A few weeks ago, Anheuser-Busch made headlines when it announced plans to rename its Budweiser beer “America” for the summer. Some have voiced support for this measure, viewing the name change as a display of patriotism. Others found the announcement amusing, viewing the name change as the latest permutation of light-hearted ‘Murica themed humor. In reality, this shift in branding is neither praiseworthy nor humorous. It’s just embarrassing.

1. This is not a marketing campaign initiated by an American corporation.

Anheuser-Busch is owned and operated by Anheuser-Busch InBev. Though Anheuser-Busch began operations in America, Anheuser-Busch InBev is a Belgium company based in Leuven, Belgium. Why does this matter? Well, while a company incorporated in America could conceivably claim that renaming one of its key brands after the country derives from national pride, Anheuser-Busch InBev’s organization suggests that its loyalties lie elsewhere. Nothing wrong with that, exactly; however, as a Belgium, rather than a U.S., company, Anehsuer-Busch InBev does not appear particularly invested in America as a nation, a feature one might reasonably expect from a company adopting our nation’s name for one of its products. Still, some might point to Anheuser-Busch’s American factories as proof of its financial ties to the United States. While it’s true that Anheuser-Busch has several breweries, distributorships, and agricultural centers in the United States, a closer look at its tax payments suggest that the company is reluctant to pay American taxes. This is not to suggest that Anheuser-Busch InBev cheated on its taxes; rather, it has taken advantage of Belgium’s comparatively low tax rates in order to maximize its profits.[1] While not illegal, this shirking of American corporate identity, and with it, American tax obligations when such identification proves inconvenient, contradicts core principles of American identity. We do not claim American identity only when it is easy or advantageous for us to do so; instead, we do so out of a sense of loyalty to our senses of self, to our neighbors and families, and to our country. We work at building our country through investing in the dream of America through blood, sweat—and yes, taxes (and/or tears). Again, Anheuser-Busch InBev’s tax practices are not illegal, and, given the high corporate tax rate in the United States, are largely understandable. But these practices are not patriotic. As a company based in Belgium taking advantage of Belgium’s low corporate tax rates, Anheuser-Busch InBev does not seem overly invested in the United States. This temporary name change, then, is less about celebrating America and more about cashing in on Americans’ sense of loyalty to the name “America.”

2. We shouldn't cheapen our nation's sovereignty through commodifying the name "America."

Following Urban Outfitters’ launch of a “Navajo” line of merchandise, including questionable items such as a “Navajo flask” and “Navajo panties,” the Navajo filed a lawsuit against the company. The Navajo Nation’s arguments raise several key points for Americans to consider in light of Anheuser-Busch InBev’s marketing strategy.[2] First, the Navajo Nation objected to Urban Outfitters’ use of the Navajo name on the grounds that this use was disrespectful to Native American culture and people. Similarly, the use of “America” as the brand name for a beer seems trivializing, as it reduces America from a country to a mere can. Such use is unbefitting of a sovereign nation. In short, Anheuser-Busch's use of America's name is inappropriate and demeaning. Second, the Navajo held that Urban Outfitters’ use of the Navajo label was inappropriate as the company, rather than the Navajo people, profited from the use of the Navajo name. Here, Anheuser-Busch InBev’s tax practices prove relevant: shouldn’t 100% of taxes for a beer ostensibly profiting from America’s brand name go to the American people, not the Belgian government? If some insist on commoditizing America’s sovereign status, then Americans, not Belgians, should enjoy the benefits of taxes collected on goods profiting from this process of commoditization. Due to these concerns, we shouldn’t praise Anheuser-Busch InBev’s appropriation of America’s name.

3. It makes us look dumb.

Do not give these Belgian/ Brazilian executives the satisfaction of seeing the “dumb-American-trope” realized! If you didn’t enjoy Budweiser before, don’t start buying it now just because it shares the same name as your country! That would be like Gwyneth Paltrow’s daughter buying a bushel of apples every time she enters a grocery store just because these fruits share her name; it's a moronic course of action. It makes you look simple. If you bought Budweiser before, stop buying it now. Show Anheuser-Busch InBev that their cheap marketing tricks do not work, that we do not appreciate multinational corporations cashing in on our country’s name. Countless generations of Americans paid for the right to use that name with their lives. These individuals sacrificed their security so that future generations might proudly claim “America” as their own. And yes, these future generations refer to generations of people. Not beer cans.

Nice try, Anheuser-Busch, but I’m not buying it. With luck, the rest of America won’t either.

[1] Kanter, James. “Anheuser-Busch Aims Its Tax-Trimming Skills at SABMiller.” New York Times 19 Oct. 2015. Web. 2 Jun 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/business/interna...

[2] Racine, Eliza. “Navajo Trademark Not ‘Famous’ Enough Says Judge.” The Lakota Law Project Report. Our Children Are Sacred, 31 May 2016. Web. 2 Jun 2016 http://ourchildrenaresacred.org/navajo-trademark-not-famous-enough-says-judge/