The US owned Alaska when the name was changed and we own it now. If the Alaskans wanted to keep it the other name they should have fought harder to keep their lands in the first place. Losers in war don't get rights like that. Obama never wants to make anyone feel like a loser though boo hoo

That being said this wouldn't be nearly as bad if it hadn't come on the same day as we're seeing people marching in the streets saying "pigs in a blanket fry em like bacon" after a cop was shot while carrying "black lives matter" banners.

Yep, its good to be the king.  Next time do not put a minority in the higest office and you will not have to worry about the President using his executive ability and do stuff for those losy people we crushed.  Put Jeb or Trump on that seat and you will never have to worry about bleeding heart pandering from those guys.  Hell, I am sure they would totally ignore pretty much every minority in the US so no need to worry about those losers for at least 4 years.

Holy hell that is seriously an imperialism outlook. You would have gotten along joyously during the days of Manifest Destiny and such. It's kind of out there in 2015 though. The fact is, Alaska was overwhelmed by European powers first, with Russia ultimately claiming it as theirs and selling it to the US, which, by then, we were already more than okay with the idea of buying stolen land. I mean, how is a small population supposed to cope when a large population rains down on them with weaponry they've never seen before? When you're still hunting with handcrafted weaponry, and then someone jumps off a ship with forged guns, things aren't exactly going to go well. It's unfair to say "you were outmanned and outgunned, but you really should have fought harder if you cared".

"But we owned Alaska then and we do now!" And? It isn't as if our acquisition was justified. We just took Russia at their word when they said it was their land, bought it, shipped people in, and took over.

It's a fucking mountain.

But the name was forcefully changed, it only makes sense to change it back. No one knew it existed anyway.

I read an article about it in the USA Today. Frankly, I dont really care given reason the name was changed. It had no connection to whom it was named for.

And if you did a survey on how many americans could name the largest moutain in north america how would the percentage be? 1%? 0.1%? I'm a pretty knowledgable guy but I wouldn't have been able to name it.

This is the country where 20% of people can't point to America on a freaking map. 

You're flipping out over literally nothing.

Spanish is not the primary language of Florida or any other US state.

Also, the spanish speaking population there generally isnt Mexican. They're Cuban and Puerto Rican. I assure you they dont like being called Mexicans.

On one hand you have an indigenous people who have a connection to a mountain and have called it Denali for centuries. On the other it was named after a random president from Ohio who never saw it for...reasons?

I mean, look, we changed Cape Kennedy back to Cape Canaveral out of respect to locals and he had only been dead a decade or so and was quite popular. McKinley is largely forgotten and had zero attachment to this mountain.

Who is really upset about this and why?

People would name mount everest, fiji, kilimanjaro, vesuvius, mount st helens way before they'd name Mount McKinley, at least the others are indiginous names. Changing the name of the mountain to it's original name is logical. Unless Spurg was a Mount McKinley enthusiust, or a mountain/geology enthusiust that was truly and personally impacted by a name being changed back to it's original name. He's just waving his arms for the sake of doing it.

Spurge needs real problems to get upset about rather than this stupidity.  He has enough time to get outraged but not enough to learn the facts.  The word for that is prejudice.