July 10, 2009

"Squaw" origin doesn't matter

Some commenters make a key point in response to lawyer Matthew L.M. Fletcher's posting on Oxford Etymologist Anatoly Liberman:

Oxford Etymologist on the Word “Squaw”—Indigenous Etymologist Needed!Justin Ruggieri
July 9, 2009 at 1:44 pm


Mr. Lynch, as someone who has studied linguistics extensively, I’d like to add my two cents.

Words mean what contemporary users determine them to mean.

If you don’t believe me, try using the “N” word in a conversation with an African American person. If they get upset, or take offense at your use of that word (regardless of context), just explain to them that it really is just a corruption of the latin root word “negr-” which simply describes the color ‘black’. That should clarify things and make everyone feel better, right?

(If you can’t read the sarcasm in this, please consult a speech pathologist).

Or, on a more personal level, I am half-Irish (and damn proud of it), and I happen to take great offense whenever I hear someone use the term “Mick”. Am I supposed to deny that emotion simply because I know that the origin of that term is the Gaelic patronymical device “Mhic”, which translates as “son of”? Don’t count on it.

The bottom line is this–if a word is used to describe a specific group of people, and someone within that group takes offense at the use of that word to describe them, the use of that word in that context becomes patently offensive.

It’s not about the origin of the word, it’s about having respect for the people who it purports to describe.

I hope this helps you to understand why ’squaw’ is not acceptable to so many.

Jacki Rand
July 9, 2009 at 4:37 pm


Research aside, the term “squaw” has been used to denigrate Native women and justify violence against them. It doesn’t really matter what the Algonquians meant by the term. What matters is that historically white men and women adopted it. ... “Squaw man” was always a derogatory term among Whites. So, how can that be a derogatory term and “squaw” not be a derogatory term?

I conclude that White people have a stake in refusing changes when it comes to sports teams, mascots, and so on. It helps to keep Native people down and in their place. “Redskins,” “squaw,” and so forth help to maintain the hierarchy. Sometimes this resistance to change, annoyingly laid out as a principled resistance to “political correctness,” is rooted in the persistent romanticism that is the other side of the colonizer’s coin. I’ve dated White men who actually confessed to fantasies of taking me off to live in a cabin, and of course in nature.

These people will never change. Never. They’re stakeholders in the colonial, racial hierarchy project. They will never ever recognize our humanity.
Comment:  For my thoughts on "squaw," follow the link to see the comments.

The points above apply to "redskin" as well as "squaw." It doesn't matter what the origin of "redskin" is or whether it was initially benign. Like "squaw," it became an epithet in the 19th century, if not earlier.

To those who think "redskin" is okay because Indians labeled themselves "red" before Columbus: 1) Your position is completely unsubstantiated by anything resembling evidence. 2) Even if it were substantiated, it would be irrelevant.

For more on the subject, see Etymologist Says "Squaw" Okay and Squelching the S-Word.

4 comments:

Stephen said...

"Or, on a more personal level, I am half-Irish (and damn proud of it), and I happen to take great offense whenever I hear someone use the term “Mick."

While it's offensive it's a bit silly to get that worked up over a slur. That isn't to say that I agree with the 'slurs are just words' argument but it's still ridiculous to lose your cool just for being called name.

"Am I supposed to deny that emotion simply because I know that the origin of that term is the Gaelic patronymical device “Mhic”, which translates as “son of”? Don’t count on it."

Interesting for someone who's so 'damn proud' she doesn't know there isn't a single Gaelic language. The webster's new world dictionary (third college edition) defines Gaelic as 'the Geoidelic languages as a group.' Justin Ruggieri should do actual research instead of humming along to stupid rebel songs or googling for pix of republican murals (some of the ugliest images you'll ever see).

"I conclude that White people have a stake in refusing changes when it comes to sports teams, mascots, and so on."

Holy conspiracy theories batman! Apparently Whites in general conspire not to change football team names! (Oh well at least it's a good change from Jewish bankers.) People who refuse to change team names and mascots are idiots with a bigoted POV, however I don't see what they have to gain by not changing team names or mascots.

"It helps to keep Native people down and in their place."

Yes because we all know the name of a football team affects the economic status of an Indian. And that once the washington red****s change their to the 'somewhat aggressive purple people' that all Natives will finally be free of oppression! *Sarcasm off.*

Rob said...

One can refer to a "Gaelic patronymical device" without thinking or claiming that Gaelic is a single language, of course. I'd say that's what Ruggieri has done.

I have no idea what "googling for pix of republican murals" refers to. The posting I linked to is pure text.

Why don't you add your comments to the original posting? Let the people there know what you think of them.

What white people have to gain by not changing team names or mascots is their white privilege. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand the concept.

I've explained why Native stereotyping is a serious problem with real-world consequences many times. For instance, in William Means on Education. For more on the subject, see The Harm of Native Stereotyping:  Facts and Evidence.

Stephen said...

"One can refer to a "Gaelic patronymical device" without thinking or claiming that Gaelic is a single language, of course. I'd say that's what Ruggieri has done."

I'm afraid not, it would be like referring to a Cherokee word as an 'Indian word' (implying that there's only one Amerindian language). Not to mention I have quite a few Irish speaking friends and relatives and they have all at least on one occasion mentioned how irritated they are of hearing the Irish language referred to as 'Gaelic'.

"I have no idea what "googling for pix of republican murals" refers to. The posting I linked to is pure text."

I was joking about Justin, it wasn't a serious comment, here's a republican mural looks like:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/770000/images/_771541_galleryearly300.jpg

Cringe inducing isn't?

"What white people have to gain by not changing team names or mascots is their white privilege."

How exactly is an offensive team name a 'privilege'? It's not as if piss poor Russian immigrants are any better off because of a team like the 'washington redskins'? Not to mention the sheer amount of Black washington redskins fans out there. Not to mention she seems to think there's a vast white conspiracy to keep those offensive team names.

"I've explained why Native stereotyping is a serious problem with real-world consequences many times."

You're correct, howevever to suggest that whites in general somehow benefit from an offensive team name or mascot is absurd.

Unknown said...

Not being a native-born american(naturalized way back in 1976) and this fact having little bearing on the topic, I find the arguements posted petty, and self-serving. The constant references to derogatory and/or inflammatory terms only serve as proof to this. The language used by a person is wrong only if we deem it as such. If one were to object to what a person says as offensive, that it is up to that individual to take the necessary steps toward correction. If the individual fails in that task, then the obvious next step is to follow up with whatever legal means that may be applied. But to sit and grouse about how something is not to their liking and upsets their fine sensibilities makes less sense than complaining about the heat before donning your jacket.
Another idea I'd like to toss out for perusal, as long as attention is focused on something as a negative, the more likely it will linger as a negative. Just like dealing with my 15yo son, even negative attention is still attention and whatever it takes to garner the same, and there is more than enough methods to acquire it, it will occur.
Please do not think that I am attacking the authors of the thoughts posted, all I am trying to accomplish is to make people responsible for their lives and what affects them. If you don't like something, change it or change yourself.
Thank you and my apologies to the owners/hosts if they receive any grief about this.
Michael Cloud