Real motive behind Trump renaming Gulf of Mexico
Before President Donald Trump, the most high-profile call to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico came from Stephen Colbert, who joked on his Comedy Central show in 2010 that the body of water should be referred to as the Gulf of America in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill because 'we broke it, we bought it.' Almost 15 years later, it could have been worse: Trump could have decreed the Gulf of Mexico be renamed the Gulf of MAGA. (Don't anyone give him any ideas!)
But Trump's arrival at changing the name to the Gulf of America retains none of the jocular tinge of Colbert's sarcastic suggestion. When William Nericcio first heard about Trump's executive order to do just that, the San Diego State English professor dismissed it as 'a big publicity stunt to mask more nefarious stuff.'
It certainly was received that way in the weeks leading up to Inauguration Day, when Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum reacted to news of Trump's plans by suggesting the American Southwest, which belonged to Mexico until the 1848 Mexican-American War, be renamed 'América Mexicana.' The laughs continued as Trump mentioned the Gulf of America during his inaugural address, then signed the change into law along with 25 other executive orders that included a ban on birthright citizenship, withdrawing from the Paris climate accords and ending all federal diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programmes.
Rebranding the body of water bounded by the US, Mexico and Cuba as the Gulf of America — which Trump justified by stating in his order it 'has long been an integral asset to our once burgeoning Nation and has remained an indelible part of America' — was seen as a random piffle, namely because cartographers and governments across the world have used 'Gulf of Mexico' for nearly 475 years.
But the more that Nericcio thought about a gesture he felt was 'straight out of Barnum & Bailey,' the more he began to worry. He's the author of 'Tex(t)-Mex: Seductive Hallucinations of the 'Mexican' in American,' a hilarious yet insightful 2007 book abut the history of anti-Mexican sentiment in the United States. It tracks the depiction of Mexicans in popular culture through postcards depicting the Mexican Revolution, Hollywood stereotypes, racist songs and more — efforts Nericcio argued have fuelled anti-Mexican laws and sentiment in this country for decades.
'The speaking of the Spanish language on Mexican soil can trigger the most jingoistic attitudes,' Nericcio told me, 'so why not pave over five centuries of history and call it the Gulf of America?'
He fretted as Trump declared Feb. 9 to be Gulf of America Day, saying it was part of restoring 'American pride in the history of American greatness,' and as the US Board on Geographic Names officially complied with Trump's order and announced all federal agencies were 'currently in the process of updating their maps, products, and services to reflect the Gulf of America name change.'
Nericcio groaned when the White House blocked Associated Press reporters from the Oval Office in retaliation for the news organisation — whose style guide is regarded as the gold standard in American journalism, including by the L.A. Times — announcing they would continue to use 'Gulf of Mexico' in its stories while acknowledging Trump's name change.
But what put the profe in full despair mode was when Apple and Google updated their map services last week so that American users will now see 'Gulf of America.' The decision prompted the Mexican government to write a letter to Google stating that 'under no circumstance will Mexico accept the renaming of a geographic zone within its own territory and under its jurisdiction,' and threatening a lawsuit. Nericcio is usually quick to a bon mot, but his worrisome tone when we talked was something I had never heard in the 15 years we've known each other. 'We know the history of America is empire, but this is America showing its empire tattoos,' he said. 'It's bald, naked imperialism, and it's on the order of Stalin.'
It's easy to dismiss Nericcio as a wild-eyed academic wokoso, but he's not wrong at all. The name change isn't a punchline or weird Trump quirk a la ketchup on steak or his weak-salsa YMCA dance. It's indicative of a commander in chief hellbent on continuing his efforts at a modern-day Manifest Destiny against our ultimate frenemy in any way, shape or form. Trump is convinced the American public will largely accept anything he does against Mexico, because guess what? It's just Mexico. Critics and supporters have long said to take Trump at his word, and few things have shown this to be truer than his vendetta against the country of my parents. It was right there in the speech announcing his first successful presidential run a decade ago this June.
Within the opening three minutes of his speech, Trump uttered the line: 'When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. ... They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.' That's the viral part of his anti-Mexican screed. But there was more.
Trump mentioned Mexico 13 times in that speech, his pronunciation dripping with disdain every time. He promised to build a 'great, great wall' to seal it off from us, and labelled our southern neighbour 'the new China.' He whined that Mexico is 'laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they're killing us economically.' So much bile against our second-largest trading partner and the ancestral country of millions of American citizens — and yet the crowd cheered him on. Trump has kept to his saber-rattling words. He has never ceased to describe people crossing into this country from Mexico as an 'invasion,' and is vowing to severely limit legal migration and deport immigrants in the country without legal documentation in a way this country has never seen. He's still threatening to impose steep tariffs against Mexico, while his team is salivating at the idea of channeling their inner Gen. Pershing and launching military incursions into the country under the guise of combating drug cartels. Last month, Defence secretary Pete Hegseth told Fox News that 'all options will be on the table.'
Wiping off the Gulf of Mexico from US maps isn't a lark; it's a promise of more to come. It's a move out of the Latin American strongmen that have long plagued the Western Hemisphere but now have an eager copycat at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
I asked Nericcio to find a silver lining in all this, or at least advice on how to fight back. 'We don't own the engines of legitimacy and power — unfortunately, he does,' Nericcio replied. 'We're speaking in the past tense, Gustavo. It's done.' He laid out the following scenario: the next time American schoolchildren have to do a geography assignment involving the Gulf of Mexico, they'll look up the maps of Google, Apple or websites run by the federal government. 'They'll see Gulf of America and think, 'Oh, that's the right answer for my homework because the Internet says so. And voila, you now have a whole generation calling it by a name with no historical basis.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
The politics of compromise and conviction
Luke Harris, Tribune News Service Scott Turner was a Texas House Representative, now serving in the Trump Administration as the Secretary of US Housing & Urban Development (HUD). In the Texas House, he talked about 'being the best we can,' and espoused high standards for himself and his colleagues; however, in his current position, he has voiced no complaints or objections against the administration or the Republican Party. Perhaps for less cynical reasons than power itself, but to pursue his policies on housing and healthcare. Turner is a brilliant case study for how ambition causes politicians to accept feeble attempts to reason away their beliefs or ethics, always for something greater, something they can achieve with one more step. That 'one more step' toward completely surrendering their integrity, confounding their ethical clarity, and adopting whatever means meet their ends. During a keynote address in 2014, he spoke of the duty to break the status quo, Democrat or Republican, he said, 'We need servant leaders.... People who live by conviction and principle, not by the waves of the sea of what's popular today.' He shared his experience growing up in a poor home, and his father working two jobs. At his confirmation, he talked empathetically about the homelessness crisis and how his family took in his uncle, providing him with the services he needed. Trump has made comments expressing disdain for the homeless; he said these people were hurting the 'prestige' of major cities, and many homeless people might prefer their situation. An NBC affiliate network reported that 1 in 4 low-income households eligible for HUD rental assistance receive benefits. Turner is championing time limits, which means taking away benefits from more low-income households still unable to afford the cost of living. Trump has further plans to remove people from homeless encampments and place them in large camps or tent-cities, where they will be mandated to receive mental health or addiction treatment. Seemingly in conflict with his views on homelessness and background, these policies are consistent with his previous stances representing Texas, for example, restricting welfare, requiring drug testing for unemployment benefits, voting against free-lunch programs in Texas schools, and opposing the Affordable Care Act. He defined his career as a Texas Representative as an uncompromising advocate for transparency, leading extensive investigations into the conduct of his colleagues, and voting on policies to increase accountability. For example, he voted for HB 1690, which authorized rangers to investigate misconduct of an official or public administration and refer cases to the State Attorney General. He has parted ways with these values, perhaps to advocate for his conservative policies on social programs such as welfare and housing subsidies. However, compromising his fight against improper leadership or self-interested governance — accepting the numerous examples of corruption and secrecy — to achieve an agenda or implement a policy, is not leading on principle or conviction. The Epstein scandal is a recent example of something that clearly runs against Turner's previous views on government transparency and accountability. The footage and DOJ reports are inconsistent, and the Administration, DOJ, and FBI have refused to comment. For example, the files obtained by the AP provide a Suicide Timeline; at 6:33 a.m., staff found Epstein unresponsive, and at 6:45 a.m., EMS arrived. The DOJ released raw footage from the hallway camera. According to the FBI, anyone entering the cell would have been visible on that camera, but the footage shows no one entering his cell around the provided timeline. More concerningly, Pam Bondi, Trump's Attorney General, has directly undermined the investigation into the Epstein files, ordering thousands of FBI agents to redact files. Bondi allegedly pressured the FBI to recruit 1,000 personnel to review 100,000 files relating to Jefferey Epstein and 'flag' any that mentioned Donald Trump. It would not be an exaggeration to compare the redaction of the Epstein files to the shredding of papers or deletion of tapes in the Watergate Scandal. Furthermore, his treatment of the press, on the Epstein Scandal and throughout his two terms, displays a hostility not seen since Nixon's 'Enemy List': revoking CNN reporter Jim Acosta's press pass, restricting AP reporters' access to White House events, ending funding for public broadcast stations, suing 60 Minutes, recently launching a $22 billion suit against The Wall Street Journal, and attacking reporters for 'fake news' or calling journalists 'nasty.'
Middle East Eye
9 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Israeli police arrest four at protest over killing of Palestinian activist
Israeli police detained four protesters in Tel Aviv on Sunday evening during a demonstration against the military and police over the killing of Awdah Hathaleen, a Palestinian man shot by a settler in the occupied West Bank last week, Haaretz reported. His body remains withheld by authorities. Around 200 Israelis, including the Israeli MP Ofer Cassif, blocked Kaplan Road in central Tel Aviv, the report said. Another 200 gathered in central Jerusalem. Awdah Hathaleen, 31, a father of three, an English teacher and activist, was killed this week (Twitter/@MohammadHureini)
Gulf Today
10 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Britain is in the midst of one long, hot, nervous summer
Adrian Wooldridge, Tribune News Service There is an ominous sense in the air in Britain — a sense that the country is headed toward the rocks and that the captain has no idea how to steer the ship. This feeling is vague — hardly the stuff of graphs or numbers — but vague feelings can sometimes tell us more about the future than the hardest economic statistics. The two biggest rocks on the horizon are labeled debt crisis and civil unrest. Blood-curdling warnings from the right are par for the course. Andrew Neil warns in the Daily Mail that 'broke Britain is on the edge of financial disaster ... I'm scared for what's to come.' But equally dire warnings are coming from the left — and even from the very heart of government. Gary Smith, the general secretary of the GMB union, notes that 'our finances are precarious ... this could unravel very quickly.' Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has told her boss that Britain could face a repeat of last year's summer riots unless 'the government shows it can address people's concerns.' Seven in 10 Britons think that it's likely the country will experience race riots in the future, according to a poll for The Economist. Why are the British in such a state of angst? And, more importantly, are they right to be so worried? The country's economic problems stem from a combination of rising debt and dismal growth. The Office for Budget Responsibility recently warned of Britain's 'relatively vulnerable' position, with the sixth-highest debt among 36 advanced economies, the fifth-highest deficit and the third-highest borrowing costs. The government recorded the second-highest June borrowing figure since records began in 1993 (and that was only exceeded by June 2020 when COVID was raging). Bond markets have traditionally given a lot of leeway to Britain because of its reputation for seriousness. They also give leeway to governments that have a large majority and a clear plan for dealing with their debt. But Starmer's Labour looks more like a divided minority government on its last legs than a one-year-old government with a huge majority. It failed to pass a modest package of welfare reforms that would raise £1.5 billion ($2 billion) from means-testing winter fuel payments and £5 billion from cutting health and disability benefits, when public spending stands at £1.3 trillion a year. The government's promise that it will grow its way out of its fiscal hole has evaporated, with Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves instead digging deeper by increasing taxes on labor and driving away wealthy people (particularly non-doms) who pay a disproportionate share of taxes. The last fortnight has seen a couple of tense street protests — in Epping and Canary Wharf. In both cases, locals protested the government's decision to take over local hotels and fill them with young male asylum seekers, chanting 'send them home' and 'save our kids.' The protests quickly gained national resonance: Organized agitators from both the left and the right came in from across the country, and the internet lit up with furious posts. We have no equivalent of the OBR to give a balanced assessment of the state of the country's social fabric, but a bipartisan report by Sajid Javid, a former Conservative home secretary, and John Cruddas, a Labour grandee, published by the think tank British Future, makes for sobering reading: The authors warn that Britain is sitting on a 'powder keg' of social tensions that could easily ignite again. The social bonds that have traditionally held society together have been fraying for decades, they say, but the tensions have been significantly increased by rapid immigration and poor assimilation. Trust in politicians is at an all-time low with 45% of people in the 2024 British Social Attitudes Survey saying they 'almost never' trust governments of any party to put the needs of the nation above the interests of their own political party, up by 22 percentage points from 2020. I think it is still more likely than not that Britain will muddle through without either a debt crisis or a major series of riots, let alone a civil war, as one academic, David Betz, a professor of war studies at King's College, London, has predicted. Reeves has the option of breaking her electoral promise and raising general taxation. The government is, finally, giving the impression that it is taking the small boats crisis seriously by targeting the international gangs that profit from people smuggling and cracking down on the food delivery services that profit from illegal labor. What we are probably in for instead is prolonged pain rather than sudden crisis. But a major shock cannot be ruled out. The most serious worry is that the barriers that protect us from either a debt contagion or a social conflagration have been eroded. Britain's credit with the global markets is not what it was since the Liz Truss fiasco. And many people's trust in the establishment has been weakened by that establishment's failure to control the pace of immigration or manage the social consequences.
