Created an account just to say, PLEASE - keep this label as “Gulf of Mexico”. As on open community, we should not bend to the knee of a tyrant. One sad pathetic man should not have that power. I am disgusted and ashamed to be an American right now. Google, Apple, and the rest sell us out. I refused to comply. OSM must remain unbiased, and keep the name which has defined this body of water for hundreds of years.
As of revision version #85, OpenStreetMap has the following tags for Golfo de México:
As I explained to Google (from Dan McClellan) _references do not assert from fiat what things are called. A dictionary definition is not an official definition but what a word means or what a thing is called at the moment.
Most of the world calls it the Golfo de México or in English speaking regions, the Gulf of Mexico. Changing all the maps of the world won’t change this.
Now granted, a state chooses what to call itself (such as the changing of The Ukraine to simply Ukraine but that is the incorporated entity that is the sovereign nation of Ukraine.
As the US does not have sovereign control of the Gulf of Mexico, it doesn’t get to declare the name of a region of international waters.
This whole thing just makes the GOP, MAGA, the Trump administration and by proxy the people of the United States xenophobic and barbaric as hell. It’s not a good look.
It’s just slang. I searched it on Startpage and it gives the definition : “used alone or as a noun or verb in various phrases to express annoyance, contempt, or impatience” which sounds right to me. I’d link it but I can’t find where it sourced the definition.
Judging from this very polemic article by linguistic anthropologist Kathryn E. Graber, the argument is that a linguistic distinction that exists in Russian (and Ukrainian) is mirrorred in other languages using the definite article. ‘Na Ukraine’ on the one hand literally means ‘on Ukraine’, ‘v Ukraine’ on the other ‘in Ukraine’. Graber goes on to say that ‘In Russian, a person is “na” an unbounded territory, such as a hill, but “v” a bounded territory that is defined politically or institutionally, such as a nation-state.’ She would then probably also argue that the same, in English, goes for names like ‘the Congo’, being named after a river. The claim that this is a Soviet-era practice (if what she means by that is that it arose during the Soviet Union), is simply not true, though. In Google Books you can find plenty of titles with ‘the Ukraine’ from before 1900. The earliest mention I found in English (though I didn’t look very well) was from 1672.
It anyway strikes me as very performative. You can well argue that language influences the way we view the world (though, I think the way we view the world influences the language we use much more). Even so, there are obviously much bigger (concrete) threats to Ukrainian sovereignty than (to Ukrainians) foreigners using a definite article or not. Thus, it becomes less a matter of protecting sovereignty, and more a matter of simple respect to Ukrainian sensibilities. Ukrainians may take offence at you using the definite article, and you may want to prevent that by not saying ‘the Ukraine’.
As I explained to Google (from Dan McClellan) _references do not assert from fiat what things are called. A dictionary definition is not an official definition but what a word means or what a thing is called at the moment.
Most of the world calls it the Golfo de México or in English speaking regions, the Gulf of Mexico. Changing all the maps of the world won’t change this.
Now granted, a state chooses what to call itself (such as the changing of The Ukraine to simply Ukraine but that is the incorporated entity that is the sovereign nation of Ukraine.
As the US does not have sovereign control of the Gulf of Mexico, it doesn’t get to declare the name of a region of international waters.
This whole thing just makes the GOP, MAGA, the Trump administration and by proxy the people of the United States xenophobic and barbaric as hell. It’s not a good look.
As an American, I will refuse to call it fuckass gulf of america.
… what’s a fuckass?
Coming from lemmynsfw I would have figured you might know? Let me know if you learn anything in your research
It’s a Donnie Darko reference. I’m surprised anyone cares who comes from what instance.
I’m voting for Dukakis
Reference comments should stay on reddit.
Only if they detract from a discussion of substance.
Nah, I don’t care who comes from what instance but when it comes to anal references, I figured I’d make a bad joke, haha
Search for ‘anal’ in your Lemmy instance
Mmm mmm…
It’s just slang. I searched it on Startpage and it gives the definition : “used alone or as a noun or verb in various phrases to express annoyance, contempt, or impatience” which sounds right to me. I’d link it but I can’t find where it sourced the definition.
I got your Donnie Darko reference.
I dunno. That could be kinda snappy on a map. “Ok, let’s see, here we have the North Atlantic, the Sargasso Sea, and the Fuckass Gulf of America.”
IDK, the fuckass kind of gives it a ring, you know? Maybe fuckass Gulf of Mexico?
it was never “the ukraine”, russia just called it that because the ukraine was a region to them… like the great plains is to america…
Russian doesn’t even have definite articles, to them it was always just Ukraine.
Judging from this very polemic article by linguistic anthropologist Kathryn E. Graber, the argument is that a linguistic distinction that exists in Russian (and Ukrainian) is mirrorred in other languages using the definite article. ‘Na Ukraine’ on the one hand literally means ‘on Ukraine’, ‘v Ukraine’ on the other ‘in Ukraine’. Graber goes on to say that ‘In Russian, a person is “na” an unbounded territory, such as a hill, but “v” a bounded territory that is defined politically or institutionally, such as a nation-state.’ She would then probably also argue that the same, in English, goes for names like ‘the Congo’, being named after a river. The claim that this is a Soviet-era practice (if what she means by that is that it arose during the Soviet Union), is simply not true, though. In Google Books you can find plenty of titles with ‘the Ukraine’ from before 1900. The earliest mention I found in English (though I didn’t look very well) was from 1672.
It anyway strikes me as very performative. You can well argue that language influences the way we view the world (though, I think the way we view the world influences the language we use much more). Even so, there are obviously much bigger (concrete) threats to Ukrainian sovereignty than (to Ukrainians) foreigners using a definite article or not. Thus, it becomes less a matter of protecting sovereignty, and more a matter of simple respect to Ukrainian sensibilities. Ukrainians may take offence at you using the definite article, and you may want to prevent that by not saying ‘the Ukraine’.
Its just a distraction meant to throw people off the smell of the real crimes they are committing. Call it the gulf of dogshit i dont care