The Left Tries to Maintain Its Grip on the Dictionary
President Trump, now sworn into office, has wasted no time implementing his campaign promises. He has already signed a nearly overwhelming number of executive orders on a range of issues in just the first few days of his presidency—axing government DEI programs, securing the border, and pardoning pro-life prisoners, to name just a few. He has even challenged birthright citizenship, though it remains to be seen what will come of this as litigation is underway.
In the White House—no longer an ornate and impressively secure old folks’ home—resides a leader who, like few before him, is wielding authority like a president truly vested with “the executive power” of the United States.
Even Moldbug is impressed.
One particular item on Trump’s agenda, however, has drawn ridicule from both sides of the aisle: his plan to rename the “Gulf of Mexico” the “Gulf of America.” For some, with so many vital policies to implement before the midterm elections, this seems needlessly provocative and a waste of time and energy. Trump has also discussed acquiring Greenland and taking back the Panama Canal, but these plans can be tied to legitimate national security concerns. Renaming the Gulf is different. America won’t be gaining any territory or resources. At best, Google Maps will slap a new label on this body of water, which we already dominate. All this represents is Trump’s America-first machismo at its most embarrassing.
On the Left, of course, sentiments have generally reflected this post from the account Public Citizen:
But even some on the right have found it silly:
I want to suggest that not only these perspectives, but even those in favor of the change just because it’s cool and masculine and Trump’s idea may be missing the underlying significance of this ordered rebrand.
Trump understands something that many on the Right have failed to grasp for far too long: words matter and Conservatives must start engaging in the battle over the dictionary. In an important way, the “Gulf of America” represents an attack against every attempt to reduce American influence—to favor every other culture over America—driven by a deep-seated hatred of its values and heritage.
The Left has long understood that by renaming and redefining, it can mold reality as it wishes. Even small changes can have a significant effect. For example, not long ago every member of the legislative body was a “congressman;” this was understood to be an unsexed term. Later, in an effort to stress individual identity, “congresswoman” was added to our vocabulary. And now, as the Left has increasingly emphasized personal identity and multiplied the number of genders, news outlets routinely use the term “congressperson.”
By reshaping language in this way, the Left has made space in our lexicon for the ever-expanding range of “gender identities” and other progressive departures from the sex binary. The transgender movement has contributed far more ridiculous terms such as “birthing person,” “chestfeeding” and “parenting partner.” These may have been newly invented, but they validate transgender existence and the philosophy undergirding it.
This is why the Left cares so deeply about pronouns. Just as using the term “birthing person” is to validate transgenderism as a concept, so using correct pronouns is to affirm that a person’s identity is not fixed but is subject to that person’s feelings and desires. These changes relating to sex are the most extreme example of this effort to redefine reality, but they serve as a potent example of the ways in which words can shape the world.
Because the Left has also maintained a stranglehold on America’s institutions, these changes have managed to burrow their way into a place of semi-permanence in the American system. A shocking example of their machine at work occurred during Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing. Barrett mentioned “sexual preference,” which Senator Mazie Hirono condemned as “an offensive and outdated term.” Within hours, Webster’s Dictionary added an “offensive” label to “sexual preference” to solidify this new meaning. (See Fox News, 2020)
There is just as much at stake in the names of physical landmarks, and here, as elsewhere, the Left has outpaced the Right. Recently, for example, as part of concerted efforts to remove all remnants of the Confederacy in the South, Fort Bragg was renamed Fort Liberty. This might seem pedantic—nothing changed about the location itself—but the Left understood that as long as the Fort remained Bragg, a Confederate general would be remembered and honored. In order to erase this man from history and memory, they insisted the name be changed.
In 2015, President Obama changed America’s tallest mountain from Mt. Mckinley to Denali, its Native Alaskan name. The significance of this act was not lost on the New York Times:
“Denali’s name has long been…regarded as an example of cultural imperialism in which a Native American name with historical roots was replaced by an American one having little to do with the place.” NYT, 2015.
Obama’s order was no trivial act. It was a deliberate attempt to retract America’s footprint in the world, driven by a theory that holds America to be a privileged country, whose founders were evil slave-holders, and whose very existence is an affront to minority cultures. This attitude has driven virtually every action taken by the Left over the last decade; they want to diminish American culture and dominance wherever possible.
All of this is why Trump’s order to rename the Gulf is so significant. It signals that he recognizes the battle being fought over the dictionary and is willing to go on the offensive. By renaming the Gulf the “Gulf of America,” Trump is explicitly pushing back against the Left’s efforts to shrink America’s influence and is, instead, expanding it. He is saying, in effect, “America is great. The more things identified with America, the better.” (Trump has also reinstated Denali as Mt Mckinley.)
He is fighting this battle in other areas as well. For instance, he has declared that the government will only recognize one’s sex at birth and has declared that male and female sex are determined at conception.
Trump’s efforts to redefine and rename should be seen as a unified assault on the Left’s attempt to shape the world according to its perverse ideologies. The Gulf of America is not cringy. It is part of a battle the Right has long needed to fight—part of a battle for reality itself. And with the power of the people’s mandate behind him, Trump is making all the right moves.
Image Credit: Unsplash
Enjoyed the read! I’ll admit I thought (and still do) that it’s a little cringe, but I get where you’re coming from. The left is a master of language and the right has not understood the implicit consequences of this. Spot on.
However, to me, the “Gulf of Mexico” is different. It’s purely a geographical description. Right? I’ll admit i don’t know the history well here, but it seems to me a far different animal than the “Denail” name-change that comes out of a woke “revisionist history” lens.
It’s interesting that Trump’s renaming of our highest peak back to Mount McKinley is praised as a successful counterattack against frivolous language changes to promote ideological values, when that’s how we got the name Mount McKinley in the first place.
For those unaware, the Mountain was first called Mount McKinley by a prospector’s petty political instigation against his fellow prospectors for a cause almost no one cares about anymore. What was that cause? The debate between the Silver Standard (promoted by many Alaskan prospectors) against the Gold Standard (promoted by a campaigning McKinley). Upon McKinley’s assassination, the mountain was given his name in commemoration. Beyond the prospector’s nickname the Mountain has nothing to do with the former president. All of this occurred against the wishes of the Alaskan residents (indigenous and otherwise) who called it Denali (from native tradition) far before the McKinley association, and continued to refer to it as such after the establishment of its new official name.
If anything, the Christening of the Mountain as “McKinley” is evidence of a group who insists upon “renaming and redefining things so they could mold reality as they wish”.
Admittedly, there’s a lot one can talk about the power of language as a political tool (for good or evil), that requires more than a fair amount of nuance to do tactfully and thoughtfully. This article’s complete lack of interest in the actual history of the Denali/McKinley controversy, it’s concerning comments in response to places named in honor of confederate generals, and its abundance of straw men and false binaries, speak for itself.
Love it. The “author” of this article clearly lacks any ability to speak intelligently on this subject, instead reverting to what he knows best as his role of man baby who is scared of anything that is not white and male.
For those who care to learn, keep reading:
The Gulf of Mexico has been named since the 16th century, when Spanish explorers began to map the region following the arrival of Hernán Cortes in 1519. The term arises because this vast expanse of water was located east of the lands we know today as Mexico, which were then dominated by the Mexican Empire.
Since when is it called the “Gulf of Mexico”?
XVI Century: The name “Gulf of Mexico” appears on maps and historical documents since the first Spanish explorations. European cartographers began to use it to designate this semi-finished basin, because of its proximity to the Mexican territory.
Although there was no Mexico as a country (independent since 1821), the name referred to the Mesoamerican region under Spanish control and linked to the Mexican empire.
It was named before the existence of the United States
The name “Gulf of Mexico” was established long before the formation of the United States in 1776.
During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the area that today includes the states of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and Florida was part of Spanish and French colonial territories, and had no relation with the future country.
This reinforces that the Gulf of Mexico, both as a geographical region and nomenclature, has historical roots that precede the creation of the United States.
Conclusion
The Gulf of Mexico has carried its name for more than 500 years, long before the United States existed as a nation. This term reflects its historical and geographical connection with Mesoamerican lands, being a denomination that persists since the first maps elaborated by European colonizers.
Thank you donald for renaming this body of water to honor our Italian countryman the explorer Amerigo Vespucci. Ciao.
This article is cringe
It is 100% cringe.
The actions of Trump appear to be doing more to reduce the long term influence of the US in the world than was predicted. While his belligerence and extortion approach, and his apparent need to win and dominate, may get short-term acquiescence, all countries are beginning to see the US as unreliable. And country they just don’t want to do business with. And pulling back from international roles may achieve some short term financial gains, and appease those that don’t understand the value, but the loss of developing markets is essentially transferring wealth and influence to China.
And the world will never forget if he sells out Ukraine as it looks like he’s preparing to do.
This article is equally as cringy worthy as the Gulf of America. Im from Alaska and you’ve got your facts wrong.
Extremely well written article. You have a promising career ahead of you.
Here’s a thought experiment for you. Imagine that the “unsexed” word for a member of the House of Representatives was called a “congresswoman.” Would you feel comfortable being called that? Now imagine how 50% of the American population likes being called “man” when they are not men?
Changes in language over the history of time reflect understanding and sensitivity to others. Can conquerors not understand that maybe what was done in the conquest was unfair and wrong? Changing to the “Gulf of America” does nothing to reflect a new understanding of the world. In fact, it is an attempt to erase history and bolster the ego of one man.