English.. much less Spanish.

Chihuahua was more densely populated than New Mexico. A simple look at Mexico's demographic records proves it. And going back to "Tsalagi = Cherokee" and "Tanasi = Tennessee", your example of the Spanish pronunciation of California vs. English pronounciation of California doesn't seem so different.

"You aren't wrong. But while the Lost Causers and their supporters had a century to remake the South in their image, they didn't go for something as big as renaming a state after a Southern hero. Or even renaming an important city (Elyton, Alabama's transformation into Birmingham, named for the English city, seems relevant). Streets, statues, of course, and I'm well aware of the context local and state governments ordered them in. Smaller towns, sure, local counties (both USA and CSA will want the system extended to Chihuahua), you bet, but major cities, I doubt. Chihuahua City is still likely to keep its name, and the province as a whole won't get renamed after Jeff Davis, Jackson (Andrew or Stonewall), or someone else."

Oh good grief. The city was built under a mountain of iron ore not far from a coal mine in the middle of an empty cotton field. To call anything around it a town is stretching it. It was built to mimic the British Iron City. It was a marketing ploy to get financing. That said: 1 out of every 12 counties in Alabama is named after Confederates. Counties are the larger political unit to cities. Birmingham is significantly smaller than Jefferson County in both size and population. 4 states have Jefferson Davis counties. 8 have counties named after Lee. There are 620,000 people living in Lee County, FL. That's bigger than Birmingham. Over 400,000 in Pasco County FL (confederate soldier).

Well, Elyton was a county seat, which does imply some relevance (and demographics suggest so, but it was a small town among many small towns/county seats in the South). And it was a great marketing ploy indeed, given Birmingham's history and importance to the New South.

I wouldn't give Florida as an example, given the majority of it (like Lee and Pasco Counties) was basically an unpopulated swamp until the early 20th century (outside of the parts where people lived which were an extension of Georgia, Alabama, etc.). And Samuel Pasco seems like a generic post-Civil War Southern politician, with minimal links to the CSA other than fighting for them. He isn't the sort of guy people protest, or the sort of guy the 1890s-1910s New South built monuments to like Lee, Davis, Jackson, etc.

"Because they were fulfilling what they thought the Constitution really meant, which those dastardly abolitionist Yankees (and other Northern forces in Congress who were probably secretly supporting said abolitionists, and the idea of "slave power" is totally an evil Yankee conspiracy BTW) and such was destroying? It's been presented since the Civil War (Marx and Engels argued this) that an intention of the CSA was to "reform" the US, and the CSA gladly would accept new states to join in their rebellion after all."

Everything about that was postwar spin, though. It's the old "it was all about states rights" mess. The state right they were fighting for was slavery. The planter class didn't care about America. They only cared about themselves.

But a lot of them thought that states rights really were enshrined in the Constitution, and those evil Yankees had corrupted it with their abolitionist ideals ("a minority view, nonsense, they're all secretly supporting it!") and all that. Planters like Jefferson (slave owner) were the American ideal.
 
Top