Does this mean we can longer use the Gulf of Mexico as a counterpoint to Korean nationalists' drive to rename the Sea of Japan as the East Sea?

'Cuz someone in Mississippi is proposing that we change it to the "Gulf of America." (And why not? We're always the ones having to clean it up!)

From NPR:

Daniel Cherry of Mississippi Public Broadcasting just talked with Rep. Stephen Holland — the Democratic lawmaker who's getting a lot of attention for introducing a bill to rename the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America.

Holland told Daniel that so many of his Republican colleagues seem to want to push anything or anyone Mexican out of the state that he's just trying to "embrace" their cause and help them out. In other words, he's introduced a bill that he thinks will make a satirical point by being outrageous.

Hmmph... "it's meant as satire" is often what you say in order to wiggle your way out of controversy after you've said something publicly that, in hindsight, you really shouldn't have said. But this time I think he means it.

Anyway, the real controversy will come when the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana decide they don't want their riparian border associated with mullet-sporting bigots living in trailers who still have the Confederate ensign in their state flag. I think River of America has a nice ring and is easier to spell (though that could cause confusion with the American River in California, where gold was discovered, and invite a lawsuit from Disney).

...

[East {Sea] of Japan}

The Korea Times is reporting that Seoul will propose that that body of water between the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese Archipelago be officially called both East Sea and the Sea of Japan.

And although the Korea Herald is reporting that some people in South Korea aren't happy about that — it's the East Sea and the East Sea only! — I think it is a fine solution.

In fact, it fits in perfectly with the International Hydrographic Organization's policies on the matter (see also here):

When two or more countries share a geographical feature, its designation is generally standardized through consultations among the countries concerned. If the effort to standardize it fails, however, the names used by each of the countries are used concurrently. This general rule of international cartography is also confirmed in the International Hydrographic Organization Technical Resolution A4.2.6. adopted in 1974 and the United Nations Resolution in the Standardization of Geographical Names Ⅲ/20 adopted in 1977.

There are many in the K-blogopshere who say that Korea is wrong on this issue (not true, since the IHO supports the Korean position) or that Korea is foolish to make a big deal out of this (debatable, since pushing the name allows it to gain currency and acceptance but sometimes comes across as annoying and petty).

...