In case you needed another reason not to vote for Trump.

really dissapointed in alot of the posts here
THE NATIVES/INHABITANTS of the state want the official state to be called Denali so whats the issue
It was changed for an arbitary reason
Sheesh back to gaf for me

On one hand, "McKinley" is a cooler name for a mountain than Denali. Sure, Denali is what natives called it, but it literally translates to "tall."

On the other hand, President William McKinley, for whom the mountain was named, has virtually nothing to do with Alaska. Alaska was acquired much earlier, during the Johnson administration, and wouldn't be an organized territory until years later, during the Taft years. If I had to name the mountain after any president, it'd be Eisenhower, since he was president during the time statehood was passed.

Maybe I'd be a touch sad if McKinley was a great and legendary president. After all, people name things after Washingtoon and Lincoln even when they're not related. Problem was, he was decent, but not phenomenal. He deserves credit for being a fairly forceful leader. His foreign policy was aggressive and opportunist, leading to the war with Spain, aquisition of their territories, encouraging international trade, and the annexation of Hawaii. However, these victories were often morally questionable. For example, he did not respect the Philippines's wish for self-rule, leading to a bloody war where American forces burnt villages to the ground and rounded people up in camps. Really, McKinley can be seen as a starting point for a lot of the nastier American policies of the past 120 years.

So let's call it Denali.

To be fair both parties are quick to go down a path of hypocrisy whenever it suits their needs. Though yeah, this is especially ridiculous.

Anyway. I looked into it a little and the story behind the name appears to be legit lol.  

As someone else mentioned eariler, it apparently wasn't even President Obama who issued the order, it was the Interior Secretary with Obama's approval.

False outrage is obviously false.

Are you suggesting we destroy the sculpture?

I suggest the grounds be given back to the Lakota, if they want to keep it, there's no problem.

Its not.

What if they wish to destroy it?