By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump’s executive order resulted in the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and the reversion of Denali’s name to Mount McKinley. The Interior Department cited a commitment to preserving U.S. heritage as justification for these changes, effective immediately for federal use. While the U.S. will use the new names, international recognition is not mandated. The renaming of Denali reversed a previous decision by President Obama to honor its native Alaskan name.
Read the original article here
The Interior Department’s announcement that the Gulf of Mexico is now the Gulf of America and that Denali is to be called Mount McKinley again has sparked a firestorm of reaction, ranging from disbelief to outright anger. The idea that such a significant change could be implemented without widespread public support or consultation is astonishing to many. It feels like a decision made in a vacuum, disconnected from the sentiments of the people directly affected and the international community.
The suggestion that states should have a say in such matters seems to be entirely overlooked. Alaska, for instance, clearly prefers the name Denali for its iconic mountain. Ignoring this preference, and indeed ignoring decades of established usage, feels heavy-handed and arbitrary, like a nostalgic throwback to a bygone era. This evokes comparisons to past politically-motivated renamings, like the infamous “Freedom Fries” episode, underscoring the sense that this action is primarily symbolic and politically charged rather than practical or necessary.
This unilateral decision raises questions about its practical impact. Will the change truly take hold? The common response seems to be a resounding “no.” People are expressing their strong resistance to adopting the new names, citing the established use of the old ones, much like the continued use of “Sears Tower” in Chicago, despite its official renaming. This suggests a deep-seated resistance to arbitrary changes, particularly when there’s no compelling reason behind them.
The sheer scale of the undertaking required to effectively rename these prominent geographical features is also being questioned. Reprising millions of maps and books seems incredibly inefficient, and the cost is likely to far outweigh any perceived benefits. The entire endeavor feels akin to a costly and ultimately futile exercise.
The international community’s reaction is predictable: bewildered indifference. The consensus seems to be that the US has made its decision, but the rest of the world isn’t likely to follow suit. This creates a potential for confusion and unnecessary complications in international communication and collaboration. The renaming efforts seem destined to remain largely symbolic within the United States itself.
The timing of this announcement is also raising eyebrows. With pressing issues like wealth disparity and gun violence taking center stage, this feels like a frivolous distraction, a political maneuver designed to rally a specific base while ignoring more substantial national concerns. Many see it as emblematic of a broader trend of prioritizing symbolic gestures over substantive policy.
The widespread skepticism surrounding the renaming is perhaps best summarized by the consistent rejection of the new names by the public. People are expressing their intention to continue using the familiar names, suggesting a deep-seated resistance to what feels like an unnecessary and arbitrary imposition. The reaction underscores the limitations of top-down decision-making in the face of entrenched public sentiment.
The entire episode is viewed by many as a colossal waste of time and resources, a symbolic gesture lacking substance. It serves as a source of amusement and ridicule internationally, casting a shadow over the United States’ image and undermining its credibility on the world stage. Ultimately, the renaming effort appears to be destined to fail in its primary objective: changing established usage. The reaction to it underscores a fundamental disconnect between the ruling administration and the concerns and sentiments of the American public and the international community. This episode may well serve as a case study in the futility of imposing arbitrary changes without widespread support and a clear, compelling reason.