Tuesday, January 21, 2025

Two Things

1.  Changing Denali back to McKinley seems pointless and kind of ridiculous.

2.  I'm not sure that a US president has the authority to change the name of a body of water that does not fall within US borders, but if you're going to waste time with that nonsense, how about The Gulf of the Americas.   Let's acknowledge the reality that the Gulf touches North, Central, and South America and be accurate. 

11 comments:

Marshal Art said...

Changing the name of a mountain whose name was just fine before the left changed it is a good idea. It is a direct attack on the very flawed mindset which led to it being named Denali. I would like it more so if military base names were restored to their original names as well, and for the same reasons.

I see these name changes by the left as part of their anti-American efforts to fundamentally change the nation. They've done quite enough as evidenced by the ongoing decay of the culture. Let's reverse it in every way we can.

As to the Gulf, I'm less concerned. But unless I'm looking at the map wrong, it seems the Gulf is only along the Mexican and United States shores, extending from Cancun all the way to the southernmost tip of Florida. Outside of those two points is the ocean, not the Gulf. At a glance, it looks like there's a greater length of United States shoreline than Mexican, but kinda looks 55/45 or 60/40. And given that Mexico is part of North America, the name change would be more accurately the Gulf of North America.

Just sayin'.

Craig said...

It was Denali long before it was McKinley. It's not like McKinley was some titan in the pantheon of presidents. It's a stupid, petty, pointless, gesture that ultimately accomplishes nothing. Can he do it, absolutely. Is it just as stupid as changing Lake Calhoun to Bde Makaska Ska, yup.

If he wants to re name the military bases, I'm all good with that.

I actually checked and the length of US shoreline is about 1,700 miles, while the Mexican shoreline is almost 1,800 miles. So, if length of shoreline is the criteria, than it's aptly named.

1. Trump doesn't have the ability to change the name so the whole conversation is kind of stupid.

2. Had he suggested Gulf of North America, it'd be better. Yet, the Gulf touches Central and South America as well, so why not add make it Americas?

I'm just sayin' that it's a pointless, kind of stupid thing to take seriously.

Hell, the fact that it's something that's semi worthy of a post, just makes that point.

Marshal Art said...

Who originally named it Denali? Anyone we need to respect? I don't think so, but I don't care as much to carry on with this specific issue. The fact is the mountain has had many names and even while named Denali, other indigenous people called it something else. It's really an inane dispute as I think you agree.

I also won't argue the length of US v Mexico shoreline, because I was just eyeballing it from maps. However, I don't think technically the Gulf extends beyond Cancun and what constitutes the Gulf is that which is "enclosed" by Cancun and the tip of Florida. But again, who cares?

Craig said...

Who cares who "named it"? The people who lived there before it was part of the US were the most likely culprits. I agree it's an inane dispute, and it's a stupid thing for Trump to waste time with. Strangely enough, you've been driving the "dispute" (I just said I thought it was "kind of ridiculous"), you're the one pushing back on that.

Interesting take. You "won't argue" the length of the Gulf shoreline. Possibly because you suspect that I did the research and that it's easier to do this than be wrong. Which brings things back to my point. It's ridiculous to call it the Gulf of America, and certainly ridiculous for Trump to make this an issue when it's totally out of his control. If it has to change, which it doesn't, then Gulf of North America or of the Americas would be more accurate.

Craig said...

Clearly you care, or you wouldn't be continuing to comment.

Marshal Art said...

I haven't been driving this "dispute". You have since you chose to post on the issue. I'm merely responding to the post and your subsequent responses afterward. And I won't argue the length of shoreline because, yeah, I didn't do the research you did (except afterwards I did and the source I used suggested an almost equal length with Mexico slightly more). Like I said, I just eyeballed a map which due to the differing shapes appeared ours was longer. Why do you do this shit?

As to who named the mountain, as I stated, it had multiple names at the same time depending upon which indigenous group was queried.

Tell you what...I'm done with this.

Craig said...

Yes, I did post on it, yet you've replied. I threw out a couple of opinions, you're first response made it to be some sort of left wing plot to erase the memory of a president that no one remembers anyway.

My larger point, that these are both ridiculous actions for different reasons, has largely gone unaddressed. The Denali thing, is not first day of a new administration important, it's "Let's get a headline on a slow news day" important. As for the second, it's something over which Trump has no control, and therefore ridiculous and pointless.

Why do I look things up and try to be accurate? Who knows. The fact is that my first thought was that Mexico had more shoreline than the US, hence the name, so I did the actual research. I pointed out to you that your original guess, that the US had more shoreline, was incorrect. I'd have hoped that you'd have been appreciative for the accurate information. The fact that you seem bent on justifying this name change is what seems weird.

Honestly, who TF cares about either name. Was there some massive outcry from McKinley fans clamoring for a name change? Some huge interest group (maybe the paper map industry) looking to make huge money on a Gulf name change?

The point is, and remains, that Trump gets attached to these types of things and wastes time on them instead of things that are more important.

"The Koyukon Athabaskans who inhabit the area around the mountain have for centuries referred to the peak as Dinale or Denali. The name is based on a Koyukon word for 'high' or 'tall'.[23] During the Russian ownership of Alaska, the common name for the mountain was Bolshaya Gora (Russian: Большая Гора; bolshaya 'big'; gora 'mountain'), which is the Russian translation of Denali."

"In 1975, the name controversy reemerged when the State of Alaska petitioned the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (USBGN) to change the name of the mountain to Denali officially. Unfortunately for Alaskans, the Ohio congressional delegation (representing former-President McKinley’s home state) blocked their efforts for the next four decades."

Craig said...

On January 13th, 1916, hunter-naturalist Charles Sheldon made an appeal to Thomas Riggs of the Alaska Engineering Commission regarding the naming of the park and its crown jewel:

“I hope that in the bill you will call it ‘Mt Denali National Park’ so that the true old Indian [sic] name of Mt Denali (meaning ‘the Great One’) will thus be preserved.”


"On the same day that Sheldon sent his letter, mountaineer Belmore Browne also wrote to Riggs about the naming of the park and was unequivocal in his language, referring to the proposed park as “Denali National Park.”

Sheldon, Browne, and Riggs were part of a team that was drafting legislation to establish a national park protecting wildlife. Sheldon and Browne, who had both spent significant time within the proposed park boundaries, were deeply alarmed by the decimation of the region’s game due to market hunting and the impending arrival of the railroad. They were also concerned about preserving for the mountain a Native name which increasingly was being dismissed or completely ignored by American mapmakers, and in other publications."

https://www.adn.com/politics/2025/01/22/alaska-politicians-question-trumps-proposal-to-rename-denali/

So, the state of Alaska (a red state) has wanted Denali since 1975. The current GOP Governor and senators want Denali, and the two individuals responsible for turning it into a national park, wanted Denali, but you know better than they do and have somehow turned the GOP support for Denali into a left wing conspiracy.

As to the "multiple names" issue, there were multiple terms in the local dialects that al meant basically the same thing. ( " According to University of Alaska linguist James Kari, the groups to the north and west of the mountain (and Alaska Range) use words that translate to “the tall one.” The Athabascan languages to the south of the mountain use words that mean “mountain-big.” The name “Denali” stems from “deenaalee,” which is from the Koyukon language traditionally spoken on the north side.")

If one is down with the federalist concept of the US, a union of sovereign states, then it seems reasonable that the desires of Alaska should probably be considered.

FYI, given that my preference of Denali was based on personal opinion, I hadn't done any research into the "controversy" until now. Now that I have, I see no one except Trump who even gives a shit (maybe OH because they think people care about McKinley, who'd never even visited there) about going back to McKinley. Those who do have a strong opinion are all happy with Denali. So, thanks to you I've moved from being convinced that this was a stupid waste of time, to being convinced that this is a mistake.

Quit, don't quit, I don't care. You've been known to beat dead horses in comment threads where I'd been clear that it was pointless. So you do you. I'll respond or not.

Craig said...

There are so many other posts both here and at your blog that you could have invested time and energy into, but for some reason you chose this one.

Marshal Art said...

It's my time and energy to use as I see fit, is it not? Who are you to denigrate my choices, while denigrating me for commenting on the choices of what to name a mountain?

"...you're first response made it to be some sort of left wing plot to erase the memory of a president that no one remembers anyway."

Not an accurate representation of my position at all. Why you choose to infer that which is nowhere in evidence escapes me.

"I'd have hoped that you'd have been appreciative for the accurate information."

What gives you reason to suspect I wasn't? Why you choose to infer that which is nowhere in evidence escapes me.

"The fact that you seem bent on justifying this name change is what seems weird."

Pretty sure I confirmed I don't really care. Why you choose to infer that which is nowhere in evidence escapes me.

"Honestly, who TF cares about either name."

Not me. But clearly some do on both sides of the issue.

"Was there some massive outcry from McKinley fans clamoring for a name change?"

Yes. Ohio may still.

"The point is, and remains, that Trump gets attached to these types of things and wastes time on them instead of things that are more important."

We each have our own ideas about governmental actions we might regard as wastes of time. So do those in government who propose or engage in those actions. That's life.

"As to the "multiple names" issue, there were multiple terms in the local dialects that al meant basically the same thing."

Yet only one is the name upon which some insist as if the other tribes are of less importance or consequence.

"If one is down with the federalist concept of the US, a union of sovereign states, then it seems reasonable that the desires of Alaska should probably be considered."

Fine. I don't care what name is officially attached. Others do.

"maybe OH because they think people care about McKinley, who'd never even visited there"

Yeah...f**k Ohio and their concern for their cherished son.

"You've been known to beat dead horses in comment threads where I'd been clear that it was pointless."

Not an accurate representation of my commenting at all.

Craig said...

I'm not telling you how to use your time and energy, just noting that your choice to use your time and energy on something that you said you were "done with" seems like an unusual choice. But, as always, you do you.

Given that I haven't denigrated anything you've done or said, I fail to see the relevance.

"I see these name changes by the left as part of their anti-American efforts to fundamentally change the nation. "

These are your words, are they inaccurate? The McKinley stuff I added was just making the point that McKinley was hardly a president to be memorialized in this way.

Given your response to being presented with the accurate length of the relative coastlines was to makes "excuses", it seemed reasonable to conclude that you weren't appreciative. My bad.

I conclude that you are bent on objecting to the name change by the fact that you continue to argue against it. One usually does not spend this much time arguing in favor of something they don't care about.

I'll take that as a "No, there wasn't a huge outcry from McKinley fans."

It is life. It's also life in the US where we have the freedom to express our displeasure with the actions of those who govern. In this case, I disagree with these actions as they do little or nothing to move forward the agenda that Trump voters elected him to accomplish. Certainly not first day important.

Actually the "one name" (which is really the same name in different dialects) was the one that was used by the largest tribal group. Kind of a majority rule sort of situation.

Well, why should a few people in Ohio dictate to Alaska what the name of the mountain should be?

If you say so.