Google Maps now shows the 'Gulf of America'
theverge.com
theverge.com
> why waste time and energy discussing silly things he might do when he is literally doing silly things now, for real?
The example used was making a larger point than, oh no, "Canada -> Beaverstan", for laughs.
The point is: What line would be too far for industry to resist presidential renaming by fiat. A kind of power with known risks. Renaming by fiat has a name, "Newspeak", a term coined in the not very silly book, 1984, by George Orwell.
Trump has a history of doing lots of "silly" things just to see if he can. It is a low risk way for him to pre-test, or pre-expand, any barriers to more serious expressions of his power. Such as renaming things in a way that undermines or alters the impact of laws.
And this is a representative democracy, if the representative does those things, so be it. If we don’t like, we get another to revert.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”.
If you don’t wish to commit violence, there are other effective methods to enact change, although in the US the chances appear small.
Personally I believe in direct democracy.
It is what is called an“illustrative” or “hypothetical exemplar”. Ignore the specific example, focus on the point being made:
What limit is there to Trump taking things further? Because Trump has a track record of taking things further.
It is not a randomly improbable premature neurotic conjecture actually about Canada or “Beaverland”. Those are stand-ins for a larger point.
—
Also, a democracy is supposed to decentralize power. The more decentralized, the more each citizen has equal power.
But the US Constitution, with all its checks and balances, managed not to limit the power of political parties.
So the US system degenerates into only two viable national parties, with highly centralized power within each. Only two nationally viable candidates, neither chosen by an actual democratic process.
Just one more candidate, chosen by the powerful, than an autocracy.
We could call this “Minimal Viable Democracy”, as any less democratic would not be democratic at all.
Without experience with a better system, most US citizens are in a Stockholm situation. They talk about their “great” system because at one time it was a big improvement. But 250 years later it is just the flawed system they are stuck in. Better to keep calling it “great”, no matter how many re-centralizing-of-power dysfunctions accumulate without resolution, than get too depressed.
There’s no way you can guarantee that! India have everything to decentralise power, but still ended up currently as an autocratic state
Same way every naming fight does. Each side requires its own labels.
I'm British by birth, I grew up with news stories about the IRA, and the second-largest city in Northern Ireland is either "Derry" or "Londonderry" depending on if you're a Republican* or a Unionist.
The English Channel, if you're French, is La Manche.
The country I currently live in is Saksa in Finish, Tyskland in Danish, Allemagne in French, Niemcy in Polish, or Germany in English, none of which is close to the endonym of Deutschland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Germany_Name_European_Lan...
* i.e. "not a monarchist" — this has nothing to do with the US political party.
I think it's actually a rule in BBC articles that the first mention has to be "Londonderry" and thereafter "Derry".
In all seriousness this started in trumps first term when he insisted on changing NAFTA to USMCA while canada calls it CUSMA and Mexico calls it T-MEC … so it’s the no one agrees on anything agreement
Huh, Tratado entre México, Estados Unidos y Canadá, TIL!
(Honestly, kind of genius.)
("Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord")
He is polling quite well with his voters, this was more just a power play.
https://x.com/NewsFromGoogle/status/1884012872768053467
> Also longstanding practice: When official names vary between countries, Maps users see their official local name. Everyone in the rest of the world sees both names. That applies here too.
The guy got enough votes without needing to promise to do this as well.
Isn't GNIS a US-only thing? I am not in the US, yet I am seeing "Gulf of America" in brackets after the correct name. Doesn't that suggest the decision is a bit less "independent" than you're implying?
(Not debating the merits, just pondering mapping details.)
This stuff is obviously pointless and silly but it's nothing new. I'm sure Google Maps shows UK and French users different names for what I would call the English Channel.
Ironically, it’s the same language policing that got the left in trouble. We have better things to do with our lives than keep a running tally of the right and wrong names for things.
Who asked to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43012859
Left and right are both off their rockers right now, and it's really frustrating for the majority of us stuck in the middle, getting shouted down and silenced from both sides.
Would you really feel confident in your job at X if you called it the Gulf of Mexico?
An idiot who called a rescue diver a "pedo" because the diver was a hero who rescued trapped children and everyone laughed at the stupid mini-submarine idea.
You'd probably be fired just for bringing that up, and laughing at it again, never mind your language use.
It would be interesting to see what it shows people outside of UK and France.
It's not a UK vs France thing, it's just English vs French (vs every other language).
Things get complicated when governments make things "official", though. For example, the Welsh government decided to make the "official" names for some places Welsh, which English speakers have no idea how to pronounce. So the Brecon Beacons is "officially" Bannau Brycheiniog, even in English, apparently.
In Ireland, for example, it's called the English Channel.
And also, to be fair, most names in other languages have a long history. I wouldn’t want people to call Germany anything but what it is called in their local language because for most European languages that’s a millennia of history packed into that name.
You should go and look up what Croatia is really called. Or Japan, Germany, Korea, China, Hungary, Greece, Finland...
> It is in the national interest to promote the extraordinary heritage of our Nation and ensure future generations of American citizens celebrate the legacy of our American heroes. ... in recognition of this flourishing economic resource and its critical importance to our Nation’s economy and its people, I am directing that it officially be renamed the Gulf of America.
Just searched Google Maps for Mt. Denali, Alaska only for it to return results for Mount McKinley immediately. Note I'm not really sure if that's anything to do with an executive order or that it was Alaskans wanting it called Denali while many elsewhere in the country incl at the Federal level called it McKinley.
It's a new level of public-but-divided space when we all start running client side software to reinforce our world view. I'm certainly not criticizing that chrome extension I think that is funny, but it's also something to think on.
A few examples:
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/trump-dog/bdhcfpbga...
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tralalump/epclgaegl...
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus/...
If not, is this correct following USA law? Also is this matter being questioned in superior Justice instances?
Why wouldn’t it be? What’s stopping them from calling it Gulf of Google if they want to?
Trump isn’t forcing Google to do anything. They use a database for their place names and use what is in that database.
Coercion isn't required when sycophants are eager to cooperate.
When it was the Gulf of Mexico, it was named from our point of view. It was the gulf, among our many gulfs, that we share with Mexico. Now, by the same logic it is named from their point of view.
All those in America (South, North, Central) are called Americans.
I spent several years in Paraguay where I met a lot of South Americans.
Mexicans are North Americans and the 'Gulf of America' is more inclusive considering 1/2 of the land mass touching it belongs to the US.
Actually it was named from the perspective of Spanish explorers. Originally Gulf of New Spain but by 1569 had become Gulf of Mexico.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gulf-of-america-gulf-o...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That is called selection bias.
How about if we all compromise on Gulf of Donald Trump Can your-favorite-letters-here?
I don't even like Trump, but this "renaming" is neutral at worst, inclusive at best.
Frankly I just think it's a waste of time and energy. I'm referring both to the original action, as well as the continuing ramp up of divisiveness.
The term "Gulf of Mexico" has been in common use for over 400 years, long before the US was even a thing. No one had a legitimate problem with the name.
The last five to ten years of activist similarly told us these things don't matter though. Doesn't matter that "blacklist" or "master" has nothing to do with Black people or slavery. We had to change them to more inclusive terms anyway.
>The term "Gulf of Mexico" has been in common use for over 400 years, long before the US was even a thing.
The exact same was said about "blacklist" and "master", among others.
>No one had a legitimate problem with the name.
Someone did, evidenced by the change. Or are you saying we shouldn't give in to the activists pushing this change? How ironic.
And I don't like the stink of arbitrary dictators renaming things for ego or propaganda reasons. This is the sort of thing North Korea or Turkmenbashi would do, and I think that's pathetic for America.
gulf of america is not more inclusive. the "renaming" was not meant to be inclusive, it was very clearly meant to be divisive.
this is a similar argument to one often used when people call canadians americans: "umm, ackshully, canada is in north america, so it's correct to call them americans"
and of course the flaw in that argument is that literally nobody on earth considers canadians to be americans except people on the internet trying to sound smart.
Sure it is. Mexico is not the only country in the Americas that has a maritime border on this body of water.
Sure it is. Mexico is not the only country in the Americas that has a maritime border on this body of water. Gulf of America is a more accurate and inclusive name. In the spirit of inclusivity we should keep it, just like we should keep "blocklist" and "main."
But because Trump did it, some Americans find this inherently problematic, in a way I doubt anyone would have if that had happened to be the name given 300 years ago. And I doubt any Mexican ever felt the old name was inappropriate.
If anyone has an argument that I'm missing something in this assessment, I'm happy to listen.
Canadian statehood and renaming the Gulf of Mexico were never brought up during the campaign. These actions serve no interest other than to antagonize American allies. They weaken the security posture of the United States, and that is ultimately the point, like soon to be DNI Gabbard.
These things serve a real purpose which is to troll the easily offended. In that, it's a huge success, as every breath wasted whingeing about this harmless renaming is one that isn't used to ask good questions like "Why fight a trade war with Canada instead of asking why we even have free trade with a country (Mexico) whose wages are so low that it promotes the gutting of American industry." That would be a good question to ask Trump.
We should have a bilateral trade deal with Canada, which would strengthen both countries, and cut Mexico out of it. But all this has distracted from how poorly he's executing his tariff strategy.
but anyway, what i heard was that former president passed a bunch of EO's banning all future oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. I guess the easiest way to invalidate them was the rename the Gulf.
Paired with the tariffs on Mexico and Canada, I think it’s more a reaction to what it says about America’s view towards its neighbours.
American power is overwhelming. Theoretically, it should have been balanced by now. It hasn’t because we’ve been a good steward of our alliances. “Gulf of America,” Mare Nostrum; at what point does it become rational for Mexico to seek a security guarantor against America?
“Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” Xi forgot the first part and may have squandered what ought to have been China’s century on account of it. The pushback to a needlessly-provocative imperialesque renaming is American society doing what China’s couldn’t.
(Broadly, I agree with your point. A lot of people are perpetually on Defcon 1. The renaming is dumb. But it isn’t going to undermine America.)
What's the expression... "don't take the bait"? There are far worse things happening in the White House for people on both sides of the aisle right now.
Since you brought up Turkey, they renamed themselves recently. Practically a lot of people just can't keep up every countries nuances and just use the old names. It's fine. It seems like a lot of people still use Bombay over Mumbai too ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Names are complicated! Germany/Deutschland, Holland/The Netherlands etc.
Interesting that Wikipedia keeps “Turkey”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey
They also keep Gulf of Mexico.
As a programmer: localization is a PITA.
I think we can acknowledge that this is just kind of stupid and rude but mostly petty without catastrophizing about the whole thing.
Meanwhile people will actually keep calling it whatever they want. Let’s switch it back and forth every time the White House changes teams, the minor confusion will remind us that the US government is only changing what it calls things. The actual name comes from what the majority of people call it.
You don't have to go that far back in a history book to understand the dangers of expansionist rhetoric in a globalist world and how it is directly against American interests to threaten war with our neighbors and allies.
Threatening war with neighbors and allies is not a Christian thing to do.
Hi, British person here. Yeah, we have a bit of, ahem, experience, of showing up to places and just changing place names and stuff because "it's just better that way... according to us". Generally speaking, people didn't like it. Factor in the statements about taking over Canada/Greenland/Palestine/Panama for USA's own personal gains, regardless of whether they are negotiating positions or not, and it sure seems similar to what we used to do "back in the day". You didn't like it when we did it to you. I'm not surprised other people aren't liking it when it either is being done by the USA, or even just appears to be being done as a result of some "negotiating position".
> I doubt any Mexican ever felt the old name was inappropriate.
There's at least one Mexican who believes the old name was appropriate. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cvg6gndgl1ro
> it's obviously arbitrary
If it's arbitrary, why is there a need to change it in the first place? it doesn't matter. it's a body of water. who cares what the name is. we could call it 75928ajfh3845.
so why the need to change it in the first place? (cough see first point cough)
> showing up to places and just changing place names and stuff because
> You didn't like it when we did it to you.
My whole argument was only that international waters between multiple countries is a special case where nobody can claim to be the "rightful" namers, except maybe for an argument that say, Australia or Japan couldn't be taken seriously at naming the Gulf since it doesn't touch any of them.
My point was only that it's a troll that we shouldn't care about.
I mean, technically, ...
It's not "because Trump did it".
It's very unusual for geographic place names to be renamed at the whim of a single politician. It's extremely unusual for it to happen by fiat, so quickly. It's absolutely unheard of for a feature so large, and shared by more than one country, to be renamed in this way in the modern era.
And that's before you even get into the difference between choosing a name out of respect for an original indigenous name vs. an intentionally jingoistic and self-aggrandizing name chosen to represent a new area of imperial possessiveness.
It already had such a name, just one probably named by Mexico if I had to guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denali%E2%80%93Mount_McKinley_...
Excellent example of what a typical high profile name change looks like: the culmination of decades of effort in renaming. Not a few weeks.
Sure, but the USA has no more right than any other country to enforce its name on the rest of us, and no right at all to enforce a name for space it does not own.