• MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    maybe they were started on the other side of the line/river/whatever and expanded into missourah because land is so cheap. because no one wants to exist there. i don’t know if this is true or not but i have decided that regardless of history it is.

  • potoooooooo 🥔@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    Wait, so Kansas City’s brilliant idea is to join fucking KANSAS!? Like…from the Dorothy tornado? Careful what you wish for, Kansas Citites.

  • Deacon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I guess Joplin or Branson would be the only other options, but I haven’t lived there in years.

    KCMO does not want to be in another state, because it is far, far superior - and older than its Kansas counterpart, which oddly enough is named after it.

    That’s right.

    Kansas City, KS is named after Kansas City, MO

    • thru_dangers_untold@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Yep. The Kansas River was originally named after the native Kansa (or Kaw) tribe. Then the city was named after the river. Then a while later, the state was also named after the river and the other city was named after the first city. Clear as the muddy river.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Branson is a shithole tourist trap that’s dead or dying.

      Joplin is famous for its tornado.

      those two aren’t doing Missouri any favors.

  • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Major cities pop up around interesting geographical boundaries (like rivers) and that’s also where the state lines were drawn, I’m guessing. It’s why NYC is trying to get into NJ as well.