This is beside the point since it isn't the bases of the argument in the executive order to rename the Gulf. But to your point, the Gulf is actually surrounded by America and Mexico. In fact, according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's factsheet on the Gulf of Mexico, the shoreline from Cape Sable, Florida to the tip of the Yucatan Peninsula is approximately 3,540 miles. The U.S. coastline covers approximately 1,631 miles, leaving approximately 1,909 miles of coastline in Mexico. So, if the argument that the Gulf of Mexico should be renamed the Gulf of America based on milage of shoreline surrounding the Gulf, then clearly the Gulf of America should be renamed the Gulf of Mexico.
That's not what you said, Jason. You didn't refer to the Americas. You made the distinction between America (the U.S.) and Mexico. But again, what difference does it make? The executive order wasn't based on the Gulf being surrounded by America (the U.S.) or the Americas. I'm addressing the actual language in the executive order, you're not. But look, if you want to call it the Gulf of America, fine. I won't.
Well, if "America, not Mexico" isn't a distinction I don't know what is. If you meant to say, "the Americas"—as in North America and Central America—then you should have said that. This is my last word on the matter because as I said before, which you've not engaged with or conceded, your original comment (whatever you meant) is beside the point of the executive order as a reason for renaming the Gulf and beside the point of my critique of the executive order, which deals with the EO's actual language and reasoning for the change.
Well, historically the Spanish didn’t arrive in the land that would be Texas. If they had, and depending on which natives they would have encountered, they might have called it the Gulf of Tejas, but they didn’t. They arrived in the land that would be Mexico and encountered the Aztecs. As far as Trump is concerned, you’d have to ask him why he didn’t order the rename to Gulf of Texas. I suppose the Texas lobby wasn’t persuasive enough. But if you’re inclined to call it the Gulf of Texas (or Tejas), be my guest.
I thought there was more Gulf between Yucatan and Cuba than that, but Grok says it’s 130 miles.
About a 133 miles from Cancún, Mexico to Las Tumbas, Cuba.
Love the map!
Amerigo Vespucci would have loved it. Probably would have wished he'd have thought of it.
Excellent
Thank you, brother.
The Gulf is surrounded by America, not Mexico.
This is beside the point since it isn't the bases of the argument in the executive order to rename the Gulf. But to your point, the Gulf is actually surrounded by America and Mexico. In fact, according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's factsheet on the Gulf of Mexico, the shoreline from Cape Sable, Florida to the tip of the Yucatan Peninsula is approximately 3,540 miles. The U.S. coastline covers approximately 1,631 miles, leaving approximately 1,909 miles of coastline in Mexico. So, if the argument that the Gulf of Mexico should be renamed the Gulf of America based on milage of shoreline surrounding the Gulf, then clearly the Gulf of America should be renamed the Gulf of Mexico.
It's all America. Check an atlas.
That's not what you said, Jason. You didn't refer to the Americas. You made the distinction between America (the U.S.) and Mexico. But again, what difference does it make? The executive order wasn't based on the Gulf being surrounded by America (the U.S.) or the Americas. I'm addressing the actual language in the executive order, you're not. But look, if you want to call it the Gulf of America, fine. I won't.
I made no distinction.
Well, if "America, not Mexico" isn't a distinction I don't know what is. If you meant to say, "the Americas"—as in North America and Central America—then you should have said that. This is my last word on the matter because as I said before, which you've not engaged with or conceded, your original comment (whatever you meant) is beside the point of the executive order as a reason for renaming the Gulf and beside the point of my critique of the executive order, which deals with the EO's actual language and reasoning for the change.
Why no Gulf of Texas! Or Tejas, if so inclined
Well, historically the Spanish didn’t arrive in the land that would be Texas. If they had, and depending on which natives they would have encountered, they might have called it the Gulf of Tejas, but they didn’t. They arrived in the land that would be Mexico and encountered the Aztecs. As far as Trump is concerned, you’d have to ask him why he didn’t order the rename to Gulf of Texas. I suppose the Texas lobby wasn’t persuasive enough. But if you’re inclined to call it the Gulf of Texas (or Tejas), be my guest.