Regional identity

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

There's also La Canada, which is Spanish for the Canada of LA

Haha well, the city (which is actually technically officially called La Cañada Flintridge), makes it a point on its city signs to put the tilde over the "n."

Even Caltrans makes it a point to put the tilde over the "n."

Google Street View

As an aside, La Cañada and Flintridge used to be separate unincorporated communities but united to form an incorporated city in 1976. Everyone just calls it La Cañada, but people in the area (including Pasadena) know of the Flintridge Prep School and Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy (an all girls Catholic high school).

As another aside, Ontario, CA was founded by Canadians, hence its name (its founders, the Chaffey brothers, were from the Canadian province of Ontario).

Myself having grown up in southern California, Ontario is well-known because of its airport. People will often drive through it too, to get to Vegas. Also, I would see commercials for the (now closed) Ontario Speedway, which was a car racing facility. And then in the 1990s, Ontario Mills Mall, an outlet mall, opened, and I seem to recall commercials for that as well.

And of course to someone like me who's from the busy part of LA County, Ontario was (and still is hehe) out in the boonies.

[Acajack]

Has it been mentioned that La Cañada's name is totally unrelated to Canada the country?

The name Canada comes from an Indigenous word for village or community.

Cañada is a Spanish word meaning cowpath.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Has it been mentioned that La Cañada's name is totally unrelated to Canada the country?

The name Canada comes from an Indigenous word for village or community.

Cañada is a Spanish word meaning cowpath.

That's a new one for me; I always learned from local lore that "cañada" means ravine or gorge, of which there are plenty in the foothills. Historically, the area was Rancho La Cañada, a Mexican land grant, during the Mexican period of California.

And trust me, I doubt anyone here thinks of "Canada" when they hear/say "La Cañada." They're completely different words. "La Cañada" = [lah-kah-NYAH-dah].

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Has it been mentioned that La Cañada's name is totally unrelated to Canada the country?

The name Canada comes from an Indigenous word for village or community.

Cañada is a Spanish word meaning cowpath.

Wiki says that the Iroquois origin is the most accepted, but there is a minority of researchers that believe that it could have been originated by the Spaniards or Portuguese:

The most common alternative theory suggested that the name originated when Portuguese or Spanish explorers, having explored the northern part of the continent and unable to find gold and silver, wrote cá nada ('nothing here' in Portuguese), acá nada, aqui nada or el cabo de nada ('Cape Nothing' in Spanish) on that part of their maps.[18] An alternative explanation favoured by philologist Marshall Elliott linked the name to the Spanish word cañada, meaning 'glen' or 'valley'.[19][20]

The earliest iterations of the Spanish "nothing here" theory stated that the explorers made the declaration upon visiting the Bay of Chaleur,[21] while later versions left out any identifying geographic detail.

The known Portuguese presence in modern Canadian territory, meanwhile, was in Newfoundland and Labrador. Neither region is located anywhere near Iroquoian territory, and the name Canada does not appear on any Spanish or Portuguese maps of the North American coast that predate Cartier's visit.[20] No name for the Bay of Chaleur is attested at all in Spanish sources from that period, while the only name for Newfoundland attested in Portuguese sources is Terra Nova do Bacalhau, after the region's plentiful cod.

In most versions of the Iberian origin theory, the Spanish or Portuguese passed their name on to the Iroquois, who rapidly adopted it in place of their own prior word for a village;[20] however, no historical evidence for any such Iberian-Iroquoian interaction has ever actually been found.[20] Elliott's "valley" theory, conversely, was that the Spanish gave their name for the area directly to Jacques Cartier, who then entirely ignored or passed over the virtually identical Iroquoian word.[20] According to Elliott, Cartier never explicitly stated that there was a direct connection between canada or kanata as the Iroquoian word for 'village' and Canada as the new name of the entire territory, and never accounted for the spelling difference between kanata and Canada—and thus the Spanish etymology had to be favoured because the spellings matched.[20] Notably, Cartier never wrote of having any awareness of any preexisting Spanish or Portuguese name for the region either, meaning that Elliott's allegation that the kanata derivation was not adequately supported by Cartier's own writing on the matter was also true of his own preferred theory.

Franciscan priest André Thevet claimed that the word derived from segnada Canada, an answer reportedly given by Spaniards in the St. Lawrence Valley area when asked what their purpose was; according to Thevet, the phrase meant that they were seeking land[22] or that they were hunting.[23] These words do not actually exist in Spanish, however.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_o..._origin_theory

[Acajack]

Thanks for the info guys.

Still, La Cañada-Flintridge's name is totally unrelated to Canada the country's name.

[llamaorama]

Just because I like rustling jimmies, here's a question for SSP people:

Is Buffalo in the Midwest or Northeast?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Is Buffalo in the Midwest or Northeast?

Rust belt.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Just because I like rustling jimmies, here's a question for SSP people:

Is Buffalo in the Midwest or Northeast?

Northeast, but not East Coast

[lio45]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Just because I like rustling jimmies, here's a question for SSP people:

Is Buffalo in the Midwest or Northeast?

As a Texan, you must be aware that "states are not indivisible" when it's time to sort places into greater regions. Therefore, just because most of NY State is firmly the Northeast, doesn't mean all of it is. If El Paso and East Texas aren't forced to be in the same U.S. sub-region then that can be true of Buffalo too.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by lio45

As a Texan, you must be aware that "states are not indivisible" when it's time to sort places into greater regions. Therefore, just because most of NY State is firmly the Northeast, doesn't mean all of it is. If El Paso and East Texas aren't forced to be in the same U.S. sub-region then that can be true of Buffalo too.

Texas is massive, New York is not. Houston and Dallas have almost nothing in common with El Paso while there are a lot of similarities between Buffalo and Syracuse or Albany. Buffalo and Cleveland have a lot in common but I always thought Cleveland had a northeastern feel to it.

[Velvet_Highground]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Just because I like rustling jimmies, here's a question for SSP people:

Is Buffalo in the Midwest or Northeast?

Undeniably Great Lakes if the border wasn’t such a pain to cross nowadays Buffalo & Toronto would be part of a larger urban area. Arguably they’re already close to such a definition if they were in the same country or a “North American Union” they would be.

North Central is also acceptable Buffalo isn’t “Midwestern” obviously and the most common answer to what connection to other cities Buffalo has asked is based on an economic argument “rust belt”. While I’m not going into my opinion on 1980’s industrial economic policy Buffalo’s position as a Great Lakes city is undeniable imo. It’s THE American only option eastern terminus for Great Lakes trade to the Atlantic. It’s also an important port & in its own right on a key position in the GL system.

Buffalo is sort of an American replacement in terms of geographic & economic for Montreal & Toronto being in the British Empire and then Canada. I believe Buffalo would have been a major city in its own right even if in another historical timeline played out with the US and Canada as one country.

That location between Lakes Erie and Ontario is too prime not to have a major city but in an alternate history one city or urban area would have grown up along an Erie - Ontario Canal. Maybe St Catherine’s & Buffalo would have merged in a slightly different location to either’s current position. Perhaps it would have become the dominant player instead of Toronto if on Lake Ontario.

Toronto would still be an important city as a great natural harbor on Ontario with access to northern Ontario resources. hard to say about Hamilton whether it would be a winner or looser. I think if there wasn’t the national separation with the US need for an Erie Canal for GL access Toronto would be smaller but it may have soaked up “Hamilton” to make lost ground small chance of vice versa though. I think a St Catherine’s - Buffalo would be the big winner of that changed scenario however with its being the big eastern GL city. Though it could be an even spilt between Toronto & Buffalo. With Buffalo being a more modern boomer when a canal for large freight ships is built making it a better logistical center.

[Acajack]

I live across the border in an area that feels like it's a peripheral neighbour to the US Northeast.

Buffalo feels like it's part of our regional cross-border neighbourhood in a way that Detroit and Chicago probably do not.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I live across the border in an area that feels like it's a peripheral neighbour to the US Northeast.

Buffalo feels like it's part of our regional cross-border neighbourhood in a way that Detroit and Chicago probably do not.

You live in Montreal, right? Buffalo and Detroit are both literal stone throws away from Ontario. By next year you'll be able to walk from Detroit to Ontario in less than an hour. Detroit and Buffalo are physically closer than Buffalo is to Montreal or Detroit is to Chicago.

[MolsonExport]

It is interesting how the only great lake with large Canadian cities (more than 200K) on it is Lake Ontario.

Erie? Nada. Leamington is the largest, and it is small.
Huron? Nope. Sarnia is the largest, and it is small.
Superior? None. Thunder Bay is the largest, and it is small.

Ontario? Toronto, Hamilton, Mississauga, Oshawa, Burlington, Oakville (all above 200K)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You live in Montreal, right? Buffalo and Detroit are both literal stone throws away from Ontario. By next year you'll be able to walk from Detroit to Ontario in less than an hour. Detroit and Buffalo are physically closer than Buffalo is to Montreal or Detroit is to Chicago.

I actually live in Gatineau, Quebec. Literally across the river from Ottawa and Ontario.

Michigan definitely feels a lot more remote to us than New York state. Even if Buffalo is some distance away and at the SW end of NY.

NY state itself (Ogdensburg) is about an hour's drive from where I sit.

I could have a late dinner in NYC tonight if I hopped in my car and left now.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Just because I like rustling jimmies, here's a question for SSP people:

Is Buffalo in the Midwest or Northeast?

Mideast

How about we say that anyplace located in a northeastern/mid-Atlantic state that's not on the east coast is mideast? It could put an end to this absolute fucking bore of a topic.

[Velvet_Highground]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I live across the border in an area that feels like it's a peripheral neighbour to the US Northeast.

Buffalo feels like it's part of our regional cross-border neighbourhood in a way that Detroit and Chicago probably do not.

I get where you’re coming from and I don’t disagree especially on a micro scale that fits well into the regional identity argument. On a greater macro scale argument Toronto, Detroit & Chicago are respectively the great hubs of the eastern, central & western lakes. Which are part of a greater whole that includes the St Lawrence River to Quebec as part of the “inland coast” & its seaway.

That is on a macro scale and doesn’t neatly fit. As to your point I see it while Toronto is the great hub of the lower lakes Buffalo is the main hub of the American side of the lower lakes. They’re close geographically and play/have played a similar role in regional development. Toronto, Hamilton, St Catherine’s & Buffalo / Niagara are coming closer to being one greater region even though not quite there.

I guess making macro scale arguments doesn’t fit well into the identity part of the regional identity question. Maybe in a generation with the new road and rail connections completed and a revival of the resource upper lakes resource extraction to lower lakes manufacturing trade revives with the new ore discoveries things may look different. As of now I definitely feel the SW Ontario & Michigan end of the line syndrome that really shouldn’t be there if we want the Great Lakes area(s) to prosper.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I could have a late dinner in NYC tonight if I hopped in my car and left now.

Maybe it's because my kids are in preschool and diapers, but I dream of having the freedom [again] to do exactly something like this.

[Steely Dan]

Do people actually take 6+ hour road trips just to go have dinner in another city?

I was a footloose bachelor for all of my 20s and into my early 30s and I never did that once.

The longest I've ever driven just for dinner is up to Milwaukee and back (~90 minutes one way), and that's only cuz my in-laws live up there.

[hipster duck]

^It’s more like the freedom to just leave the house spontaneously and go somewhere on a whim, even another city many hours away. I wouldn’t drive to NYC from here, or from Ottawa, just to eat dinner and then turn around.