RVN: Lake America – a fight over labels, selectively applied
Last week Trump signed an executive order: in U.S. federal documents Lake Ontario will henceforth be called Lake America.
Earlier already: Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America. Denali back to Mount McKinley.
The outrage was immediate.
Sacred names. Colonial arrogance. A childish trade war with Canada.
At the same time, redefining man and woman is no longer a joke in many institutions, but policy.
New language in schools, on forms, in sport.
Anyone who holds to the biological meaning gets the label.
That contrast is the story.
Not whether Trump is “allowed” to rename a lake.
What is actually happening
A president can change federal maps and documents.
He cannot force Canada or the rest of the world to use the same name.
Lake Ontario remains Lake Ontario internationally. Just as the Gulf of Mexico remains the Gulf of Mexico for most countries.
Google Maps shows it literally: in the U.S. a different name than in Mexico.
Two labels, one body of water. No shared map anymore, but localised language.
The same applied the other way around.
Obama changed McKinley back to Denali.
The Biden administration renamed army bases.
Whoever holds the pen writes the map.
Names are not laws of nature.
Sex is, down to the chromosome.
Yet the moral panic is greater over water than over biology.
A label on a lake is treated as sacrilege.
A label on the body is treated as progress.
The other side of refusal
When the Associated Press kept saying “Gulf of Mexico”, the service was barred from parts of the White House press pool.
That is power over language from above.
On the other side of the spectrum the reverse often applies.
Not: you may keep the old word.
But: you must use the new one, or you are the problem.
Two directions, the same fight: who fills in the dictionary.
A stretched concept shuts down discussion.
A replaced concept does too.
Stretching and replacing are both control over what a word is still allowed to mean.
OIM way out
Do not choose which camp has the prettiest names.
Do keep the distinction.
A geographic name is convention plus power.
Man and woman are categories you can deny, not abolish.
Do not stretch one word into the other.
And measure outrage against the rule, not against the politician applying it this week.
Question for you
What bothers you more: a lake that suddenly has another name, or a word such as “woman” that is no longer allowed its old meaning?
And is that difference a matter of principle, or does it depend on who changes the name?
This post is 100% authentic and verifiable via:
https://openinternetmanifest.org/nl/hash-verifier
### RVN: Lake America – a fight over labels, selectively applied
Last week Trump signed an executive order: in U.S. federal documents Lake Ontario will henceforth be called Lake America.
Earlier already: Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America. Denali back to Mount McKinley.
The outrage was immediate.
Sacred names. Colonial arrogance. A childish trade war with Canada.
At the same time, redefining man and woman is no longer a joke in many institutions, but policy.
New language in schools, on forms, in sport.
Anyone who holds to the biological meaning gets the label.
That contrast is the story.
Not whether Trump is “allowed” to rename a lake.
### What is actually happening
A president can change federal maps and documents.
He cannot force Canada or the rest of the world to use the same name.
Lake Ontario remains Lake Ontario internationally. Just as the Gulf of Mexico remains the Gulf of Mexico for most countries.
Google Maps shows it literally: in the U.S. a different name than in Mexico.
Two labels, one body of water. No shared map anymore, but localised language.
The same applied the other way around.
Obama changed McKinley back to Denali.
The Biden administration renamed army bases.
Whoever holds the pen writes the map.
Names are not laws of nature.
Sex is, down to the chromosome.
Yet the moral panic is greater over water than over biology.
A label on a lake is treated as sacrilege.
A label on the body is treated as progress.
### The other side of refusal
When the Associated Press kept saying “Gulf of Mexico”, the service was barred from parts of the White House press pool.
That is power over language from above.
On the other side of the spectrum the reverse often applies.
Not: you may keep the old word.
But: you must use the new one, or you are the problem.
Two directions, the same fight: who fills in the dictionary.
A stretched concept shuts down discussion.
A replaced concept does too.
Stretching and replacing are both control over what a word is still allowed to mean.
### OIM way out
Do not choose which camp has the prettiest names.
Do keep the distinction.
A geographic name is convention plus power.
Man and woman are categories you can deny, not abolish.
Do not stretch one word into the other.
And measure outrage against the rule, not against the politician applying it this week.
**Question for you**
What bothers you more: a lake that suddenly has another name, or a word such as “woman” that is no longer allowed its old meaning?
And is that difference a matter of principle, or does it depend on who changes the name?
#LakeAmerica #Language #Definitions #RealityVsNarrative #RVN #OpenInternetManifest
https://openinternetmanifest.org
This post is 100% authentic and verifiable via:
https://openinternetmanifest.org/nl/hash-verifier
Deel dit bericht
Korte versie: Teaser voor X Raw Markdown: Exacte originele tekst (voor verifier) Unicode: Mooie opmaak voor Facebook / andere platforms
Comments
Want to comment? Log in with GitHub.
You can always read without an account.
💸 Support the Open Internet Manifest ❤️
This manifest only exists thanks to your donations.
Every satoshi or monero helps enormously (servers, domains, development).
Comments
Want to comment? Log in with GitHub.
You can always read without an account.