Is the United States’ government’s decision to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America contentious, amusing or precedent-setting?
Or does anyone care?
Google Maps last week announced it would change the name of the gulf to its “chosen” new name but only if double-clicked on a U.S. computer.
My colleagues in Cleveland will see Gulf of America, while I will see Gulf of Mexico.
I am trying to find a hotel with the name of Hotel Gulf of Mexico to see what conversations are happening in it, but so far, I cannot find one.
I do not want to dismiss this all as politics with a small “p.” Names are important.
Hoteliers chose names very carefully for their hotels, as one instance.
So do cities and countries.
The name New Amsterdam was changed quickly to the name New York when the British took the island of Manhattan over in 1664, but logic surely suggests its name should be now changed to sever all links with the despised British colonial occupiers, of which I am descendent.
Turkey a few years ago asked everyone to write its name as Türkiye, not Turkey, but I do not see too many publications making this change. The Turkish argument was that as a country it did not want to be confused or associated with the bird family. Would anyone?
The United Nations uses the new, requested name.
It surely is polite to do so; maybe asking for politeness in politics is naive?
Maybe the new U.S. administration should have asked the world what it thought, or at least the U.N., concerning the Gulf of Mexico?
Little chance of that, I suspect. Once a change is made, pride and face can be lost with a U-turn decision.
Perhaps it comes down to this, that the changing of a name of a place should come from a position of kindness, one that might help grease the pathway of global democracy, neighborliness, humanitarian aid, humanity and business deals? If writing a name of a place in a certain way causes raised eyebrows, why not change it?
News emerged last week in the United Kingdom that five or so years ago, a new submarine had its name changed — reputedly at the request of the now King Charles III — from His Majesty’s Ship Agincourt to HMS Achilles, as it was thought the original name could cause offense to the French.
The Battle of Agincourt was fought between the British and the French in 1415, with defeat to the French, or at least state the history books.
It might be impossible to win over everyone with a choice of name. The Agincourt decision was branded as “woke” by one politician, apparently.
It is easy to be simply amused at such arguments and decisions, but place names have deep-rooted social, political and historical connections. What goes into books or atlases or what lyrics are sung in songs has long aroused heated conversation, and worse.
Yes, to the victor the spoils, and maybe when new administrations come in, if ones do in 2029 in both countries, the names will be swiftly reverted to their old ones.
These decisions do have a monetary cost. I was always amazed when I lived in New York City at the speed the public signs in that city of 8 million displayed the name of the new mayor. Literally, it was overnight following an election.
If only everything else could be changed at that speed.
Areas in which history remains painful or contentious would see the process of name-changing in a hugely different way, perhaps?
The change of the name of the Gulf of Mexico to me sounds petty, but for others it might not be. Maybe it is at long last a correction of a long-held hurt? I cannot imagine how, but maybe so?
Apparently, the U.S. government cannot force privately or publicly listed businesses to follow suit, and it cannot force other countries to do so either, but it is inevitable that somewhere, somehow, at some point, important diplomatic or business relationships will stutter over this “little” thing.
The devil is in the details.
Also, as government often is an exercise in compromise, perhaps the body of water should be referred to as the Gulf of America/Gulf of Mexico, but which one should come first?
Perhaps for the first six months of any year, it is one, for the other six months, the other, but maybe one camp will feel aggrieved at always coming second? Maybe the name change can be alternated?
In 1993, Australia officially adopted a dual name for its famous Ayers Rock, and that now is named Uluru/Ayers Rock, but probably not in regular conversation.
Travel marketers might relish using both, as the name Ululu more than hints at unique culture, history and flavor.
Truth to say, there are plenty of places that exist happily with two Roman-alphabet names, although the state of New Mexico is probably not one of them.
Enough of this silliness. I have my 4 p.m./1600 hours Brexitstar/Eurostar train to catch from London/Londinium/Lundenwic to Far-South England, formerly known as France.
The opinions expressed in this column do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Hotel News Now or CoStar Group and its affiliated companies. Bloggers published on this site are given the freedom to express views that may be controversial, but our goal is to provoke thought and constructive discussion within our reader community. Please feel free to contact an editor with any questions or concern.