Is "squaw" an obscene insult?

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000317.html

This column reveals once again how zealots will tell any story that fowards their cause.

This factoid was dispensed, judged and sentence pronounced all by the same person without any evidence produced to corraborate it. Ain’t TV grand?


“The truth does not make a good story; that’s why we have art.”

Better read that column again, I think you missed some parts.

ObSDMB (Straight Dope Mini-Bricker): What is my board rules violation?:

  1. Failure to welcome new poster to board
  2. Feeding troll
  3. Calling poster a troll too eagerly
  4. Obscure grammar violation

rocks

I believe lsowte is railing against Ms. Harjo for promulgating an unsupported assertion when it suited her agenda.


jrf

I’m curious as to the 143 place names that formerly had the word nigger in them. Especially where they were located.

Any other cases with other slurs? Wop Falls? Mick Island? Howlieburg? Dirty-No-Good-Samoanville?


Gypsy: Tom, I don’t get you.
Tom Servo: Nobody does. I’m the wind, baby.

Try this link Alph:

http://mapping.usgs.gov/www/gnis/gnisform.html

You’ll find over 500 place names with the word “Negro” in them. I’m guessing about 100 or so were called something else before the USGS forced them to change.

You will also find:
Wop Draw, WY
Mick Homestead, CO
and
Mick Run, WV

Sorry! No Howlieburg or Dirty-No-Good-Samoanville.

Well, there’s always “Hymietown.”

Re the use of “Negro” to describe a place; is in not possible that the word in some cases merely means “black,” and was not meant to refer to people of African descent?

I don’t have a foreign language dictionary handy, but I recall that “negro” or some close variant is essentially no different from, say, naming a city “Baton Rouge.”

Divemaster, I believe that is precisely why “Negro” is allowed in a place name, whereas “nigger” is not; the former is a word for “black” en Español, the latter is an offensive derogatory term for those with black skin.

Ponte Negro would, thus, be Black Point.

I might note, however, that in general, if the place name has the word “Negro” combined with an English word such as Lake or Ridge, it’s likely the meaning was “Black-person” not “Black”.

The word nigger, like the word negro, also was derived from other languages’ word for black, but it took on the additional derogatory meaning, and now is the only definition people think of when it is used. The following entry is from the online version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary.


“The truth does not make a good story; that’s why we have art.”

Here’s some more place names from that USGS site:

Nip Creek, MN
Whitey’s Gulch, CA
Darkies Creek, IL
Frenchie Flat, NV
Injun Creek,TN
Redneck, AR
Dago Creek, CA
Chink’s Peak, ID
Gringo Lake, NM
Kraut Canyon, NM
Beaner Lake, WA
Gook Creek, MI

If you use the URL noted by Ursa Major above you can still search for “nigger” and find the place names that were changed. Variants and former names are listed/searched as well.

Obfus.

Does that mean we need to rename Beaver County & Assawoman creek.

There is at least one geographical feature in the United States that still uses “nigger” in its name.

You won’t find it on a map, but a large hill in Jackson County, Ind., is still called Nigger Hill by the locals. According to local legend, it was the site of an infamous lynching.

Thanks for the examples, Ursa. Those are pretty interesting.
Jill

Yeah, that’s a cool link, Ursa. Thanks.


Gypsy: Tom, I don’t get you.
Tom Servo: Nobody does. I’m the wind, baby.

It seems to me that the meaning of words is conditioned more by usage than by etimology - if I say something to you and you get my meaning easily, then I must have used the “right” words. As far as words used for racial or ethnic distinction are concerned, the best practice seems to be changing all the time, due to the mistaken belief (my opinion) that you can eradicate offensive states of mind by manipulating preferred linguistic terms. Don’t get me wrong - I’m happy to play the game by the rules, so if I know that one word will give offence and another won’t I’ll use the one that won’t. Nevertheless, we don’t seem to be getting very far this way.

From what I read, in the fifties and sixties it was correct to use “coloured” and wrong to say “black”, but now if anything it’s the other way around. “African American” or “person of colour” are preferred by many people, but try saying one of these phrases out loud in a sarcastic tone of voice and see if anyone smiles! Clearly, if the word “squaw” gives offence, though, it shouldn’t be used - the original meaning of the word is irrelevant.

But wouldn’t it be better to approach the problem from the other end? It isn’t words that are racist, it’s the sentiments behind them, and these don’t seem to be reduced by constantly laundering the dictionary.

In England, where I live (you could tell by the spelling couldn’t you?), we have our own problems in finding acceptable terms for people who were born here but who aren’t “white”. Especially in the bigger cities, there are lots of “nationalities” and “ethnicities” that need to be identified in conversation, but however it’s done it seems to involve crude generalisation or isolating people from the core population, which is dangerous.

So oedipus, I guess African-American just wouldn’t cut it. :slight_smile:

Cecil’s analogy between “squaw” and “Jewess” or “Negress” is a bit strained. If there is a comparable word, it would be “Indianess”–i.e., an Anglo feminization of a word that, at least in part, serves to make a distinction between this ethnic group’s females and “ours.” Cecil is correct that these categorizations tend to make one’s skin crawl.

But that’s not what we have here, not if we are to believe the background that Cecil himself provided. The more apt equivalent to squaw might be “mademoiselle,” or perhaps “femme.” These words are not typically considered insults, except to the extent that the less enlightened of us consider any feminine connotation inferior.

That’s not to say, however, that the word “squaw” has never been delivered as an invective. I am a Catholic, just to make yet another analogy, and I am certain that this name has been used at times in a context and with an inflection that led no one to believe it a compliment. That does not, however, automatically render the term a pejorative.

Of course, that’s a completely different question than whether or not we ought to avoid offending someone who has a specific, if unfounded, complaint.

I am of the belief that we should try to keep from offending anyone, whether or not their aversion has any real etymological basis in fact, regardless of their galactically large hypersensitivity. If someone finds the term, “friend,” offensive, I’ll abandon it gladly in dealing with him; again, though, that should not be construed as a validation of that person’s petty logic.

While I eagerly accept the tnotion that we all have different levels of sensitivity, and we all have different ways of dealing with each others’ sensitivities, I find myself rather less likely to abadon my mother tongue than Bob Cos is. If we abandon an innocuous word like “friend” because one person in a million finds it offensive, then we have started down a slippery slope toward a state where no one can say anything. (Didn’t Vonnegut predict as much in “From Time to Timbuktu”?)

I have always considered giving, and taking, offense as a constitutional right, a small price to pay for the protections we enjoy under the First Amendment. Perhaps I exercise this right more than most. No offense. :slight_smile:

“The dawn of a new era is felt and not measured.” Walter Lord

As my name suggests, I am a redskin woman.

My parents native tongue is Algonquin. I find it odd that the etimology of the word ‘squaw’ is linked to the Algonquins. Afterall, the word does not exist in our language?

Hmmm, if it is one of our words, then my best guess would be that WE stopped using the word somewhere around a century ago. I wonder why? Duh!

FYI - I’ve never been called a squaw when it was used as a compiment.

As made clear by Cecil in his column, research shows that the word used by the Massachusett tribe was squa (one has to wonder about the exact pronounciation, since most Native American languages aren’t easily represented by the Roman alphabet). The word meant ‘woman’ according to the experts.

But, as Cecil also noted, just because it had an innocuous meaning to start doesn’t mean it didn’t become insulting. I suspect that, for many, just the fact it was used in a demeaning way by the white invaders was enough to taint it with a demeaning feeling. Although, as Cecil also points out, some Native American tribes use the word themselves.

The (Toledo) Blade today reported that Ohio is likely to be one of the next states in which an attempt to remove the word from place names will occur. As home of the Cleveland Indians (with the execrable Chief Wahoo symbol), one has to wonder if maybe there aren’t worse insults to target here…