Vancouver, Washington may change its name

[Tiger Beer]

I vote for Powells, WA. - after the Portland bookstore

Or how about North Portland?

Fort Vancouver....mm...still sounds like Vancouver BC to me. How about "Not Vancouver BC, WA"

[trofirhen]

"North Portland" ..... "Fort Vancouver" ..... both sound fine to me. Rather than quibbling over it, "just do it." No more confusion. Case closed.

[jsbertram]

A friend going to university in Portland suggested that Vancouver WA should rename themselves Washington City. Then his buddy realised they would then be known as Wa, WA. (cue the George Harrison song).

They could be renamed Lewisburg, since they are already in Clark County. However there are already some other Lewisburgs in the US, and a more famous Lousibourg in Canada. Perhaps 'Lewisand' so they become 'Lewisand, Clark County, WA'

Is Metropolis taken?

[SpongeG]

i was reading about something in that area yesterday and Vancouver (WA) was saying we the REAL Vancouver...

[Millennium2002]

REAL? ehh... based on what criteria they're using.
If they're using the historical criteria, well... that's technically correct... Vancouver WA was the original one and Vancouver BC was built about 100 years or so afterwards if I recall correctly.
However, Vancouver BC could still claim itself to be the actual Vancouver too based on more critical criteria like its distinctness from other area cities, larger size, larger population, local natural beauty and world-class status. =S

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Originally Posted by SunCoaster

/\ Makes sense in a way ... hum, guess the good folks in Adanac, Saskatchewan must have used this same logic

I just realized that. I thought this whole time Adanac was a native word.

[Tetsuo]

I get angry everytime I read at how pansy the British were with the States over Columbia, we should of had everything north of the River -.-

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

I get angry everytime I read at how pansy the British were with the States over Columbia, we should of had everything north of the River -.-

Yes, you're talking about the Oregon Boundary Dispute of 1846. Not so sure if the Brits could have won that, but here's a link to it in case you're interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_boundary_dispute

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo

I get angry everytime I read at how pansy the British were with the States over Columbia, we should of had everything north of the River -.-

You're angry? Think about how Pakistan, India and the entire Middle East feel! Victorian Britain wasn't exactly famous for their fairness, understanding, or skill in geography.

[204]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You're Victorian Britain wasn't exactly famous for their fairness, understanding, or skill in geography.

Hilarious. You do know they had an empire right? I think they had some geograpical skills. Royal Geographical Society

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You're angry? Think about how Pakistan, India and the entire Middle East feel! Victorian Britain wasn't exactly famous for their fairness, understanding, or skill in geography.

Yes! Go look up the Sykes - Picot Agreement, and you'll see colonialism arbitrarily drawing up boundaries at its worst ..... OK back to thread .... about Vancouver WA .... what to call it.

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You're angry? Think about how Pakistan, India and the entire Middle East feel! Victorian Britain wasn't exactly famous for their fairness, understanding, or skill in geography.

The US was horrible for indigenous people and traders in WA + OR after the company left.

I have no connections to said parts of the world and am indifferent

Fmr Mayor Sam Sullivan has a very good video on Columbia

• Video Link

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by 204

Hilarious. You do know they had an empire right? I think they had some geograpical skills.

An empire that they didn't give a rodent's butt about, except for bragging rights. Explore, map, conquer, pillage, put an unpleasant in-law in charge, profit. Rinse and repeat.

Practically nobody up top cared about anything that didn't fit their own Britain's hidden agenda, hence crap like Sykes-Picot and the Partition of India. I will concede that most of those failures were in geopolitics, not geography, but they occasionally failed at that too. Point Roberts, for example.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

An empire that they didn't give a rodent's butt about, except for bragging rights. Explore, map, conquer, pillage, put an unpleasant in-law in charge, profit. Rinse and repeat.

Practically nobody up top cared about anything that didn't fit their own Britain's hidden agenda, hence crap like Sykes-Picot and the Partition of India. I will concede that most of those failures were in geopolitics, not geography, but they occasionally failed at that too. Point Roberts, for example.

That was no failure, borders in those parts were drawn up in a way to future proof against the expansion of Russia/USSR into those parts and towards the large Indian population and the Indian ocean. There really was nothing more to it. Create border bottlenecks and instability that can be easily manipulated. Its why to this day nothing gets between Russia and formal USSR republics and India and the Indian ocean. Its a dead zone by design and it was the British that designed it. And it has worked as intended and continues to work today, generations later.

What people need to realize is that instability and crappy borders are often created on purpose for other long term goals, goals that usually somehow benefit those creating it all, and usually someone who is not directly effected by the local repercussions.

Also people need to realize most of the word outside of Europe and its colonies was pretty backwards. To a extent that is still true today. Its not like Britain came in to India and ruined a good thing, they simply were too higher as a society to ruin anything.

Would have been nice if Canada was annexed by America a hundred or two years ago....

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cornholio

What people need to realize is that instability and crappy borders are often created on purpose for other long term goals, goals that usually somehow benefit those creating it all, and usually someone who is not directly effected by the local repercussions.

Absolutely. And yet what works for superpowers in the short term is now biting the whole world in the ass in the long term. Which might've been avoided if they'd kept their promises - or at least understood the consequences for the locals - before making their plans.

Again, it's not just former colonies in Asia that got screwed. Point Roberts is facing the consequences every day!

Originally Posted by cornholio

Also people need to realize most of the word outside of Europe and its colonies was pretty backwards. To a extent that is still true today. Its not like Britain came in to India and ruined a good thing, they simply were too higher as a society to ruin anything.

The colonial superpowers did indeed uplift many parts of the world from squalor into the "Modern" Era. They were (mostly) also obnoxious, destructive, insensitive, bigoted, condescending douchenozzles about the whole thing. Perhaps we should leave it there.

Originally Posted by cornholio

Would have been nice if Canada was annexed by America a hundred or two years ago....

American cable TV, Dunkin Donuts and AR-15s for everybody. Yippee.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Getting back on track - how about Cascadia? The movement does seem to be strongest in Washington.

[Pinion]

There is no track, this thread/idea is seven years old and Vancouver already voted against changing.