According to federal officials, the gulf has been known by various names over the centuries, including Golfo de Nueva España (The Gulf of New Spain) and Mar Di Florida (the Florida Sea), reflecting its history of contention between France, Spain, and other European countries during the colonization of the New World. The responsibility for renaming geographical locations falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, a federal office with the authority to rename geographic places within the United States. The Board emphasizes that name changes should only occur if there is a compelling reason and not solely to correct historical usage. While the changes made by the Board are not necessarily binding on the states bordering the gulf or other countries, some states have already embraced them.
In a state of emergency declaration, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis referred to the Gulf of America, highlighting the impact of weather conditions on North Florida. The potential renaming may also affect digital maps, with Google Maps and Waze being the most widely used navigation apps in the United States. However, it remains uncertain how American users of these platforms will see the updated name. Google Earth, which provides a three-dimensional representation of Earth, follows a policy of displaying the primary local name given by the bordering countries. If there is a dispute over the name, both names are displayed to accommodate different perspectives.
Despite possible changes in U.S. naming conventions, other countries are not obligated to adopt the new name. International organizations like the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names assist in mediating discrepancies in geographical naming conventions by promoting the recording of locally-used names that reflect the languages and traditions of each country.
The text on the organization’s website explains how specialists in geography, linguistics, cartography, and planning work together to develop tools and technology for geographical naming. They believe that using a common framework for names can bring significant benefits to the global community. However, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo disagrees with this notion. During a news conference on January 8, she suggested renaming the United States to “Mexican America.” Sheinbaum Pardo displayed a 17th-century map of North and South America, highlighting the area that corresponds to the United States and proposing the name change. She also presented historical maps that referred to North America as “America Mexicana” and emphasized the extensive territory that once belonged to Mexico, including parts of the current U.S. states of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico.
The executive order “Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness” aims to implement these changes within 30 days. Typically, renaming places in the U.S. takes at least six months to allow for consultation with various stakeholders. The Board on Geographic Names ensures consistency in naming for navigation purposes, and the federal Geographic Names Information System contains a vast database of named places in the U.S. Internationally, organizations like the United Nations and the International Hydrographic Organization also play a role in standardizing place names.
The renaming of places can stir emotional responses and has implications for indigenous histories and identities. Scholars have noted that renaming locations can erase the heritage and sense of belonging of indigenous communities. Gene Tucker, a history professor, emphasized the emotional impact of changing place names, citing instances like the renaming of a Texas Army post to Fort Cavazos in 2023, which still upsets local residents. The text also mentions the renaming of Alaska’s Mount Denali as part of the executive order.
In a symbolic move that sparked both praise and criticism, former President Barack Obama made headlines in 2015 by officially changing the name of Alaska’s tallest peak, Mount McKinley, to Denali. This decision, rooted in honoring the local Native American culture, saw the mountain embrace its Athabascan heritage by adopting the meaning of “the High One.” The renaming of this iconic American landmark, shrouded in controversy dating back to as early as 1916, has not only stirred a debate between honoring tradition and embracing change but has also shed light on the complex interplay between history, culture, and identity.
The origins of this naming dispute can be traced back to Ohio, the home state of President William McKinley, the mountain’s previous namesake. While Alaskans rallied behind the restoration of Denali, citing respect for the region’s indigenous roots and history, Ohioans pushed back against the alteration, holding firm to the legacy of their former leader. This clash of perspectives underscored the deep-seated attachments individuals and communities have to names, identities, and the narratives they represent.
Fast forward to the present day, and the issue of place-naming continues to capture public attention. A recent development that has drawn both curiosity and skepticism is the proposal put forth by former President Donald Trump to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. This suggestion, though seemingly straightforward on the surface, raises a myriad of questions about the power dynamics at play when it comes to reshaping geographical identities and the implications of such revisions.
The act of renaming a geographical feature is not merely a matter of semantics; it carries with it a weight of historical, cultural, and political significance. By altering the name of a place, we are not just changing a label on a map but also engaging with the stories, traditions, and memories intertwined with that location. The controversy surrounding the renaming of Mount McKinley to Denali serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities that arise when history clashes with the present, and when different perspectives vie for recognition and validation.
As we navigate the terrain of place-naming and identity, it becomes crucial to approach these discussions with sensitivity, respect, and a willingness to engage in dialogue. The renaming of a landmark is not a mere act of erasure or substitution but a reflection of evolving perspectives, values, and understandings. The debate over the Gulf of Mexico’s potential rebranding as the Gulf of America invites us to ponder the ways in which we construct geographical identities, the narratives we choose to amplify, and the voices we prioritize in shaping our collective story.
Ultimately, the power to name and rename places is a reflection of our shared human experience—a dynamic interplay of tradition and innovation, history and progress, memory and adaptation. Whether it be Mount McKinley’s transformation into Denali or the proposed shift from the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, these acts of renaming compel us to reckon with the stories we tell about ourselves, our connections to the
