California/Nevada Squaw Valley to discuss removing slur against Native Americans from California resort’s name.

[Average Joe]

Excerpt:
(Sacbee) The owners of Squaw Valley near Lake Tahoe are inviting Native American leaders to discuss the use of the ethnic and sexist slur in its name, as the movement to remove symbols of colonialism and indigenous oppression has grown throughout the country.

Christine Horvath, a representative from Squaw Valley Alpine Meadows, said in an email that the business is currently creating a plan to review the use of the term “squaw” and invite regional tribal leaders to provide guidance.

“Of course, what’s going on right now prompted us to say, ‘Look, we really need to take a look at this, and we need to get everyone involved,’ ” Horvath said. She emphasized that this was just the start of a conversation about the use of the word.

Full Article:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article243665227.html

Classic journalistic non sequiter.
The reporter states that Squaw proposes a meeting to discuss “the ethnic and sexual slur in its name.” But, in the article, Squaw’s representative made no such statement.

Their management proposes a meeting to discuss their name, and the SacBee reporter rolls into quoting a college professor who thinks the word so obscene it should not be spoken or printed. The editors and headline writers ice the cake.

I’m no expert in the history of Native American and colonial European languages, so I won’t attempt to pass judgement. But I doubt that the Sac Bee reporter is either, nor are the students mentioned to further support the premise.
Now that they have established as “fact” that squaw is a “ethnic and sexual slur”, an honest discussion is almost impossible. The narrative is repeated and reinforced throughout the digital and now social media, and it becomes true by a thousand cuts.

 

[pais alto]

Classic journalistic non sequiter.
The reporter states that Squaw proposes a meeting to discuss “the ethnic and sexual slur in its name.” But, in the article, Squaw’s representative made no such statement.

Their management proposes a meeting to discuss their name, and the SacBee reporter rolls into quoting a college professor who thinks the word so obscene it should not be spoken or printed. The editors and headline writers ice the cake.

I’m no expert in the history of Native American and colonial European languages, so I won’t attempt to pass judgement. But I doubt that the Sac Bee reporter is either, nor are the students mentioned to further support the premise.
Now that they have established as “fact” that squaw is a “ethnic and sexual slur”, an honest discussion is almost impossible. The narrative is repeated and reinforced throughout the digital and now social media, and it becomes true by a thousand cuts.

Wait...you’re saying the Sac Bee and/or that professor

established as “fact” that squaw is a “ethnic and sexual slur”

?!? Okay, I’ve mentioned here before that I had a long career in the wildfire game, starting in 1974. One thing about that is that I’ve worked extensively with Native American fire crews, fire and resource managers, and Tribal administration, corporations and agencies. So, going back to almost 45 years I understood that you never addressed a Native American woman as a squaw unless you wanted to establish unquestionable disrespect. And I firmly believe it was well established long before ‘74.

 

[Mendieta]

So, going back to almost 45 years I understood that you never addressed a Native American woman as a squaw unless you wanted to establish unquestionable disrespect. And I firmly believe it was well established long before ‘74.

Thank you for sharing. And it doesn't take more than a 10 second search into Wikipedia to find this:

The English word squaw is an ethnic and sexual slur,[1][2][3] historically used for Indigenous North American women.[4] Contemporary use of the term, especially by non-Natives, is considered offensive, derogatory, misogynist and racist.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

So, as much as I didn't know this, and I never searched for it, now I know, and I would love for the name change. We should get a little better every day.

 

[Average Joe]

Wait...you’re saying the Sac Bee and/or that professor ?!? Okay, I’ve mentioned here before that I had a long career in the wildfire game, starting in 1974. One thing about that is that I’ve worked extensively with Native American fire crews, fire and resource managers, and Tribal administration, corporations and agencies. So, going back to almost 45 years I understood that you never addressed a Native American woman as a squaw unless you wanted to establish unquestionable disrespect. And I firmly believe it was well established long before ‘74.

As I stated in my post, I have no historical background in how Native American language was translated and adopted into the English language.
I’m simply saying that, as written, the article assigns a derogatory label to a word, citing a single source. If there’s historical references that unequivocally prove that squaw has always been a derogatory European description of a female, then it would be helpful to the reader to cite it.
I’m going to bet that in the 400 years of history that the word useage and meaning has changed.
Lately I’m feeling like I’m living in George Orwell’s 1984.

 

[Average Joe]

Thank you for sharing. And it doesn't take more than a 10 second search into Wikipedia to find this:


So, as much as I didn't know this, and I never searched for it, now I know, and I would love for the name change. We should get a little better every day.

If you are relying on a Wikipedia entry for historical accuracy I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.......
There are entire pages of Wikipedia that exist, created and edited by single moderators with agendas that will not allow any dissenting editing. Which is why academic institutions will fail students papers who use Wikipedia as a source.

 

[skibob]

As I stated in my post, I have no historical background in how Native American language was translated and adopted into the English language.
I’m simply saying that, as written, the article assigns a derogatory label to a word, citing a single source. If there’s historical references that unequivocally prove that squaw has always been a derogatory European description of a female, then it would be helpful to the reader to cite it.
I’m going to bet that in the 400 years of history that the word useage and meaning has changed.
Lately I’m feeling like I’m living in George Orwell’s 1984.

You are using the word "article" without citing any sources. In this cyberage, the meaning of that is changing rapidly.

 

[pais alto]

If you are relying on a Wikipedia entry for historical accuracy I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.......
There are entire pages of Wikipedia that exist, created and edited by single moderators with agendas that will not allow any dissenting editing. Which is why academic institutions will fail students papers who use Wikipedia as a source.

Did you read the Wikipedia article? I’m going to say probably not. Look, don’t even read it, just check that there are over 40 notes and references listed. I’m not saying Wikipedia is flawless overall, but there are countless accurate and referenced articles. With that many references I’d say that article has some solid backup. And fwiw, historical references like you asked for are provided. Let us know what you think after looking carefully at the source material.

Also, if you’re feeling you’re being led by the nose, I suggest you ask some Native American women how they feel about the word. I’d be interested in your references that show that squaw is non-offensive to Native American women, or only became so after that SacBee article.

 

[Average Joe]

You are using the word "article" without citing any sources. In this cyberage, the meaning of that is changing rapidly.

The "article" is the premise for the thread. See post #1 page 1

 

[Average Joe]

Did you read the Wikipedia article? I’m going to say probably not. Look, don’t even read it, just check that there are over 40 notes and references listed. I’m not saying Wikipedia is flawless overall, but there are countless accurate and referenced articles. With that many references I’d say that article has some solid backup. And fwiw, historical references like you asked for are provided. Let us know what you think after looking carefully at the source material.

Also, if you’re feeling you’re being led by the nose, I suggest you ask some Native American women how they feel about the word. I’d be interested in your references that show that squaw is non-offensive to Native American women, or only became so after that SacBee article.

I read the entire Wikipedia article. It is quite extensive, with many supporting footnotes.
Have you read the source material?
For example, the text in the article cited in footnote 3 is identical to the text in the article in footnote 8. Cut and pasting-not only sloppy, but it is plagiarism. No surprise legitimate academia will reject any research that cites a Wikipedia article as a source.
As long as we are posting internet sources on the subject, here is one the Wikipedia editor passed over:

The S-word: Offensive or Not?

The s-word certainly has had its share of history. In researching its meaning, s-word is either offensive or means a female Indian woman

indiancountrytoday.com

The writer presents both sides of the story, including this:
"The first recorded version of squaw was found in a book called Mourt’s Relation: A Journey of the Pilgrims at Plymouth written in 1622. The term was not used in a derogatory fashion but spoke of the “squa sachim or Massachusets Queen” in the September 20, 1621 journal entry"

Edit to add, this well researched piece adds context to the discussion:

Reclaiming the Word "Squaw"

And I'm not arguing to use words like squaw in everyday language or conversation, I'm just trying to point out that it's historical context has probably evolved , and that the current lens of history is a poor way to filter. We don't refer to any contemporary Native American with, unless they maintain the title or description, the way that the Europeans translated. But we use these translations in everyday language- and it's not because we are racist or sexist. Police Chief. Fire chief. Chief of Staff.... the list can go on and on.

Personally, I worked with and then employed some full blooded Cherokees for about five -six years. About the nicest, genuine guys I had the pleasure of working with. Optimistic, hard working, one had a great sense of humor.
Both served their full tour in the jungles of Vietnam - serving this country, face to face with war (the lunchtime stories were memorable). So yes, I've spent more than a thousand hours in close company with Native Americans, and no, I'd never use old European words in modern conversations.

But shall we wipe history off the maps? Eliminate references that may go back 400 years? When we're done cleansing ourselves of one word, what's next?

 

[dbostedo]

The writer presents both sides of the story

I almost feel like, in the case of an offensive word, the fact that there are 2 sides mean you should stop using the word. It doesn't really matter who doesn't find it offensive, if a significant number of people do. I realize things could be more nuanced than this in some cases, but it seems like a good rule of thumb.

 

[Average Joe]

I almost feel like, in the case of an offensive word, the fact that there are 2 sides mean you should stop using the word. It doesn't really matter who doesn't find it offensive, if a significant number of people do. I realize things could be more nuanced than this in some cases, but it seems like a good rule of thumb.

Agreed, see my complete post.

 

[dbostedo]

Agreed, see my complete post.

I read it. It sounds like you're arguing not to get rid of "squaw" because it isn't always offensive. Maybe I'm mis-reading? I don't doubt that the word has changed over time. And you said "...I'm not arguing to use words like squaw in everyday language or conversation...". But then it sounds like you are doing just that.

"But shall we wipe history off the maps? Eliminate references that may go back 400 years? When we're done cleansing ourselves of one word, what's next?"

If the history is something that is now an offensive word, then I say "yes", "yes", and "the next word". But again, maybe I'm misunderstanding?

 

[Tricia]

And fwiw, I’d say you should probably never call a Native American woman a squaw. Unless you’re looking to piss her off. It could well be on their radar.

It never occurred to me to do so.

 

[John Webb]

Calling a woman a squaw denotes she is lower than human, like a mare, doe, heifer, hen, sow, nanny, or bitch.

Waat! The Heifer Belles are my favorite Nevada City band. They're not young gals [?cows ??] either -maybe late 40's !

 

[pais alto]

I read the entire Wikipedia article. It is quite extensive, with many supporting footnotes.
Have you read the source material?
For example, the text in the article cited in footnote 3 is identical to the text in the article in footnote 8. Cut and pasting-not only sloppy, but it is plagiarism. No surprise legitimate academia will reject any research that cites a Wikipedia article as a source.
As long as we are posting internet sources on the subject, here is one the Wikipedia editor passed over:

The S-word: Offensive or Not?

The s-word certainly has had its share of history. In researching its meaning, s-word is either offensive or means a female Indian woman

indiancountrytoday.com

The writer presents both sides of the story, including this:
"The first recorded version of squaw was found in a book called Mourt’s Relation: A Journey of the Pilgrims at Plymouth written in 1622. The term was not used in a derogatory fashion but spoke of the “squa sachim or Massachusets Queen” in the September 20, 1621 journal entry"

Edit to add, this well researched piece adds context to the discussion:

Reclaiming the Word "Squaw"

I’m very amused that the linked article by Marge Bruchac that you say is well researched doesn’t have any references listed. If I were to take the sort-of-ad-hominem approach you took about Wikipedia, then I’d have issues with that article.

And I'm not arguing to use words like squaw in everyday language or conversation, I'm just trying to point out that it's historical context has probably evolved , and that the current lens of history is a poor way to filter. We don't refer to any contemporary Native American with, unless they maintain the title or description, the way that the Europeans translated. But we use these translations in everyday language- and it's not because we are racist or sexist. Police Chief. Fire chief. Chief of Staff.... the list can go on and on.

I didn’t say you were arguing to use the word squaw these days, my point was that the SacBee article you linked wasn’t the deciding point that the use of the word was questionable. But now I want to say that I don’t think using the word “Chief” as an example of the evolution of Indian language words where the meaning or acceptability has evolved is well considered.

But shall we wipe history off the maps? Eliminate references that may go back 400 years? When we're done cleansing ourselves of one word, what's next?

I think - and this is my most important point - that ‘history’ isn’t wiped out by changing objects/locations names that people find offensive. History is (appropriately) maintained in published works and museums, not in the names of ski areas or creeks. Without the context provided in books and museums, offensive names for features stands as a possible example of appropriate use. I believe there aren’t any statues to Third Reich leaders in Germany, yet that history hasnt been wiped out.

 

[pais alto]

It never occurred to me to do so.

I was using that as an example of how this is more of a problem than some well-meaning people trying to address something that isn’t a big deal.

 

[djetok]

What’s your tribe’s word for that part of female anatomy? You could offer that up to SV/AM to use instead of squaw.

Do Choctaws use the word squaw in their language? I mean I’m not offended by Russian derogatory racist terms either, but that’s because I don’t speak Russian. And I’m caucasian.

Edit: Has this been mentioned yet? If not, it’s worth a read.

Squaw - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Traditions

Explore the traditions of the proud Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.

www.choctawnation.com

Bah-na-tubbe, an intelligent fellow, in the course of his examination, stated that it was usual for the woman, especially widows, to give “the first banter,” viz: first advances. This is usually done at night, in the dance, by squeezing the hand or treading gently on the foot of the favored warrior. Perhaps this may be rather a necessity than a freedom; because if a man should take these liberties with a squaw she would immediately resent it by attacking him with a stick, and every squaw present would assist her. Witness has seen twenty squaws thus beating a too ardent lover. These “banters” are often given by old women, invariably to very young men. Old women usually select a lazy fellow, who takes her for her house and her ponies. Witness had, when only eighteen, been taken by a woman of fifty, but he soon left her for a very young girl. When the “banter” is mutually agreeable the parties quietly slip out of the crowd, and when they re-appear are considered man and wife.


This is from the Choctaw nation website. It is all about what you want to take issue with. If you try hard enough, you can take issue with almost EVERYONE. I am sorry that I do not see things the way that others do. I am a Christian and I believe in what the bible says. I came from adam and eve, just like everyone else. They are my brothers and sisters.

 

[fatbob]

I was using that as an example of how this is more of a problem than some well-meaning people trying to address something that isn’t a big deal.

But in casually or ignorantly accepting the use of a name in a "mainstream" environment which you would not use directly with a person, how doe you determine whether it is a big deal or not? How does a Native American react on seeing a Squaw Valley sticker on your roofbox?

- Everyday white person casual racism?
- Personal slur?
- No big deal?
- Quite like it as it actually reminds folk we were here first?

And the reactions can be different per individual. There has been a lot of debate about the use of the reference "Yids" in relation to Tottenham Hotspur football(soccer) team famously known for their Jewish supporter base. Some Jewish fans prefer to own the term and sing actively about it while others consider it hate speech. There is no clear cut answer.

Tottenham Hotspur condemns new dictionary definition of 'Yid' | CNN

Tottenham Hotspur FC have released a statement criticising the expanded definition in the Oxford English Dictionary of the word 'yid'.

edition.cnn.com

 

[pais alto]

Traditions

Explore the traditions of the proud Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.

www.choctawnation.com

Bah-na-tubbe, an intelligent fellow, in the course of his examination, stated that it was usual for the woman, especially widows, to give “the first banter,” viz: first advances. This is usually done at night, in the dance, by squeezing the hand or treading gently on the foot of the favored warrior. Perhaps this may be rather a necessity than a freedom; because if a man should take these liberties with a squaw she would immediately resent it by attacking him with a stick, and every squaw present would assist her. Witness has seen twenty squaws thus beating a too ardent lover. These “banters” are often given by old women, invariably to very young men. Old women usually select a lazy fellow, who takes her for her house and her ponies. Witness had, when only eighteen, been taken by a woman of fifty, but he soon left her for a very young girl. When the “banter” is mutually agreeable the parties quietly slip out of the crowd, and when they re-appear are considered man and wife.


This is from the Choctaw nation website. It is all about what you want to take issue with. If you try hard enough, you can take issue with almost EVERYONE. I am sorry that I do not see things the way that others do. I am a Christian and I believe in what the bible says. I came from adam and eve, just like everyone else. They are my brothers and sisters.

I looked around, and I couldn’t find information on the person Claiborn that wrote that passage, but there’s a better than good chance he was a white guy, and it was written some time ago. I’m not sure that quoting what white guys some time ago on a website indicates current acceptance of the term squaw.

edit to add:

If you try hard enough, you can take issue with almost EVERYONE.

Well, if you never take issue with ANYONE, not many wrongs will be corrected. Amiright?

 

[pais alto]

But in casually or ignorantly accepting the use of a name in a "mainstream" environment which you would not use directly with a person, how doe you determine whether it is a big deal or not? How does a Native American react on seeing a Squaw Valley sticker on your roofbox?

- Everyday white person casual racism?
- Personal slur?
- No big deal?
- Quite like it as it actually reminds folk we were here first?

You‘d have to ask Native Americans. All I have to go on is from the Native Americans that told me the term squaw is derogatory/demeaning. And there are numerous references in print and online that say that as well. Clearly it’s offensive to numerous people. Why take a chance?