Please Help Me Get This Straight....

It is pronounced Ar kan sus. at least here it is.

Its hard sometimes to guess at the spelling of translations of an unknown language.

theres a bit of a trend to revert to Au aboriginal names for places. case in point Uluru/Ayers Rock.

I say blame the French . . . after all, they're not here to defend themselves.

Your question has nothing to do with the spelling. It has everything to do with colonization. I'm not sure colonization can have a value judgement placed on it. It just is. It is part of the human drive. If we aren't colonizing physically we are colonizing economically, or educationally, or morally, or linguistically. So I suppose retention of native names is more of an aesthetic preference. Do we romanticize the previous occupants, by "honoring" their place names? Or do we push forward with the ideals that brought us to the point of colonization?

The third option, which is what I think happned most frequently, is what is the economic worth of retaining a place name or renaming it? Many places that retained native names, or derivatives of native names already had economic function in place that were useful to the colonizers. these functions often had to do with the native already operating that function as well. Hence the preponderance of native name retention among rivers, port towns that did not become metropolises, lakes, and traditional trade route areas. This also happens in badlands where there was absolutely no economic reason to go there. Lots of native name retention in areas where colonizers didn't care about.

Around here (Michigan) the French attempted to write down the American Indian names, then the British came in a changed everything.

Your pronunciation is considered correct - in Kansas.

You forget Francis.

Where in hell is he anyway? I come back after a hiatus of about half a year and everone's dissing the French with nary a Gallic rebuttal. Wassup wif dat?