By Dr Laila Alghalban
Over the last few weeks, a naming war has erupted between the US and Canada when President Trump unilaterally issued an order renaming Antario Lake as “America Lake” on federal maps, in a series of naming wars on America’s rivals, enemies and neighbouring countries: namely Canada and Mexico. In Canada, the move has triggered an official top-down “toponymic retaliation” and more importantly a “ toponymic struggle from below”, by the people, all of which constitute the semiotic arsenal necessary for resisting the renaming of a key landmark of the nation’s geography.
Naming as discursive tool
Language is not a neutral representation of the world; it doesn’t describe “reality”. In fact, language creates new realities. Toponyms are not mere linguistic signals of spacial landmarks; they perform geopolitical acts, denoting historical conventions, identity, and ownership as well. Naming has long been an essential discursive tool for reflecting and framing the power and ideologies of the parties concerned in a given toponymic conflict. In other words, it largely shapes the narrative and perspective of each side.
Imperialist violence
Those who have the power of performing the act of renaming usually aspire to get certain geopolitical and economic gains in the wars of maps and trade tensions. Renaming is regarded as a symbol of imperialist violence and a grave threat to the sovereignty and economic prosperity of the less powerful peoples. No wonder it sparks a public outcry. For example, a quick look at a sample of comments on the renaming order reveals that the unilateral renaming act does not go unchallenged; the US President has been called “spineless” and the US politics has been described as an utter “shambles”, with the US President “digging his heels” more in the mud of a troubled relationship with Canada.
Trump’s “Lake America” embodies an example of toponymic inscription from above, driven by a political decision to assert utmost power.
Semiotic act
However, the Canadian side ( official and non-official) performs a semiotic act of resisting, shaming and mocking the move. Reactions to the renaming act takes various forms: memes, news segments, social media commentary, poll data, and diplomatic responses. Think about the “Lake Dementia” meme, the “HOMES to SHAME” acronym, punning, changing the Trump place names in Canada as well as launching ad hominem attacks on the US President, among other examples, are retaliatory discursive tools. Generally, most of the comments describe the move as “childish”, “foolish”, “absurd” and “satirical”. Almost none, including MAGA fanbase, takes it seriously. Some comments go far and voice severe political ridicule. This practice signifies that language simultaneously produces and resists power.
Governmentality approach
The second aspect in the critical framework of Rose-Redwood, Alderman, and Azaryahu is “the governmentality approach”; the naming act is portrayed by the government as a symbol of state power in creating a new reality on the ground. The Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s defiant statement (“Canadians also know that naming reality means calling it Lake Ontario – then, now and always.”) is a case in point. It asserts that the Canadians have the entrenched epistemic power to claim their sovereignty, and the deep emotional attachment to defend the shard lake. Toponymic systems are habitual; people get accustomed to Ontario Lake, though they may call it other vernacular, local names; it happens everywhere.
Normative social justice
The third aspect of Rose-Redwood et al’s framework is “the normative social justice and symbolic resistance”. Carney’s statement voices the legitimate right of the Canadian people to retain the Lake’s name, as the name “Ontario”is entrenched in their collective mind and memory, and exists long before the creation of the two settler states: the US and Canada. Therefore, Carney assumes, no one has the right to change the status quo and enforce an alternative reality.
Semiotic resources
The renaming order is consumed or processed by the audience; they reproduce and circulate parallel texts, memefying Trump’s renaming order and playfully depoliticising the move. Renowned memetics theoreticians Richard Dawkins and Michael Schiffman point out that the memefication process involves dislocating a text from its original context (a diplomatic dispute between two nations) and recontextualising it in the public zone, namely the social media discourse, via creating memefied versions that go viral and construct a counter narrative that becomes the site for elucidating the subtexts, ideologies, and voices at odds with the official narrative of the renaming order. Henry Jenkins argues that the audience members are not passive recipients, but active producers of meaning; their entertaining semiotic resources or “goods” act as a tool for toponymic justice.
Erasing indigenous toponymy
It has been a pattern for colonial powers to erase indigenous names that epitomise the living legacy, culture, language and ecology of the indigenous peoples. Erasing names, sometimes, coincides with or precedes the systematic erasure of the indigenous peoples themselves. Colonisation and erasure never end. This is the law of power. When the Anglo Saxons, for instance, invaded Britain, killing and displacing Britons, people were forced to flee to Wales and Scotland. The “Lake America” name eradicates the indigenous roots of the name “Lake Ontario”, and hence sparks harsh criticism directed to the US President from indigenous nations who have been longing for justice, coexistence and recognition.
Thus, understanding toponymic struggles and politics through the framework of Rose-Redwood, Alderman, and Azaryahu would reveal that renaming is a semiotic act that is combated by resistance, and that the public reactions deauthorise renaming and erasing others, and in themselves turn into a political economy of meaning, produced, distributed and consumed outside the prisons of the official narrative.
Finally, as a growing numbers of people in the US and globally are celebrating The Indigenous People’s Day 2026 this month, let’s remember those wonderful indigenous peoples, the First Nations and original inhabitants of their homelands and the ones who have the very right to inscribe their places. Let’s celebrate their rich toponymic legacy, resilience, and creativity, wherever they are and whoever they are! Let’s do justice to all those who suffered injustice!
Dr Laila Alghalban
Professor of Linguistics
Faculty of Arts, Kafr el-Sheikh University
Email: [email protected]
