American Thinker

by Brian C. Joondeph

    In Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, a forlorn Juliet implores Romeo to give up his family name, that of a family rival to hers. She asks him, “What’s in a name  That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

    The same could be said about large bodies of water, still wet and deep regardless of what President Donald Trump names them by executive order.

    Most recently, Trump renamed Lake Ontario to Lake America, after renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America last year.

    These name changes will be insignificant footnotes in world history, unlike, say, the Louisiana Purchase or America’s purchase of Alaska from Russia.

    Yet Democrats and others on the left are acting as if America invaded and conquered Canada.

    The New York Times solemnly bemoaned, “Lake Ontario didn’t ask for this.” The Washington Post warned, “Trump’s push to rename Lake Ontario raises a troubling question.”

    Such angst.

    First of all, lakes don’t talk and don’t pick their names. Or their genders.

    Back in 2015, when President Obama renamed Mount McKinley to Denali, all the New York Times had to say was, “Mount McKinley to be renamed Denali.”

    Did Mount McKinley ask for this  The Gray Lady was mum on that question.

    The Washington Post had no “troubling question” in 2015, simply and refreshingly reporting the news: “Obama will rename the highest U.S. peak, dropping McKinley for Denali.” Troubling questions died in darkness.

    Colorado Gov. Jared Polis recommended that Colorado’s Mount Evans be renamed Mount Blue Sky because territorial governor John Evans played a role in events surrounding the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre.

    The Denver neighborhood of Stapleton was renamed Central Park through the efforts of community organizers and activists because former multiple-term Denver Mayor Benjamin Stapleton had once been a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Yet it took almost a century for activists to be activated.

    The Biden administration’s Department of the Interior renamed hundreds of geographic features containing a term it considered derogatory toward Native Americans, writing 'Sq___' in its statement. Separately, a congressionally mandated process renamed U.S. military installations that honored Confederate figures.

    That included changing Fort Bragg in North Carolina to Fort Liberty because its namesake, Braxton Bragg, was a Confederate general. Trump subsequently employed some rhetorical sleight of hand to restore the name Fort Bragg, this time honoring Private First-Class Roland L. Bragg, a World War II paratrooper who happened to share the Confederate general’s surname.

    Canada is hardly a stranger to geographical rebranding, either.

    The Queen Charlotte Islands became Haida Gwaii. Cape Dorset became Kinngait. Hall Beach became Sanirajak. Numerous other Canadian geographical names have been changed to recognize indigenous history and reflect evolving cultural sensibilities.

    Apparently, geographical names are fluid, too — until Donald Trump picks one.

    Such situational outrage. When Dastardly Donald does something, it’s unprecedented and catastrophic. When Benevolent Barack, Judicious Justin, or any other enlightened Canadian officials do something similar, it’s thoughtful, culturally sensitive, and progressive.

    For most people, it’s just a name. For the left, however, it’s the hill they want to die on.

    What happened to “what’s in a name ”

    Consider sports.

    The Washington Redskins suddenly discovered that their team name, used for decades, was offensive and became the Washington Commanders. I could count on one hand the number of people in Washington, D.C., suitable to command anything more than an ice cream stand.

    The Cleveland Indians had their name and logo for more than a century until “Indians” suddenly became offensive and they became the Guardians.

    Names are fluid not only for sports teams but also for people. Bruce Jenner became Caitlyn Jenner. Tim McBride became Congressman Sarah McBride.

    Descriptions changed, too. Women became “birthing people” or “persons who menstruate.” Breast-feeding became “chest-feeding.” Abortion became “reproductive health.” Murdering your three children became “hormones.”

    Those are but a few examples.

    The Aunt Jemima brand was rebranded as the Pearl Milling Company due to concerns about the “mammy” stereotype associated with its longtime imagery.

    Am I still allowed to watch “Gone With The Wind ”

Uncle Ben’s rice became Ben’s Original amid similar concerns about racial stereotypes. Perhaps Aunt Ben would be more acceptable today

    Land O’Lakes butter removed Mia, the indigenous woman who had appeared on its packaging for decades, amid criticism of Native American imagery and cultural stereotype.

Will self-proclaimed Indian Elizabeth Warren be removed from the U.S. Senate

Names change constantly. Sometimes for good reasons. Other times for silly virtue-signaling reasons. But so what

    That’s the point.

    For years, progressives have told us that names matter. Names reflect our values. Names can offend. Names can perpetuate historical injustice. Names should evolve with changing cultural sensibilities.

    Fair enough.

    But apparently that principle comes with an asterisk.

    When Democrats change names, it’s considered “thoughtful and enlightened.” When a Republican like Donald Trump does it, it’s “small-minded and hateful.”

    Even Hillary Clinton weighed in, declaring, “It’s Lake Ontario.”

    One wonders whether she offered similar linguistic clarification when her husband was parsing the meaning of “sexual relations” during the Monica Lewinsky affair.

    And Trump’s name change from Lake Ontario to Lake America affects only official usage by the American government. Canada is quite insistent on continuing to call the lake Lake Ontario, which is certainly its prerogative, since the international border runs through the lake.

    This is not some bold and defiant move by Canada.

    Our Southern border offers a similar example. Americans call the river that separates Texas and Mexico the Rio Grande. In Mexico, it is called the Río Bravo del Norte.

    Another newsworthy body of water offers the same lesson. Iran calls it the Persian Gulf, while some Arab states and organizations use the term Arabian Gulf.

    The water seems remarkably untroubled by the disagreement.

    In other words, Trump’s name change is much ado about nothing, other than providing his critics another excuse to criticize Trump.

    And Trump, as usual, is having the last laugh.

    The Trump memes are hilarious, while Democrats' complaints on social media sound like those of a whiny toddler ready for a nap.

    Even Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is bristling, ready to call Dudley Do-Right to the rescue over U.S. officials “doing memes” and “throwing shade.”

After all, with wars, inflation, immigration, crime, debt, and any number of genuine problems confronting America and the world, why is the chattering class of political operatives and corporate media so incensed by what the federal government calls half of a lake

    Perhaps Trump understands something they don’t.

    Or perhaps he understands them perfectly. And is playing them like a fiddle.

    He changed a name, they predictably lost their minds, and he got exactly the reaction he wanted.

    Which brings us back to Juliet.

    Apparently, a lake by any other name is still a lake—unless Donald Trump is the one doing the naming.

    Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a Colorado-based ophthalmologist who writes frequently about medicine, science, and public policy.