The Sociolinguistics of the 'S- Word':
'Squaw' in American Placenames
William Bright
University of Colorado
Words: abstract 141, text 2,826, refs 477. Total 3444.
Place names containing the word ‘squaw’ are numerous throughout the
United States, but have become controversial.
American Indians have
presented three kinds of argument against the term. The first is that it
is derived from a Mohawk word for the female genitalia. Linguistic data
show, however, that it is actually a Massachusett word for ‘woman’. A
second argument presented is that ‘squaw’ has been used derogatorily by
whites toward Indian women. This argument is supported weakly by
literary documents, but more strongly by frontier memoirs and
journalistic writing. The third argument is that ‘squaw’ is offensive
to Indians, in the same way that ‘nigger’ is offensive to African
Americans. This raises the question of ‘politically correct’ vocabulary,
or in broader terms, the sociolinguistic question of the ideological
values of words; in this context, subjective associations are as
important as objective ones.
In July 1998, when I was in Tokyo, I was surprised to see in the
English-language Japan Times the headline: ‘Squaw’ Peak keeps its name.’
The article, credited to United Press International and datelined
Phoenix, reported that the Arizona State Board on Geographic and
Historic Names had voted unanimously to refuse a request from American
Indian petitioners that a mountain near Phoenix, named Squaw Peak, be
renamed Iron Mountain, a name supposedly borne prior to 1910. The
petitioners had claimed that the word ‘squaw’ was derived from a Mohawk
(Iroquoian) word for the female genitalia, and that it was considered
degrading by Indians.
When I returned to the U.S., I learned that versions of the same news
item had been published in newspapers all over the nation, and perhaps
the world. It occurred to me that this may well have been the widest
publicity ever given to a U.S. placename issue.
Because of my own
interest in placenames (Bright 1993, 1998), and because I am compiling a
dictionary of U.S. placenames of Indian origin, I began to collect
further information, first, about government placenaming policy, second,
about specific movements to replace ‘squaw’ placenames, and third, about
the reasons for making such changes.
Government Policy
My understanding of U.S. policy is as follows:
people can give whatever
name they wish to their private property; local jurisdictions - such as
cities, counties, or school districts - can give whatever names they
wish to manmade features such as streets, airports, or schools. However,
assignment of names to natural features, and specifically the placename
usage on Federal documents, including the widely used topographic maps
of the U.S. Geological Survey, depends on approval by the U.S. Board on
Geographic Names. When the U.S. Board considers the assignment of new
placenames or the change of old ones, it relies heavily on
recommendations from local bodies, including state placename authorities
where they exist. Thus, if the Arizona Board had approved the name
change for Squaw Peak, their recommendation would have been forwarded to
the U.S. Board for further deliberation and action.
In the past, the U.S. Board has occasionally made blanket changes of
words considered offensive; thus in 1967 they directed that 143
placenames with 'Nigger' should be changed to 'Negro', and 26 placenames
with the word 'Jap' should be switched to 'Japanese' (Schmitt 1996).
However, the Board’s current policy with regard to ‘squaw’ names is to
consider changes only on a place-by-place basis, when recommended by
local authorities; petitioners are encouraged to propose names related
to Indian history, specifically to Indian women.
At present there are
more than one thousand natural or manmade locales in the U.S. whose
names include ‘squaw’, and the Board has already approved changes in a
few cases. Local movements to replace ‘squaw’ placenames have been made
in several parts of the U.S. I will summarize information here from only
Minnesota and Arizona.
The Minnesota Case
In 1995, in response to demands of Indians, Minnesota enacted a law
ordering counties to rename natural geographic places identified by the
word ‘squaw’. As a result, a name like Squaw Lake (St. Louis County)
officially became Nokomis Lake Pond in county and state records; the
specific term is Ojibwa for ‘grandmother’, and is of course well known
from Longfellow’s poem, The Song of Hiawatha. However, officials of Lake
County, on the Canadian border, have refused to comply; they say that
the changes would cost tens of thousands of dollars for new maps. To be
sure, the white officials did offer to rename Squaw Creek and Squaw Lake
as Politically Correct Creek and Politically Correct Lake. Local Indians
say that the county’s attitude is arrogant and disrespectful; Larry
Aitken, a Chippewa tribal historian, says, “It’s equivalent to having
the New York Mets called the New York Jews.” Glen Yakel, the
administrator in the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources who is in
charge of placenaming, says: “... [The Indians] are trying to bill this
as a matter of political correctness, but it’s a matter of civility”
(Schmitt 1996).
The Arizona Case
There are said to be 73 ‘squaw’ placenames in Arizona, the best known of
which is Squaw Peak in Maricopa County, on the outskirts of Phoenix.
Since 1992, Rep. Jack Jackson, a Navajo member of the Arizona
legislature, has repeatedly introduced a bill for the renaming of Squaw
Peak, but the change has been strongly opposed by local government and
business leaders (Chavers 1997). Thus Phoenix Councilwoman Frances Emma
Barwood is quoted (Mayes 1995) as saying that the constant brouhaha over
names pre-empts more serious business: “I think it’s totally silly and
frivolous. People are just becoming too politically correct - it’s
getting to the point of ridiculousness.” Comment on the other side has
come from anthropologist Michael Winkelman of Arizona State University,
who has been quoted as saying that Anglo-Americans are notorious for
their insensitivity to cultures outside their own: “I guess [Indians]
are trying to legislate what should be common-sense consideration. We
don’t learn sensitivity in this country.” Rep. Jackson in turn has said
that he’s tired of hearing people say there are more important issues
confronting Indian people: “How would they know? You don’t know the way
it feels until you’re Native American and have a family” (Kossan 1996).
In 1997, two young women in the Youth Group of the Arizona branch of
the American Indian Movement (AIM) felt encouraged by events in
Minnesota. They filed a proposal with the Arizona Board, asking that the
name of Squaw Peak be changed to Iron Mountain (CDR 1997), emphasizing
the offensiveness of the name in use. They claimed that Iron Mountain
was a translation of the traditional name used by the Akamel O’odham
(Pima) tribe, namely Vinum Dwaug - more accurately, Vainom Du’ag or
Do’ag - which had been preserved in oral tradition.
Subsequently the history and usage of the names were researched by
State Board staff (Hoff 1998a,b,c). It was noted that a 1997 book by
Donald Bahr, the principal anthropological authority on the Pima -
co-authored with two Pima elders, Lloyd Paul and Vincent Joseph - states
that Vainom Du’ag is the traditional name not of the mountain currently
called Squaw Peak, but of one about four miles away. Furthermore, Lloyd
Paul stated that Vainom Du’ag ‘iron peak’ is not the same as Squaw Peak,
for which he knew no Indian name.
In July 1998, after several months of public discussion, the State
Board met to decide on the proposal. The Board noted that there is doubt
whether the peak called ‘Iron Mountain’ by the Pima is in fact the one
called Squaw Peak by whites. After discussion, the Board voted
unanimously against changing the name of Squaw Peak to Iron Mountain;
however, they left open the possibility for another proposal to change
the name of Squaw Peak to something else (Arizona 1998c).
Reasons for Change
Protests against use of the word ‘squaw’ are associated with two other
kinds of linguistic activism. One is the protest against several English
terms that have been used to refer to American Indians, including ‘buck’
and ‘brave’ for an adult male, ‘papoose’ for a child, and ‘redskin’ as a
generic; protests have been made specifically against the use of such
names for athletic teams. Another link is to the protest by feminists
against terms considered degrading or patronizing to women, such as
‘chick,’ ‘babe,’ or ‘girl’ when applied to adults. Clearly, the word
‘squaw’ comes under fire from both these viewpoints. Several types of
reason can be advanced against the use of the term.
Etymology
All linguists who have commented on the word ‘squaw’, including
specialists on Indian languages and on the history of American
vocabulary, agree that it is not from Mohawk, or any other Iroquoian
language. Rather, the word was borrowed as early as 1624 from
Massachusett, the language of Algonquians in the area we now call
Massachusetts; in that language it meant simply ‘young woman’ (Cutler
1994, Goddard 1996, 1997). Related words meaning ‘woman’ are still used
in the many Algonquian languages of North America: Cree /iskwe:w/,
Ojibwa /ikwe/, Fox /ihkwe:wa/, Unami Delaware /xkwé:/, Munsee Delaware
/óxkwe:w/, all derived from a prototype */e?kwe:wa/ [note Greek theta]
(Goddard 1996). Some Algonquian languages have words for 'woman' that do
not superficially resemble 'squaw,' but these have been modified by
phonetic changes; e.g., in Arapaho, an Algonquian language of the Plains
states, the word /híthei/ ‘woman’ can be traced, sound by sound, to the
same prehistoric source (Goddard, p.c.)
The Mohawk language, by contrast, belongs to an entirely different
language family, the Iroquoian, and the Mohawk word for ‘female
genitalia’ is /otsískwa?/ (pronounced approximately [ojískwa?]; [note
glottal stop, 2x, not question mark] Marianne Mithun, p.c.)
Historically, the Mohawk and the Massachusett were geographically,
culturally, and linguistically quite separate. The earliest publishing
reference to the supposed Mohawk origin is by Sanders &Peck (1973:184).
Subsequently the idea was given wide circulation by a statement made on
TV in 1992 by the Indian spokesperson Suzan Harjo, who attributed the
usage to ‘French and British fur-trappers.’ As Goddard says (1997): “The
resemblance that might be perceived between ‘squaw’ and the last
syllable of the Mohawk word is coincidental... I suppose someone might
claim that the meanings of these words are similar, but to do that would
be to adopt the viewpoint that those ‘fur-trappers’ are being accused
of.” Goddard has further noted (1996) that present-day Mohawk speakers
do not identify the English word ‘squaw’ with their word.
However, findings of linguists and lexicographers may have little
influence on popular belief. The supposed Mohawk etymology has been
often repeated in publications by Indian organizations, and Indian
writers have raised the question: “How would whites feel if they had to
live in a place called Vagina Valley?” But several commentators have
pointed out that historical and current usage are more important than
etymology. For example, both Negro and Nigger derive from the innocuous
Spanish negro ‘black’, but the English term Nigger has long been
considered especially offensive. As Dave Denomie, an Ojibwa from
Wisconsin, has written (p.c.): “This is more a simple question of
regarding others with courtesy and respect than it is a question of
etymology, or whether or not the use of that word offends some, most, or
all Indians.”
Semantics
The English word ‘squaw’ belongs to a rather special semantic set. It
may be significant that the semantic Indian set ‘buck, squaw, papoose’
is unusual among terms for ethnic groups, in that it has separate
lexical items to distinguish male, female, and young; this pattern seems
to group Indians with animals (e.g. horse: stallion, mare, colt) rather
than with other human groups (cf. Italian: Italian man, Italian woman,
Italian child). Note that the word ‘buck’ is otherwise used to refer to
various male animals, especially the deer.
Phonetics
As Dunkling (1998)has said: “Who would want to be linked phonetically to
squalid, squat, squall, squander, squash, squawk, squeak, squeal,
squeamish, squelch, squint, squirm, squirt?” It is probably not
accidental that, in some derogatory citations of the term ‘squaw’, it is
specifically linked with words like squat and squint. Against the above
list, we have only a few neutral terms beginning with ‘squ,’ e.g., squad
and square.
Historical Usage
An important argument presented by Indians is that 'squaw' has
historically been used by whites abusively toward Indian women. Indeed,
there is much historical evidence of generalized racism directed against
American Indians, and of derogatory language use in particular (well
summarized by Curran 1997). However, documented uses of the word ‘squaw’
in clearly derogatory reference to American Indian women seem to have
been neglected by lexicographers. The Oxford English Dictionary defines
‘squaw’ simply as ‘a North American Indian woman or wife’, and gives
seven examples, from 1634 to 1877, which use the term in a neutral
sense.
Nevertheless, historical examples can be cited. Just as feminists have
shown that American men have often imposed a ‘virgin vs. whore’
dichotomy on women, so Green 1975 notes that 19th century American
writers tended to classify Indian women either as ‘Indian princesses’ or
as ‘squaws,’ the latter being routinely characterized as ugly and
whorish. Thus James Fenimore Cooper’s novel The Last of the Mohicans,
published in 1826, refers to “the crafty ‘squaw’ ... the squalid and
withered person of this hag” (1983:239). The memoirs of Lt. James W.
Steele (1883:84) referred to ‘the universal ‘squaw’ - squat, angular,
pig-eyed, ragged, wretched, and insect-haunted.’
It would seem
appropriate to search not only ‘literary’ works and personal memoirs of
the period, but popular ‘dime novels’ as well.
In the early 20th century, we find further evidence of the term in a
derogatory sense; thus Weseen (1928:603) labeled ‘squaw’ as ‘a
contemptuous name.’ However, the 20th century also saw the beginning of
protests against the word; and in recent decades, protests against
‘squaw’ have been numerous. Among many statements by present-day
Indians, I find one especially moving: a letter written to the Arizona
State Board by Joe Morgen, a member of the Owens Valley Paiute Band of
California (Arizona 1998b): “I am an old man ... I grew up with the ‘S’
word ... I heard white men refer to my mother that way and I was ashamed
of her. I didn’t quite understand, but I knew that she was less than
nothing or they would have never made that comment. My mother used to
actually apply bleach to her face so she would look whiter and gain more
acceptance.”
Current Attitudes
Perhaps the most important assertion made by Indian activists is that,
here and now, the word ‘squaw’ is offensive to many Indians, in the same
way that the term ‘nigger’ is offensive to African Americans. Just as
‘nigger’ has been banned from U.S. placenames by government policy,
Indian groups argue that ‘squaw’ should be banned. Most current
dictionaries of English, such as those published by Random House and by
Merriam-Webster, do label ‘squaw’ as ‘disparaging’; and Indian activists
have pointed to this labeling as authoritative.
However, many whites
deny that the term carries any negative sense at present. Some Indians
have also stated that the term is not currently used in their areas, and
that they do not find it offensive in placenames. This of course raises
the question of ‘politically correct’ vocabulary - or in broader terms,
the sociolinguistic question of the ideological values associated with
words; in this context, subjective associations are as important as
objective ones. Thus, even though some Indians report that they do not
find the word offensive, one can argue that official naming practice,
like that established by the Federal and state placename boards, should
allow no room for terms that give offense in minority communities. It is
a commonplace of sociolinguistics that attitudes toward language, even
if based on misapprehensions of fact, are themselves facts - ‘things
people know that ain’t so,’ as the 19th century humorist Artemus Ward
put it (Bright 1978) - and are just as important as actual usage. I
therefore support efforts by Indian activists to eliminate ‘squaw’ from
official maps. But we don’t need ‘sociolinguistic’ reasons for doing
this; considerations of simple courtesy are enough.
To put matters bluntly, the derogatory use of ‘squaw’ has a background
in racism, and racism is a continuing fact in American society.
Eliminating 'squaw' from maps is a good idea, and may make a small dent
in racist thinking, but it will not affect the larger phenomenon of
bigotry. One Minnesotan from Squaw Lake has been quoted (Schmitt 1996)
as saying that it was fine with him to change the name, but he didn’t
expect some people to change their habits: “It’s the way you say it,
it’s not the word.”
The Pueblo Indian poet and literary scholar Paula Gunn Allen, born and
raised in New Mexico, goes to the heart of the matter. She has written
(p.c.): “The only derogatory name I can think of ... is Indian, as in
‘You know how those Indians are,’ or ‘He’s an Indian.’ ... In tone and
demeanor it’s a word of contempt, dismissal, stereotype, discount,
denigration ... Another [such term] I hear/heard a lot was 'they' and
'them' ...” (Anyone who has lived in Indian country can recall hearing
Anglos say, ‘Oh, he’s one of them.’) Allen continues: “Come to think of
it, there was another derogatory term used for Navajos, and that was
'Navajo'.”
What can scholars do about this? We can present the public with the
facts of etymology, of history, and of current usage. We can refute
people who muddy the waters with false or misleading statements in any
of these areas; but we can also affirm that human beliefs and feelings,
whatever their origins, are themselves facts, and must be taken into
account. As citizens, furthermore, we can and should fight racism,
whether it is displayed in words, deeds, or covert ideology.
References
Arizona. 1998a. Media coverage: Squaw Peak.
Phoenix: Arizona State Board
on Geographic and Historic Names.
Arizona. 1998b. Public Comment: Squaw Peak. Phoenix: Arizona State Board
on Geographic and Historic Names.
______. 1998c. Minutes of Meeting, July 8.
Phoenix: Arizona State Board
on Geographic and Historic Names.
Bahr, Donald, Lloyd Paul, and Vincent Joseph. 1997.
Ants and Orioles:
Showing the Art of Pima Poetry. Salt Lake City: University of Utah
Press.
Bright, William. 1978. ‘Things People Know about Language that Ain’t
So.’ Folia Slavica 3.333-42.
______. 1993. Colorado Place Names. Boulder, CO: Johnson.
______. 1998 (ed.) California Place Names, by E. G. Gudde, revised 4th
edition. Berkeley: University of California Press.
CDR Associates. 1997. Proposal: Iron Mountain. Prepared for American
Indian Movement Arizona. Phoenix: Arizona State Board on Geographic and
Historic Names.
Chavers, Dean. 1997. ‘Doing Away with the ‘S’ Word.’ Indian Country
Today, March 10-17, 16:37.
Cooper, James Fenimore. 1983. The Last of the Mohicans. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Curran, Michele J. 1997. What’s in a Word? Definition vs. Historic Usage
and Meaning. Report prepared for AIM Arizona. Phoenix: CDR Associates.
Cutler, Charles L. 1994. O Brave New Words! Native American Loanwords in
Current English. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Dunkling, Leslie. 1994. Guinness Book of Curious Words. Enfield, UK:
Guinness.
Goddard, Ives. 1996. The English Word ‘Squaw.’ Report to the Arizona
Board on Geographic and Historic Names.
______. 1997. ‘Since the Word Squaw Continues to be of Interest.’ News
from Indian Country, Mid-April, p. 19A.
Green, Rayna. 1975. ‘The Pocahontas Perplex: The Image of Indian Women
in American Culture.’ Massachusetts Review 16:698-714.
Harjo, Suzan. 1992. Statement on Oprah Winfrey TV show, ‘Racism in 1992:
Native Americans.’ Quoted in Goddard 1997.
Hoff, Julie. 1998a. Research Information: Iron Mountain. Background
Information on the Proposed New Name. Phoenix: Arizona State Board on
Geographic and Historic Names.
______. 1998b. ‘Squaw’: Background Information on How Offensive the Word
May Be Considered Based on Interpretation. Phoenix: Arizona State Board
on Geographic and Historic Names.
_____. 1998c. Squaw Peak: Background Information on How Squaw Peak Got
its Name. Phoenix: Arizona State Board on Geographic and Historic Names.
Kossan, Pat. 1996. ‘Activists Seek to Take Offensive Term Off Map.’
Arizona Republic, Dec. 4, pp. A1, A16. (In Arizona 1998a.)
Mathews, Mitford M. 1951. A Dictionary of Americanisms on Historical
Principles. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mayes, Kris. 1995. ‘Rooting Out ‘Offensive’ Place Names Bill Would Alter
Monikers Some Say are Insensitive. Phoenix Gazette, Feb. 9, p. A1. (In
Arizona 1998a.)
Sanders, Thomas E., &Walter W. Peck. 1973 (eds.) Literature of the
American Indian. Berkeley: Glencoe.
Schmitt, Eric. 1996. ‘Battle Rages Over a 5-Letter Four-Letter Word.’
New York Times, Sept. 4, p. A16.
Steele, James W. 1883. Frontier Army Sketches. Chicago: Jansen McClurg.
Weseen, Maurice H. 1928. Crowell’s Dictionary of English Grammar and
Handbook of American Usage. New York: Crowell.
With thanks to Iolmisha for sending this on.
Contents
January 2006 Reports
Last updated on January 10, 2006