New York State & NYC named for racist

When the liberals calm down!

lol

Your point is well taken, however...

York is a place, not a person. There have been many Dukes of York over the centuries. Interestingly, there was no sitting Duke of York between 1685 and 1892.

Being clever is so much more successful when your information is factual.

No sitting Duke of York between 1685 and 1892 and your point?
In 1664, James II of England, the Duke of York, sent four war ships to New Amsterdam to fight for rights to the island. Remarkably, the Dutch did not resist. Rather than fight a losing battle against a superior military, the governor of New Amsterdam (Peter Stuyvesant) and prominent citizens of the colony surrendered without bloodshed.

The Duke renamed the island for his home city of York. The last sign of Dutch rule in Manhattan remains on the flag of New York City, which still reflects the three stripes of the Dutch flag and the original founding year of the city.
Being clever is so much more successful when your information is factual.

"...No sitting Duke of York between 1685 and 1892 and your point?"

You got me on that one. I thought New York wasn't that old. I was wrong. See? I... was... wrong... It's not that hard to say, you really should try it when appropriate. It's almost cathartic.

"...The Duke renamed the island for his home city of York..."

THANK you! He renamed the city for his home city of York. Not for himself. The city of New York is named after the City of York, England, not for James Stuart.

*mike drop*

I decided to look this up. From everything I have seen, New Amsterdam was changed to New York in honor of James the Duke of York. This is pulling info from wiki, quora, and reference. Nothing I have seen actually states it was named after the city in England. If you have a source that shows otherwise, I would be more than happy to consider it, but so far nothing I have seen collaborates with what you said in regards to how New York was named.

With that being said, who really cares how it got its name. If we are going to change the name of anything, it should be that of the United States of America to the Divided States of America, because that is how everyone is acting today.

I respect the fact that you took the time to research it, but I question the accuracy. This is why;

Traditionally, when the English named places after people, they take the actual name of the person, and add a suffix to it, such as "town", "burg", "ville" or "ia". There are examples of this all throughout the world from Britain's Imperial era. Jamestown, Charleston (formerly Charlestown), Elizabethtown, etc. Pennsylvania actually means "Penn's Woods", after William Penn.

Likewise, when places were names in honor of other places, usually back home in England, they were given the prefix "New" this or that. New Jersey for example, was named for the Island of Jersey. Hampshire is a county in Southern England. New Brunswick is named for the German city of Braunschweig (they anglicized the name).

While I have no doubt that James Stuart had something to do with the renaming of New Amsterdam (named for the Dutch city of Amsterdam, by the way) to New York, if the intent was to name it in his honor, it would have borne his actual name. Since it does not, and follows the tradition of other similarly named places, common sense suggests that New York was named in honor of the English city of York, not James Stuart, Duke of York, the person.

Let me put this another way... If you named a city "New Simbirsk", that is not naming it after Vladimir Lenin, it's naming it after the place where Lenin was born. Not the same thing. A city named after Lenin would be called "Leningrad".

All I did was searched on google for How New York Was Named and three sites all gave the same answer. I realize that traditionally part of the persons name is used when naming a city/state/county/whatever after them, but maybe they didn't think using Stuart or James would work when naming an entire state, or territory at that time, so that is why they used his title. All I know is what the sources stated that I read it from. There is a possibility it could be a little of both, using his title and the city. I don't know, all of this just seems to be getting more and more stupid, trying find a reason to be offended by anything. Sooner or later someone will say we need to change the name of this planet because they somehow find it offensive. I would say that was probably the point of the meme, but I'm not sure.

That was the point!

I wholeheartedly agree. The whole thing is just spiraling way, way out of control. People need to step back, take a breath, and ask themselves what's really important, and take up causes that might actually make a measurable difference in the lives of the people they claim to advocate for.

So you got the statue of Robert E. Lee torn down, good for you. <golf clap> Now who did that feed? Who received needed medicine because of it? Who got an education or a good job? Who was taught the skills they needed to lift themselves out of poverty?

...and I too thought the meme was facetious, until the guy started arguing with me about it.

"Guy" wasn't arguing. Pointing out the fake outrage of the leftists and how far things can be taken.

New York, both the city and the state, is named after the house of York and particularly for James Stuart, then Duke of York, one of the most successful slavers in colonial American history. James Stuart conquered the settlements between the Delaware and the Connecticut rivers from the Dutch in 1664, and the name of the principal port, New Amsterdam, was promptly changed to honor the new master. James’ brother, King Charles II of England, gave the territory to the duke in exchange for four beaver pelts annually. The Duke of York, who later became King James II of England (and James VII of Scotland), created Britain’s greatest slave empire known as the Royal African Company, which transported between 90,000 and 100,000 African slaves to the Caribbean and American colonies between 1672 and 1689.
Being clever is so much more successful when your information is factual.

My point remains the same. It's called New "York", after York the *place*, not after James Stuart, the Duke of York. Literally, the New York, as opposed to the Old York in Northern England. If it were, it would be called "Yorksville", "Yorktown" or "Yorksburg", or much more likely; "Stuartsburg", "Stuartsville", or "Stuartstown", as was the custom of the day.

New England is not named after George III, King of England. It is named after England, the place. Georgia is named after King George III. See the distinction, there?

Thank you, come again...

New England is an area; not a state. Georgia is named after King George III. See the distinction, there?

Exactly what I said, almost word for word in fact.

No, it's not. Check your comment.

New England is not a state, but a location. Georgia is named after King George III. See the distinction, there? Thank you, come again...

I never, not once, suggested, stated, or implied that New England was a state, county, city, parish, area, zone, region, or public landfill.

York, the place, was part of the title given James Stuart; thus The Duke of York. His title was used to name an area of land. Thank you, come again...

York was York long before James Stuart became the Duke of it, and long after he died. It's still called York today. You might as well be suggesting that Britain should change the name of York too.

NEW York was named after the *place*, not the *man* who ruled over it for however many years.

It's like talking to a wall...

York was York long before James Stuart became the Duke of it, and long after he died. No argument. This particular Duke of York was the prestigious owner/operator of the largest slave organization at the time.
It's like talking to a wall...

"This particular Duke of York was the prestigious owner/operator of the largest slave organization at the time."

No argument. Also, not relevant, since the city and the state were NOT named in HIS honor, but in honor of the City of York, England.

Not acceptable because Lincoln did not free ALL the slaves. Maryland, Delaware and a couple of other states were allowed to keep them! This is getting verrryyyy sticky!

How about something neutral like: Number 2?
Pennsylvania was the second colony to become a state. Shouldn't offend anyone!

ok by me!

No. "Number 2" could refer to anything; also called the "first loser". Or the brown sticky stuff that goes in the toilet. "Number 2" is a bad name that would undoubtedly offend its residents. Imagine; you're out of state, people ask where you're from, and you say "I live in Number 2." Anyway that's insensitive to the state, because instead of a name you're just giving it a number. It deserves a name, because states are more than numbers; states are people too! Clearly, for advocating such a thing you are a homophobic, racist conservative bigot who is undoubtedly a member of the KKK and steals lollipops from babies for fun.

Lordy!

Most history has a dark side. People got to realize that.

used to dance to this song!

Right?! That's just what popped into my brain with all of this talk about Dukes, LOL!