Google confirms Gulf of Mexico renamed to appease Trump – but only in the US Google has changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico on Google Maps to comply with a Donald Trump whim – but only for American users. The Mountain View megacorp had already signaled a couple of weeks ago that it would fall in line with an executive order from the newly inaugurated president to officially rename the body of water …
I remember a geography lesson where we were shown the origins of all the States names, English, French[*], Spanish and, of course, Native American origins for almost all of them.
(I was a bit surprised Louisiana, named after a French king, wasn't renamed Freedom Fries State back when the US fell out with France a few years ago LOL)
(I was a bit surprised Louisiana, named after a French king, wasn't renamed Freedom Fries State back when the US fell out with France a few years ago LOL)
Presumably back when Donald Rumsfeld was a bit miffed after the Poms and later the Frogs weren't showing the required willing over assisting the US blowing up some god forsaken part of the middle east and the US media were echoing Janitor Willie's taunt "cheese eating surrender monkeys."
Media owners in a lesser nation might awaken to face a legionnaire and unlike that chap, might have a great deal to regret.
Looking at the map it take only a minimal amount of imagination to envisage Florida as a male member urinating (the keys) into the contested region which suggests Cloaca Americana as a perfectly good name and not dissonant with general cesspit of the US.
The only objection I could see is that Florida's balls, if it ever had any, appear to have been swallowed by Louisiana.
@Rafael #872397
..."to be renamed in American"...
An executive order to rename the language that Americans speak to American is one that I will support wholeheartedly. US English has diverged sufficiently far from Englisch so that it can be deemed to be a separate language.
Calling it American will lead to better understanding and will aid in reducig misunderstanding (there are sentences that are not immediately parsed as being American, but which has very different meanings from those same sentences expressed in English.
Renaming the degenerate koiné or creole of English commonly used in the US as American is possibly an insult to the other nations in the Americas that routinely use English in its more recognisable forms.
For me the idea of renaming the US creole as Analingus would appear to work on so many levels.
I am omnipresent, and I can hear the Jesus talk. There probably should be a re-education of the teachings of Jesus. It's been a while. There are two versions of the Bible. One is the Old Testament. That includes the story of creation. The story of creation was handed down word to mouth. They are very old stories, and can be accepted as legends or tales from humanities past. They do have some historical facts, as all stories do. They may simply have been accepted as myth at some point by humanity in it's past, and it's really a game of telephone at this point right? Many old testament stories come from the jewish bible in fact.
The New Testament is the life of Jesus, and the teachings of Jesus. The very first thing Jesus did was recognize that the priests in power were installed by Rome. His first act as a "savior" was to walk into the biggest Jewish center he could find and throw the coins on the floor. Thus the fight between the modern middle east was born. Jesus is based on historical fact as we have multiple accounts based in the real world that correlate to the written account. Moses, for instance, was an Egyptian, who converted to the Jewish faith and threatened the Pharaoh. That's a real historical account.
Rome adopted Christianity to settle the people and appropriate him as a power play. Before that they were pagans. As were most of the world, except the Egyptians., where it is scientifically known that the most modern human comes from ... Africa.
This post has been deleted by its author
The old testament is just a collection of stories borged from elsewhere. Many had origins outside the Canaanite pantheon, of which the deity Yahweh was just the god of war/metallurgy, but this matches the portrayal of this magical supernatural entity as a vicious, spiteful deity with a toddler level of self control. Later came an uprising when the followers of Yahweh murdered, pillaged and looted the temples of the other gods and rewrote the stories to make it appear as if their particular magical supernatural being was the one in the stories; this is partly why they are so inconsistent, of course. There was a follow-on revolt and power grab where the wealth and power of the priests of Yahweh was centralised and this brought in the new order of the temples where there just the one central temple.
The new testament is very much not just the life and teachings of jesus, 22 of the regularly accepter 27 books of stories are largely opinion pieces and the other 5 books just can't really agree with each other anyway, all were written a couple of generations after the supposed events at best, they contradict each other and one is just a rewriting of one of the others.
As for the bible being the source of facts; that is decidedly untrue and to claim so is manipulative at best. While some stories in the bible to correlate with real world events, this is no different to the Harry Potter books referencing locations in London. That these locations in London exist does not make all the stories in the Harry Potter books real in any way more than Egypt existing and being mentioned in the bible stories makes the bible stories true. The bible stories mentioning of real life places, and very occasionally real events, does lend weight to the existence of these places and events but the same correlation is not true in reverse. To claim otherwise means that I could claim that everything in the Harry Potter books is true because London exists.
"Moses, for instance, was an Egyptian, who converted to the Jewish faith and threatened the Pharaoh. That's a real historical account." It is not even written in the bible stories that Moses was Egyptian or not therefore it is quite dishonest to claim that this is a real historical account. The Egyptian kingdom did hold slaves but the bible stories do not match the records of Egypt, and there are many of these records corroborating each other as well as separate archaeological evidence. There is more evidence that the Levantine/Canaanite people mingled and traded in Egypt than were slaves because part of the reason for the power of Egypt was that it was the gateway between the Mediterranean empires and the central African empires. Not that Egypt had it easy and wasn't split, joined, was occupied and conquered others but throughput it all, that area was a key trading centre and gateway up the Nile.
Moses, for instance, was an Egyptian, who converted to the Jewish faith and threatened the Pharaoh. That's a real historical account.
I would imagine in those pre-anaesthetic times, that would have been painful.
In any case I thought it was cannon that "man creates god in his own image." Extant deities speak volumes of human failings and nothing of divinity.
Jesus was a black Jew. He was born in the middle east, and into the jewish faith. Just as The jewish faith did to the Egyptians (moses), he said enough, and rebelled. Just as many historical figures did. There are many greek and UK and middle eastern figures that rebelled against Rome. Jesus retaught the lesson of a one God. His message was we are all God's children, and you are not really the judge, or the jury. There is a bigger power, something beyond you, and you cannot take it with you. Be humble until called for.
There weren't really any Jews around at that time; more the Levantine and Canaanite peoples. The redefinition of some of these as Hebrew happened later.
The Abrahamic god is Yahweh, the Canaanite god of war (which explains the petty toddler like tantrums and petty viciousness), the followers of which upped and murdered the priests and followers of the other gods in the Canaanite pantheon and then later fought amongst themselves so power could be consolidated in one temple. In the Levantine/Canaanite region there tended to be areas more devoted to one of the gods over the other, as well as the influence of neighbouring pantheons and cultures.
Precisely the conclusion that I came to in a Religious Knowledge essay at school when I was about 13 (so 1965). It didn't go down well with the teacher but I think that he genuinely feared for my soul.
Many years later I am definitely a heretic in many ways and proud of the fact. Really enjoyed walking through St Peter's Square in Rome with my Cathar cross (that's an equal armed cross) on display while none of the faithful got the reference. 700 years ago they were burning people like me at the stake in SW France, or simply massacring everyone just in case. Quote from what they did in Beziers - "kill them all, God will know his own". And they did.
That's not the problem - the problem is in the demonisation of anyone who doesn't look like us.
As a first century middle eastern man Jesus is very unlikely indeed to have been a blond haired, blue eyed, caucasian... that would certainly have been written about as it would have been extremely noteworthy.
Whilst you may doubt the veracity of the gospel accounts there is plenty of (by historical standards) non christian historical documentation, and it's pretty much universally agreed that he existed: was baptised by John, and crucified under Pontius Pilate.
What happened before, between, and after those two events is less documented by sources outside of the gospels (in which classification I'd include the apocropha).
There are no genuine records whatsoever that corroborate these stories.
A claim of "universally agreed to have existed" is only proof of a widespread belief, not the original fact. Every football season tens of thousands of people think that their team is the best and will win the league but this is just a belief and very often doesn't stand up to facts - such as other football teams.
The initiation ceremony of (briefly) dunking someone under water is not something that would ever be recorded anywhere other than the records of the cult that does such things. Why would it unless it led to the drowning of someone important?
There are no Roman records of such a crucifixion. The Romans tended to be very good at documentation, even for unimportant backwaters like that. The apologist excuse is "well, lots of records were lost, but they definitely existed" is nothing more than expressing a desperate hope and is, in effect, nothing more than another lie.
According to Leonardo da Vinci, Jesus although white skinned, had brown hair and, I believe brown eyes:
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Leonardo+da+Vinci+last+supper&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#vhid=ZqBPdZJ-ehLAuM&vssid=l
Now, I will probably get into trouble* for this, but I could not help noticing that in da Vinci's famous wall painting, Jesus and ten of the disciples are white, 'doubting' Thomas is brown, and Judas Iscariot is portrayed as black.
* that is: get lots of downvotes
Portrayals such as this are interesting because they can reflect the culture around at the time.
This is also the only useful thing out of the bible stories; they reflect the culture and morals of the time and the originating stories (which as most of the old testament stories are lifted from other gods in the Canaanite pantheon and other cultures, makes working out the originating culture harder)
@AC
"It doesn't matter to me but it does seem quite disrepectful to those American citizens who live in Alaska and didn't ask for the name to be changed."
Maybe it bothered some people but Obama didnt care when he changed it. I guess its one of those things that will always bother someone, and Trumps renaming of one and reverting the name of another only highlights the inconsistency. As I said I expect this is just trolling to make anti-Trumper heads explode.
@MonkeyJuice
"I suppose when you have no friends the attention would be vaguely warming."
I am forever amazed at the stupid assumptions of some idiots. I can only assume projection or some heavy sniffing of the copium. But I guess as you dont seem to have anything of value to say I should welcome you as another stray troll sniffing around?
Do I guess Trumps trolling has upset you? Is your head hurting trying to reconcile Obama changing the name of a mountain (now been undone) vs the gulf of who cares?
"I suppose when you have no friends the attention would be vaguely warming."
'I am forever amazed at the stupid assumptions of some idiots.'
That was unfair of the other Monkey'. I'm sure you have very many friends. Online.
Are the Stateside ones not up yet to help celebrate the dawning of the Gulf of America with your good self?
Speaking of relevance, do you even code?
Trump doesn't affect me because he is far, far away, in a country that is increasingly becoming irrelevant. It's a good old laugh to tune in to some of the wailings from the far right such as yourself from time to time mind you.
I do love a good English breakfast though. I have been recently having an extra fried egg, as a little treat. One for my homies, as I believe you say on the other side of the pond.
Keep on winning!
All the best.
@MonkeyJuice
"Speaking of relevance, do you even code?"
Yes
"Trump doesn't affect me because he is far, far away"
You have said so before. I am in the UK so their is some affect but its out gov that makes the problems.
"It's a good old laugh to tune in to some of the wailings from the far right such as yourself from time to time mind you."
Eh? Wailings? I think you might be confused who is wailing if you think I am. Making the simple obvious point that it doesnt really matter and laughing is not wailing. Are you sure you are not seeing what you want to see? Which would also explain your 'far right' perception of me. I am glad you are laughing although its weird you are confused as to why, but at least we are both laughing.
"as I believe you say on the other side of the pond."
Ahh I see your confusion. Guessing we are on the same side of the pond.
Curious. I'm guessing you're more of a Farage guy? Or PA perhaps?
It seems odd to be crowing so loudly and so consistently. Maybe you're Grant Schapps having a little time on the interweb?
Still. It makes your poor handle on the US political system far more understandable, I have no other idea why you would be looking at that shitshow and thinking 'gee, this is a great idea, more of that please'.
@MonkeyJuice
"Curious. I'm guessing you're more of a Farage guy? Or PA perhaps?"
Who is PA? Farage did a good job getting the brexit vote and calling out some of the stupidity but I dont know if he would be a good PM. Its not surprising reform is polling so well but I consider that the failure of others than the success of reform.
"It seems odd to be crowing so loudly and so consistently"
Again you seem to be trying to analyse me but you dont seem to have that capability.
"I have no other idea why you would be looking at that shitshow and thinking 'gee, this is a great idea, more of that please'."
In the UK we have Starmer and his idiots. So far he has tried to relaunch himself multiple times, been caught being the monster he accused his opposition of and worse, and flails around worse than Ursula von der leyen. His pro growth treasurer is killing growth at every turn. His energy minister wants us back in the stone age. We can only look at DOGE and the pro-growth strategy (not meaning the trade ideas) in envy. Hell he even has a border czar actually letting ICE and border security do their jobs! From the UK we can only dream.
So when something funny comes up like this where Trump does something that does not matter yet makes his opponents heads explode I am amused. But you may also notice I point out how irrelevant the change is. How this has you so worked up I do not know.
"Farage did a good job getting the brexit vote"
I feel we are approaching the nub of the matter. What, prey tell, are the Brexit benefits you are happiest with? I seem to remember Moggie had to form an entire department to canvas the entire UK population for one.
Our newly invigorated trading terms with the US, perhaps?
The amazing and immediate cessation of illegal immigration?
The fact the EU now has to bow to our every whim, because we are no long invited to the meetings?
Ephemeral 'taking back control' nonsense need not apply here, since I am asking for something nice and tangible.
What did you want out of it, and what did you get?
@MonkeyJuice
"I feel we are approaching the nub of the matter."
Sounds like it. Why is it so difficult to laugh at this silly name change without someone like you having to drag down the conversation with your "wailings" (to quote you). We can discuss such a topic on a more relevant comment section but I am just enjoying the comments here, I suggest you lighten up and do so too.
I see you have been terribly let down, which is I suppose why screaming on the internet has become your main outlet.
I guess all that is left to say about your rage fuelled antagonistic posts is "You won. Get over it"
Maybe think before popping that X in the box next time, or you'll end up with the world you deserve rather than want, eh?
It's been both entertaining and enlightening.
Keep on winning, and toodle pip!
"The trolling by Trump has me laughing hard"
Agree with President Trump trolling comment. He definitely doesn't like Obama. Not as good as when encouraged people to think that Obama was an illegitimate Black African president. And paid big bucks to question Obama's nationality and birthplace. Betting that really had you rolling in the aisles.
> The trolling by Trump has me laughing hard at this one
Er, sure you are. ;-)
Why is it that, whenever someone like Codejunky makes a big deal of wanting us to believe they're guffawing uncontrollably at the libs they owned (or whatever), it always conjures up the more likely reality of them sitting at their desk or phone, typing away in silence with the same stoney-faced, bored expression they always wear and little more than the sad sense of hope that they'll wind someone up and get the attention they want?
Sadly, Codejunky is for real- he's been around here for a long time, long before the likelihood of being a paid Russian troll was even A Thing.
Admittedly he isn't actually American either- as far as I can tell he's based somewhere in the UK, but he's always had an obvious hard-on for the right-wing of American politics and more recently fully bought into that such that you'd take for granted he *was* an American or a troll pretending to be one.
And at least CodeJunkey generally writes 'thoughtful', 'argued' and I hate to say it - interesting comments at times, even if I disagree with the actual content 99 out of a 100 posts. I'd much rather CodeJunkey was posting here than some of the other accounts which have appeared recently.
Does anyone know why he signs documents with a large marker pen? I'd have thought an egotist like him and his known proclivities would have a solid gold fountain pen. Has he got rheumatism in his hands or something, making it difficult to hold something so small? It's the sort of thing that can happen to old people but he's the sort who would deny any form of infirmity as a sign of weakness.
Bingo. As far as those eligible to vote go, the only people over there who deserve any sympathy and can be excused- as individuals- are those who actually bothered to vote against Trump.
The majority either voted for Trump or didn't care enough to even bother turning up to vote, either for or against him. Anyone in the latter group- the largest by some way- can fuck right off if they don't like being lumped in with Trump supporters or if they don't like how they country is being run.
They had the chance when it mattered and sat on their fat, lazy backsides instead. Anything they have to say is worthless.
"are those who actually bothered to vote against Trump"
Not even all of those. In a FPTP system, anyone voting Green wasted their vote. Yeah, it probably feels great to make a positive vote rather than a negative one, but scrawling "none of the above" would feel good, too, and would have no less impact.
Problem is (be it in USA or any other elections) there is a flaw with the idea that if you dislike X then choose Y as a way to vote against them.
..Often the case that Y may have a huge number of flaws too & so voter may not want to choose either option.
e.g. in USA elections, if you opposed the Israeli geocide of Palestinians you were in a dilemma as Dems & Reps were both pro genocide (Harris tried a few weedy Palestine friendly comments early on but pointless as the Dem administration were all steam ahead supporting Israel) - Essentially best Dems could do was "we are pro Genocide but Trump is even more pro genocide" - which won't attract an anti genocide voter.
Given that Dems more likely than Reps to be anti genocide, no great surprise that Dem support dropped significantly (probably not helped by Dems totally condescending approach to voters who had the temerity to question them / disagree on some issues).
I am in the UK & all our main parties are dismal (a situation made worse by the FPTP voting system) so you end up with a dismal government with nasty policies be it Lab or Con.
I am no fan of the EU, but pulling out was a deranged decision economically, also penalized UK people re freedom of movement / ability to live by right in in EU countries (whereas now onerous financial hoops to jump through* ).
The EU did have an element of PR in vote system, so we did have advantage of a system less likely to be massively one sided politically, unlike the UK FPTP system so EU could have a bit of a moderating effect on some UK behaviour. **
* Some friends of mine could not meet new financial requirements to live in Spain imposed post Brexit (even though they had managed happily living there for years when we were in the EU). They were not your stereotype brits in the sun either (Asian heritage originally)
** PR is not a magic bullet, can still get a big advantage for one viewpoint, but for that to happen it does need that to reflect underlying views of voters far more than FPTY does big majority.
https://factmyth.com/factoids/hitler-was-elected-in-a-democratic-election/
That's stretching a point further than the facts will go. Lots of people voted for him, but it wasn't enough to put him in charge. He needed to use intimidation, vote rigging and ultimately good old violence to get the top job.
The BBC series "Rise of the Nazis" covers how he came into power. As Ken H. says, it wasn't by being voted into the top job.
Once ten NAZIs controlled the judiciary and the vote counting procedure they could announce whatever results they liked on their referenda, particularly concerning removing rights form Jews. IN one referendum the actual vote was 99% against the anti-Jewish legislation, but it was announced as being 99% in favour. That was known because all votes ha=d to be counted manually, and the tellers and observers could see that the result was contrary to NAZI party wishes. This is described in Christabel Bilienberg's memoir; 'The Past is Myself'. Her husband was one of the conspirators to kill Hitler, and the book is well worth reading.
Being President doesn't put you in charge either.
The intimidation and violence are plain to see.
Vote rigging... well, there is the widespread gerrymandering and disenfranchisement, including more than a few that were deemed illegal by the courts but got used anyway for some reason.
The Republican congress seem to be terrified of Trump and Musk. Unclear why, they could easily end it.
I keep getting Spitting Image "Is a Nut Running the Country?" flashbacks but they now involve decaying fruit ...
Their recent effort was poor because everyone was just hopelessly dull but currently there's so much potential to stab and twist the satirical knife ...
"The president's brain is missing"
A Street Art Utopia image makes sense now.
The president's brain is missing in https://streetartutopia.com/2025/02/10/street-protest/
Trump can do what he wants here (sadly), but why does the Trump name also show up for none-American users (Mexican users excluded of course)? The UK recognises it as the Gulf of Mexico, so why display Trump's vanity name for it underneath? If the UK were to decide it's called "Gulf of Atlantic" for example, then Germany declares it is "Das Strait" would we end up with 4, 5, 6 different names beginning to show in parenthesis? Just show the internationally recognised name for it for none Americans and leave it at that.
Because Google recognise that Trump is a petty, angry, vindictive, and unpredictable individual, and with both houses and the SC in his pocket, he has power that has few bounds. If they were caught ignoring the orange porker's latest whim, then Google will quickly find that action is taken against them as a corporation, or against the interests of its leaders. You might say "why does that matter outside the US?" and the answer is because this sort of stupidity does matter to Cheeto man.
Messing around with the language options, it appears to show the name in your chosen language followed by a translation of the name in America in brackets. No other sea seems to have this treatment.
So even when it's not the Gulf of America, it's reminding you that it's the Gulf of America.
"Messing around with the language options, it appears to show the name in your chosen language followed by a translation of the name in America in brackets. No other sea seems to have this treatment."
Take a look at the Sea of Japan, it has East Sea in brackets after it. Japan and Korea call it by different names.
...Trump can do what he wants here (sadly),
No he can't, the US has a little thing called the Constitution. Which sets out in black and white what the various parts of the government can or cannot do.
Oh Trump might think that he can be a king, and Musk know no better, but the judiciary has a role to play along with Congress to rein in a would be autocrat. So far Congress does not seem willing to stand up for the rule of law but the judges most certainly are. It might all come crashing down if the Supreme Court fails to back the lower courts and then, of course, Trump gets to be a dictator for more that one day.
As the old Chinese curse has it "May you live in interesting times."
Interesting maybe in 100 years time but very nasty just now.
No he can't, the US has a little thing called the Constitution.
Come back in 4 years and tell me if we still have a Constitution.
So far Congress does not seem willing to stand up for the rule of law but the judges most certainly are.
Look up the term Constitutional Crisis. What happens if the Trump Administration just decides to ignore the Judiciary? At least until it gets to his pet Supreme Court. The US Marshalls are the Court's enforcement officers. And they are part of the DOJ. Which master do they serve? Google "what happens if trump ignores the courts", the results aren't comforting. It doesn't appear the framers of the Constitution considered what would happen when two branches of the government acted unethically.
I fully realise that this just might be me being too sensitive, and I further realise that it matters not an iota, but does anyone else have an ever so slightly visceral reaction to things like, "leader of the free world", or "leader of the Western world", when referring to any U.S.A. president ?
Case in point being this sentence in the article, presumably being a quote from Google or a tongue in cheek from The Register :
"Let's keep everyone happy, including the head of the Western world."
Perhaps it is just me but I have to admit it does provoke a reaction, no matter how slight.
I'm afraid that these days, when I'm in the Campus shop and someone uses a self-service checkout to the message, "Please follow the instructions on the PIN-head!", I cannot help but think of Trump and a "prediction" made in the back pages of New Scientist in the mid-80s that, "The world will soon be run by a pinhead no bigger than a silicon chip!"
...does anyone else have an ever so slightly visceral reaction to things like, "leader of the free world", or "leader of the Western world"...
The same reaction I get when I remember that he described himself as a "not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!".
He's the oldest US president at inauguration to date (six months older than Biden was), is physically quite unwell, and clearly suffering from relatively advanced dementia.
Fairly unlikely to survive to the end of his term.
Though a rather horrifying thought occurs - would anyone even notice if Vance or Musk put on a tanned Trump-skin to keep up appearances?
Also, it's a bit weird that three US presidents were born in 1946.
Why does 47 think he can change everything about our country to his liking. Why change history??? We are now living in a dictatorship country and it's only going to get worse. All of the people that voted him in made his dream come true. To be King! We are heading into being a communist country and my heart breaks for all the young that have to grow up like this. God Pray for America!!!! And all you people that voted this clown in don't complain that you cannot put food on your table while your 47 eats like a king...very sad!
Nah, it's correct if you view it from the American lens. Communism as we know was mainly seeded by peasants and laborers disgruntled with their lot in life. MAGA is seeded by the rural folk and the proles in the US also dissatisified with the current order. Both promise to sweep away anyone smarter, anyone more successful in a revolutionary fervor. Stalin had his kulaks, Pol Pot had his intellectuals, etc.
The main difference is there's no liberal desire in the west to suppress this new Conservative Internationale with the same violence and extra-constitutional actions they did to commies the first time 'round. I suppose it's because the polticians are a bit afraid of losing their wine and cheese parties paid for by their real bosses.
Well, it is bordered by the nation's wang. Maybe we could do like Dubai and build some artificial islands. Stretch Florida down to the Bahamas and gain some length. Too bad our Cuba relations are so bad, we could go that direction and then to Haiti/DR and Puerto Rico and really be impressive. Bigly even.
It's a bit sad really, isn't it? Donald Trump had all these grand plans, like stopping the Russia - Ukraine war on Day One and rounding up migrants by the hundreds of thousand but all he has actually been able to do is change the name of the Gulf of Mexico on Google Maps and buy plastic drinking straws, while his puppet master dismantles financial regulation in order to pump and dump more dubious crypto. Trump is clearly an irrelevance.
I live in the far corner from the Gulf in the US, so I would have almost no reason to put on a map publication. But this American GIS professional will never refer to it as the Gulf of America.
Tangentially, Denali is way more interesting word that an old, white guy's name. Noah Webster wanted to Americanize English so bad that he can almost be single-handedly attributed to drops of u's and s's in American vocabulary, but we collectively ignored native words which have made it distinctively American in an interesting way.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
