Found you looking for the word “squaw” and its history. I like your research and objectivity. I live in Canada where it was a matter of life and death whether or not there was a First Nations woman with an ignorant paleface, alone in the primeval forest. Her skills and wisdom about healing, trapping and shelter were crucial to his survival. Much more important than gold. I would like this word to be re-instated with its authentic meaning acknowledged.
The loss of a word with its true definition is like the extinction of a plant or bird.
We have moved this thread to “Comments on Cecil’s Columns,” because that’s what this is.
In some areas of Canada, “squaw” is considered an insult simply by the way it is used. Back in the days of western novels and Hiawatha, it was just a description. But then, certain words in certain contexts just imply “put-down”. You have to wonder “why is that necessary to use that word”???
For example, “negress”. (OTOH, I have encountered “actors” of the female persuasion who consider “actress” demeaning, because it implies bimbos and Hollywood casting couch rather than acting as a profession. Certainly referring to male members of certain groups as “bucks” implies they are being equated with livestock or wildlife - one understands their dislike of the term, and the implication that anyone who uses it is being deliberately provocative.
OTOH, “Brave”? I guess the insinuation of warlike or bloodthirsty tendencies could be deemed an insult. Hence, the objection to certain names for sports teams too. However, the chiefs have never once objected to the term “chief”. But say it to the wrong person walking down teh street and it will be taken as a put-down.
I see the need to attribute the word “squaw” to an insulting origin as just a deep-seated desire on the part of some self-appointed crusaders to prove the preconception that the system is stacked against them. (“Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I’m being repressed!”) The fact that their ethnic cause du jour might not have always been 100% oppressed - may have actually been treated neutral or nice from time to time - runs counter to their martyr complex and desire to be the one to reform the system.
The fact that “squaw” itself does not have a negative origin does not preclude that people have used that word with a negative tone of voice, thereby making some people sensitive to the use. It is not the fault of the word, but the attitude of the people who have talked about others in a negative context so much that any time they mention those people they mean it as an insult.
“Those damn Injuns everywhere. Injuns are a big nuisance. We ought to just shoot all the injuns so we don’t have to mess with them any more.”
Would that paragraph really be more respectful substituting “Native Americans” for “injuns”?
Squaw is just the word for a Native American female. The fact that the people of the time had a low opinion of Native American females hardly equates to the word “squaw” being an insult.
md2000 said:
“Negress” is a pretty awkward word, but then “Negro” isn’t particularly highly regarded at the moment, either.
Which I don’t understand. Now, I can sort of see the point that our historical penchant of separating women terms from men terms for the same position is a cultural artifact that serves to highlight an unimportant distinction. It’s kind of a linguistic “separate but equal”, which rarely works out to true. Why call a female plane flier an “aviatrix” instead of the same as a male, an “aviator”? Although both could equally be called a “pilot” and nobody would blink. Similarly, the role of person who services passengers on airlines changed from “steward/stewardess” to “flight attendant” for exactly that reason. There’s nothing inherently demeaning in the word “steward” or “stewardess”, but there’s no real need for a gender distinction in the term for the role.
What to do with toreadores? The feminine of “matador” would appear to be “matadriz” but would you call a female bull-slayer that?
Yeah, I probably would, but Spanish is gendered however it is. It just depends on whether the occupation has the gender or the man inside the suit.
I’m not going to speak for other languages. English has moved away from being a gendered language (if it ever was). It could be argued that there is no implied difference between an actor and an actress except for the sex of the person being identified. It could even be argued that the roles for an actor and and actress are inherently different because of the sex, so the distinction is relevant.
Whereas, I have never heard anyone try to distinguish a doctor from a doctress.
The rule of thumb -before political correctness - for combining genders in a general statement was to use the male whenever it was meant to apply to both. As one learned wag put it - “The male, where desireable, embraces the female.”
Yes, I know quite a few women who switched from “actress” to “actor” long before that sort of thing became generally fashionable – too much nudge-nudge-wink-wink at the H&R Block office every spring. “Oh, an ‘actress’, are you? Well, that’s what we’ll put down right here, then…”