The right-wing protests about historical alteration demonstrate hypocrisy when viewed through the lens of the Trump presidency.
I have devoted fifteen years to studying historical memory disputes throughout America that include courthouse Confederate monument debates and sports team mascot controversies. Throughout this time, one constant has been conservative outrage over what they call “erasing history” or “scrubbing the past.” I observe a remarkable hypocrisy during Trump administration geographical renaming activities because these preservation arguments demonstrate their superficial nature.
The conservative movement maintains its established stance by opposing the removal of Confederate statues as well as military base name changes and the Washington Redskins team name alteration because these actions constitute harmful historical alteration. People began to protest historical alteration when it brought discomfort to their feelings. Some parts of this debate have value because I support placing removed statues in museums instead of destruction for full historical examination.
However, the left has occasionally exceeded proper boundaries in their actions. The removal of statues of figures like Theodore Roosevelt from the Natural History Museum and the renaming of schools honoring complex historical figures amounts to historical sanitization rather than genuine reconciliation. When history is completely eliminated instead of being reinterpreted, we forfeit the chance to learn and reflect about historical events.
But then there’s Denali. President Obama brought back the original Alaska Native name Denali to Mount McKinley in 2015, thus undoing the 1896 decision to name the mountain after McKinley. Historical erasure did not occur during this process because the correction of historical records was implemented. This mountain was named Denali by the Koyukon people over 10,000 years ago. Denali translates to “the high one”. William McKinley never set foot in Alaska nor did he ever see the mountain since he had no personal link to it except through his supporter’s wish to name it after the presidential candidate.
The decision to rename the peak after McKinley actively removed indigenous historical narratives that spanned thousands of years to serve political goals. The gold prospector Charles Washburn chose to name the mountain after McKinley in 1896 as a supporter of the presidential candidate. Hudson Stuck along with Harry Karstens and Walter Harper and Alaska Native Robert Tatum achieved the first ascent of the mountain in 1913 rather than William McKinley. Oral histories together with archaeological findings demonstrate Alaska Natives maintained thorough understanding of both the mountain and its surrounding regions long before Europeans established contact with the area.
The President has vowed to undo Obama’s decision by wanting to honor McKinley. The political move by Trump matches the very form of historical alteration that conservative supporters typically resist because it replaces authentic historical facts with a purposeful twentieth-century political choice.
Further, the historical revisionism campaign of Trump surpasses his actions regarding the naming of Denali. The proposed transformation of the Gulf of Mexico into “Gulf of America” constitutes massive historical destruction. The gulf maintained its current name since the early 1500s when Spanish explorers conducted their cartographic work in the area. The geographical name existed more than 250 years before America became a nation and even before the Pilgrims settled in Jamestown.
Spanish explorer Alonso Álvarez de Pineda performed mapping of the gulf in 1519 which led him to name it “Golfo de México” after the Mexica (Aztec) people. The body of water retained its well-recognized international name “Gulf of Mexico” during the time when the United States existed as British colonies. The present-day renaming of this body of water does not respect American historical heritage since it removes the factual history of North American exploration alongside indigenous populations.
Trump has openly expressed his intention to rename the Persian Gulf as part of his political agenda. Since ancient Greek and Roman times, the waterway has retained its name as the Persian Gulf for more than 2000 years. Herodotus mentioned this location during the 5th century BCE. The name accurately describes both geographical and historical conditions since the Persian Empire and its successors maintained power throughout the region for countless centuries.
The renaming effort does not achieve any purpose, but it fuels anti-Iranian sentiment regardless of current political regime views. Political historical revisionism exists exactly as conservatives previously denounced it. The name of the Persian Gulf stands as an accurate representation of historical events instead of reflecting modern political choices.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The nation experienced many years of speeches that advocated for both historical memory preservation and past respect. Throughout the decades politicians from the conservative side warned that historical name changes presented a risky example because we should not alter historical facts based on present-day political emotions. The current historical period shows the most extensive geographical renaming in American history through patriotic justifications.
This particular aspect of the situation stands as a major annoyance. Progressives demonstrate their real intentions when they rename things by addressing historical wrongs or removing problematic honors from public spaces. The patriotic rhetoric used by Trump hides his actual intentions to pursue petty political and personal vendettas.
The proposal to rename the Gulf of America demonstrates perfect dishonesty in its intent. The administration presents this name change as a symbol of American influence in the region yet every observer recognizes its true purpose to display dominance over Mexico and exclude Hispanic contributions to North American cartography. The practice combines nationalist ideals with fake patriotism alongside petty actions presented as nationalistic expressions.
My extensive experience with historical memory battles has helped me identify authentic preservation initiatives from political spectacles. Many conservatives who previously defended historical preservation as a matter of principle now show their true intentions because they support these geographical name changes without concern for historical accuracy. Their goal was to protect their historical narrative while maintaining the ability to make their own changes when it benefited their interests.
Conservative credibility regarding historical preservation has been completely destroyed by their actions. The movement which actively removes extensive historical periods to score political points should not receive serious consideration when it makes future claims about history erasure.
History retains its importance, but it requires constant application. The argument for historical preservation during decades does not match the current aggressive historical revisionism which the movement has undertaken. The Trump administration’s renaming spree proves that conservative historical memory stance always represented an effort to control memory rather than a genuine commitment to historical preservation.
-Sarah Walters serves as a correspondent who has reported on historical preservation and cultural heritage stories for major news outlets since 2009.