Related Post
Login to Continue Learning
Place names are more than just labels on a map. They influence how people learn about the world and their place in it.
Names can send messages and suggest what is valued in society. The way they change over time signals cultural shifts.
The United States is in the midst of a significant moment in place renaming, from the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, and back again at Fort Bragg and Benning. This sudden rewriting of the nation’s map reflects an effort to “restore American greatness,” as President Donald Trump’s executive order made some changes official.
This name game recognizes place names as powerful brands and political tools. In our research on place naming, we explore how this renaming is used to assert control over shared symbols and embed subtle messages in the landscape.
As geography teachers and researchers, we also recognize the educational and emotional impact of these changes on the public.
The Psychological Effects of Renaming Places
Renaming a place is always an act of power. People in power have long used place naming to claim control over identity, bolster reputations, retaliate against opponents, and achieve political goals.
These moves can have strong psychological effects, particularly when the name evokes something threatening. Changing a place name can shift how people view, relate to, or feel within that place.
In Shenandoah County, Virginia, schools originally named for Confederate generals have been renamed amid national protests over George Floyd’s murder. Four years later, conservatives on the local school board reinstated original names.
One Black eighth grader testified at a board meeting about how the planned change would affect her: “I would have to represent a man who fought for my ancestors’ enslavement. If this board decides to restore the Confederate names, I would not feel valued and respected.”
Even outside of schools, place names operate as a hidden curriculum. They provide narratives about how communities or nations see themselves – whose histories and perspectives are considered important.
A Tale of Two Forts
Renaming places can rally supporters through rebranding. Trump’s orders to restore the Confederate names at Fort Bragg and Fort Benning illustrate this effect.
Congress passed a law banning Confederate names for federal installations in 2023, changing them to Fort Liberty and Fort Moore. In 2025, President Donald Trump reversed these changes, restoring the original Confederate names.
Trump made a campaign promise to his followers to “bring back the name” of Fort Bragg if reelected. To circumvent the federal ban, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth identified two unrelated Army veterans with similar last names – Bragg and Benning – but without any Confederate connections, to honor instead.
The Place-Renaming Game
A wave of place-name changes during Obama and Biden administrations focused on removing offensive or derogatory names and recognizing Indigenous names.
For example, Clingmans Dome in the Great Smoky Mountains was renamed to Kuwohi in September 2024, shifting from a Confederate general to a Cherokee word meaning “the mulberry place.”
Under Trump’s administration, however, place-name changes are advancing explicitly to push back against reform efforts. This is part of a broader assault on what Trump calls “woke culture.”
A Better Way to Choose Place Names
Renaming places in an abrupt, unilateral fashion – often for ideological reasons – can alienate communities that deeply connect with those names as memory, identity, and place attachment.
A better alternative would be making renaming shared landscapes participatory, with opportunities for meaningful public involvement. Instead of avoiding name changes, this approach suggests they should respond to the social and psychological needs of communities and evolving cultural identities.
Encouraging public participation through landscape impact assessments and critical audits can cultivate a sense of shared ownership in decisions that may give those names more staying power.
