Talk:Squaw

Claims of misogyny, bigotry, racism

I don't think the page should lead with these assertions, the etymology doesn't seem to support these modern opinions, and not everyone will properly investigate. It would be better imho to not cater to these unrealistic interpertations. By the same logic "woman" is offensive to English speakers... or Ella is offensive to Spanish speakers. The notion that non-native speakers should be given different connotation is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:78B0:5960:B100:DFEF:30C:856F (talk)

Agree. "Squaw ("woman"), squawsuck ("women"), keegsquaw ("virgin or maid"), segousquaw ("widower"), and squausnit ("woman's god")"

Agree. The active voice is being abused “is considered derogatory… “ by who? Also “is considered universally offensive by Indigenous groups in America and the First Nations” is a very strong and suspicious claim. It seems contradicted by the latter part of the article. Some groups do want the term reclaimed, so it isn’t “universal” even if it might be a majority. This is an encyclopedia, not a manifesto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:8C00:9E80:E89C:55B2:6517:F5A6 (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

not seeing the misogyny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.68.34 (talk • contribs) 16:39, September 14, 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Try reading the article and the cited sources. The derogatory connotations are extensively sourced. Meters (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Disagree as well, the examples given by the IP are in one, outdated source, by someone who did not even speak the language he was allegedly documenting. I don't think that book was ever WP:RS and probably shouldn't even be included. To try to use that to outweigh all the reliable sources is cherrypicking and undue weight. The reliable sources thoroughly source the lede and article content we have now. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The etymology is largely irrelevant to the modern use of it as a slur in English. Though it is fascinating to see people arguing about this since its pretty universally understood to be a slur in my area, and somebody asking for a source on this would be laughed at. SomerIsland (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

the word entered English language around 1620 and sources dating from that period can easily and frequently be encountered by students of all descriptions, so what you are mischaracterizing as "etymology" is entirely relevant. 2603:8001:D3F0:87E0:0:0:0:10D0 (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. First of all, the words presented above are Roger Williams take on the Narragansett language, not the actual language as spoken. Secondly, the term is most assuredly a slur and understood to be so. Indigenous girl (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Disagree Disagree. The word is commonly used among native tribes and on reservations. Checking the sources only seems to lead to debunked articles. The word is universally understood to just mean "woman" and the average person is surprised that activists are pushing to try to make it a slur, which is actually offensive to indigenous people. Non-English words should not be considered offensive simply because they're come from a foreign language. 2601:18D:8C80:500:64DD:2BD5:4665:BEE5 (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

See, fiction like that doesn't fly here. Sorry to break it to you, but Natives edit Wikipedia. I could go through point by point and show how your comments are not credible, and are even laughable, but editors in good standing already know. It's only people who know nothing about Native realities that would say, or buy, the kind of stuff you just tried here. As Wikipedians, we are supposed to be tolerant of newcomers, and folks who are well-meaning if ignorant, but we do not abide outright disinformation, hate speech or hoaxes. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Rather than demeaning the prior person, perhaps you could explain the apparent contradictions throughout the article. I have no knowledge of Native-American linguistics, but this article reads like a complete mess. The initial paragraph bears the claim that "squaw" isn't a word in any Native-American language, but only as a morpheme in longer words, but then further paragraphs present plenty of examples where "squaw" seems like a reasonable approximation of authentic, Native-American words. Also, the attempt to minimize the significance of its Algonquian origins seems like purposeful smoke-screening: Algonquian speakers represented a huge share of Native American speakers in territory which is now the United States... and were predominant in regions where English speakers were first contacting Native Americans. That the word is widely considered offensive should suffice, since it has no meaning beyond, "woman." Such borrowing of a foreign word (or morpheme, if you insist) only serves to amplify a sense of "otherness." 2600:8806:1000:DA00:E41D:5A8E:5CF1:F9D4 (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Roger Williams was substantially inaccurate or that "squaw" is not a reasonable approximation? 2600:8806:1000:DA00:E41D:5A8E:5CF1:F9D4 (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

In the Narragansett language - Squa (woman), Kechissquaog (women), Ussqua (young woman/teen), Nunksqua (girl). Squausnit is not a god, she is a spirit helper, one of the Makiawisug. She was never a god. The pronunciation of Squa is not squaw it is closer to squuh. The Narragansett community finds the use of the word squaw by the dominant culture offensive -

"Our opinion is that the vulgar connotations which attach to the word “squaw” today are

derived in part from the racist perceptions and stereotypes of Native American women as

lascivious and wanton creatures of a low moral character, who belong to a noble but savage and

uncivilized race. These stereotypes and prejudices were most likely acquired from the cinematic

and television portrayals of American Indians. Such a set of perceptions is not far from the

notions of “strumpet” or “prostitute”, although “squaw” seems to carry with it the further notion

of a non-monetary obligation in exchange for “sexual favors”. Such perceptions and stereotypes

apparently support the allegations of significant sexual abuse of Native American women,

especially in the 18th and 19th centuries, outside of New England, during the popularized years of

“The Indian Wars”.

Thus, for many reasons, we believe strongly that the word "squaw" (or variant spellings)

should be eradicated throughout the United States. The word should be officially expunged

from all references to objects in the animal, plant, and mineral kingdoms; descriptions of natural

phenomena like mountains, hills, valleys, lakes, and the like; names for places of business,

entertainment and education; used as a descriptive reference in any and all printed matter,

residing on any medium, such as maps, street signs or other geographical references; and any and

all references not alluded to above, but for which mention or reference to the word "squaw" is

substantially likely to evoke the generally held understanding of the derogatory meaning of the

word "squaw" as an American-English word. Finally, we believe that standard American-

English and British-English dictionaries should incorporate the alternative etymology of “squaw”

as a corruption of the Mohawk word “otsikwaw”, meaning “female genitalia”."[1]https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED490469.pdf Indigenous girl (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I've always known of the word "squaw" as meaning "strong native American woman". The word may be considered derogatory if someone uses it in aggression such as saying "That squaw" followed by an insult, but typically it meant "strong native American woman". It's quite sad to see someone refer to it anything other than that and now some want to rid this word meaning "strong native American woman" from society. I think it's actually insulting to native American women doing that. 2600:1700:B150:7B60:6DDA:D22:ADBF:5A1D (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately your wall of text does not address the issue at hand. The derogatory nature of the term over the last couple of centuries is well sourced, the question at hand is whether its origins may be misrepresented on this page. As you indicate, the word seems to have come from respectful, possibly even reverent, origins. Crescent77 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

In dealing with colonial-era writings, and any writings by colonists, we have to assess how well they understood the language and culture they were documenting. We do this largely by comparing their work, and the effects of their work, to the work of Indigenous people from the cultures the settlers wrote about. Now that there is an abundance of work from Indigenous scholars, there is no reason to privilege misinformation from those from outside the cultures in question. It really doesn't matter what the intent of the outsiders was - "reverent" or "to degrade" - they just lacked the means to be accurate. Additionally, as has been stated repeatedly, one dialect does not apply to all cultures, and most of what was written about "reclaiming" the word was produced by someone who was misrepresenting their connection to, and expertise in, the cultures in question. This has already been discussed over and over again. Driveby IPs who don't know the field don't change consensus. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The point is, the morphemes are only the morphemes, they were never, and are not, the English-language slur. Apples and oranges. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The word means "strong native American woman". It's not derogatory. The word can be used with other derogatory words to make a derogatory idea, but the word "squaw" in itself means "strong native American woman". 2600:1700:B150:7B60:6DDA:D22:ADBF:5A1D (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. The literature indicates the English morpheme was incorporated from Narraganset. Crescent77 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

A few more recent sources

Sorry about my last post. These.[2][3][https://nativenewsonline.net/currents/calling-squaw-a-racist-term-interior-secretary-haaland-calls-for-it-to-be-removed-from-geographic-place-names}. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Redundant sections added

@Dylanchandley: The sections you inserted, while having some usable content, are largely redundant with the current content. Instead of dropping in redundant sections, which make the article less readable, please work in collaboration with other editors to integrate new content and sourcing into the existing text. It's fine if this results is some restructuring, but we shouldn't have repeated sections that say basically the same things. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Really, really basic explanations that there really aren't exceptions to this

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: While I agree with your point here, we've actually needed to make this clear. Some background: We unfortunately had to get that basic because of a history of ignorant and aggressive edit-warring on this article. Hopefully, that is over now. But... if that level of disruption resumes, we may need to put something to that effect back in. I sincerely hope not, as we now have abundant sourcing that should make that unnecessary. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah. I wasn't aware of the history here (and I'm a lifelong New Englander, so none of the information in question is exactly a revelation to me personally). If there's anything you think needs to be readded go for it, I certainly don't want to degrade the long-term quality of this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Free or bound morpheme?

I feel like this distinction is helpful.

If a native speaker used it, devoid of historical baggage, is this like calling a person "woman" directly ("what are you doing, woman!?"*) or is this like calling a person something so dehumanizing as to be confusing? (Like using the prefix "un" as a noun) 2600:1700:F380:3240:C144:371F:7A02:1001 (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using phrases such as "Nonetheless, it should be noted"

Or "That said, it should be noted". See MOS:NOTED and MOS:EDITORIAL. This include "nonetheless" and "That said". Doug Weller talk 15:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is ridiculous

This article is ridiculous. The term originates with Algonquin languages of the now US northeast that the English dealt with on an everyday basis in the 18th century. The English were taught by the Algonquin that the word means "woman". So it became the universal English term for a Native American woman, based upon what they were taught by indigenous American peoples. It's origins are not a slur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riceman1974 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. Crescent77 (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Please cite some sources that indicate Native Americans do not find it offensive in counter to the several included sources confirming they do, then. Walkersam (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing in the article does support Riceman's statement. It most certainly developed into a slur; as stated, its origins appear innocuous. Crescent77 (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

In accounts written by whites, the term "Indian princess" indicates high status and esteem; "Indian squaw" implies lower staus and esteem. It may not have originated as a slur, but it has so been used by some. People using it without negative intent should realize people have used it as an insult. -Naaman Brown (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

so because white ppl said its lower status its now a slur?

white people misused a word till they decided its not allowed because they misused it... nice.. 2600:6C5E:64F0:3AA0:F0D3:EFE0:E63D:457F (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you source that historical usage please? If accurate, it should be included in this article... Crescent77 (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

New place names published

The list of new place names was published by the USGS on September 8, 2022. USGS edits list Pedanticloser (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

643 places renamed! Added to the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Overcite

What is the deal with the huge WP:OVERCITE in the lede? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

If you look over the talk and history, you'll see how we've had a few persistent users, usually IPs, who, despite all evidence, insist this is not a slur. So, more and more sources were added. Due to the perennial complaints, I'd WP:IAR here and just leave it as-is. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Why are we removing commentary? Crescent77 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Etymology

I was comparing the latest version of this page to one from back in 2017 and it struck me that the section in the older version re. the etymology of the word was very interesting with all the Native American terminology and much more detailed. Is there any scope for incorporating the older etymology section into the latest article?5.81.14.245 (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

In various rounds of cleanup we've had to examine whether sources were reliable. It would depend on the sourcing. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Etymological fallacy

Etymological fallacy seems to be leaking in here. This term is considered a slur because of usage, not because its etymology is flawed in some way. It is in fact quite common for ethnic slurs to be based on endonyms, such as "Polack". Having a valid etymology does not at all mean it's not a slur. Pharos (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Alternative View

From the American Indian Culture and Research Journal 1990, 14(4)

According to Ojibway elder Saxon Gouge, as reported in The Journal: News From Indian Country and reprinted in the Minneapolis American Indian community newspaper The Circle (March 1989), ”The word Squaw is a most derogatory word (being) actually a European corruption of an Iroquoian word meaning female sexual parts.

But according to Ives Goddard's full text (Ref No 17 main page)

A competing claim has been made in recent years, despite the clear evidence that squaw comes from an Algonquian word for "woman, and in fact without discussing this evidence. This is the claim (often somewhat garbled) that squaw actually comes from the Mohawk word ojiskwa', which we can politely translate `vagina'. Mohawk was spoken some 200 miles from Plymouth in the Mohawk Valley by the principal enemies of the Massachusett Indians. It is, of course, a language of the Iroquoian family, which is completely distinct from the Algonquian family. Ms. [Muriel] Charwood-Litzau refers to (but misquotes) the earliest published reference to this idea that I know of, an anthology called Literature of the American Indian edited by Thomas E. Sanders and Walter W. Peek (Berkeley: Glencoe Press, 1973). There the origin is given as "probably a French corruption of the Iroquois word otsiskwa meaning `female sexual parts' (p. 184). The spelling used is the traditional system used by French Canadian missionaries, but the source of the information is not given. This claim has more recently become widely known because of the following statement made on the Oprah Winfrey television show in 1992 by Suzan Harjo: "The word squaw, for example, is an Algonquian [sic] Indian word meaning 'vagina,' and that'll give you an idea what the French and British fur-trappers were calling all Indian women, and I hope no one ever uses that term again. (From the program "Racism in 1992: Native Americans, as transcribed from a videotape by Jim Rementer at the request of a Delaware tribal member who knew from his knowledge of his own language that it was incorrect.)

It is as certain as any historical fact can be that the word squaw that the English settlers in Massachusetts used for "Indian woman in the early 1600s was adopted by them from the word squa that their Massachusett-speaking neighbors used in their own language to mean "female, younger woman, and not from Mohawk ojiskwa' "vagina

Elsewhere the Oxford University Press concludes:

"...misspent political zeal turned squaw into an ethnic slur ” https://blog.oup.com/2009/07/ethnic-slurs/

The OUP article describes the whole idea that Squaw is a slur as a political 'fib'. 92.12.213.166 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@92.12.213.166: please page up to, and read, the #Etymological fallacy section, just above where you started a new section. These theories, while I'm sure they are interesting to those new to the topic, have already been discussed repeatedly on talk, and are outweighed by the dozens of more recent sources that firmly define it as a slur. The up-to-date sources now include official, US government declarations. However we got here, consensus in Indian Country, and now in the world at large, is that is is a slur. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2023 (2)

Change:

The English word squaw is an ethnic and sexual slur,[1][2][3][4] historically used for Indigenous North American women.[1][5] Contemporary use of the term, especially by non-Natives, is considered derogatory, misogynist, and racist.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

While squaw (or a close variant) is found in several Eastern and Central Algonquian languages, primarily spoken in the northeastern United States and in eastern and central Canada,[8][9] these languages only make up a small minority of the Indigenous languages of North America. The word "squaw" is not used among Native American, First Nations, Inuit, or Métis peoples.[2][3][4][5] Even in Algonquian, the words used are not the English-language slur. [8]

To :

The word Squaw is an Algonquian term meaning the "complete woman". It is a term of high respect leading to over 650 known places having the term Squaw in their title. Many non-native English speaking people associate the term as derogatory while using only opinion as fact. Editor1326 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

You appear to want to change content based on nine independent sources to something with no sources at all. That's not going to happen. HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Also please note the article is about the English language term, not the Algonquian term. Crescent77 (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Please note Squaw is not an English language term. It is an Algonquian term. Editor1326 (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

We have three English language dictionaries as references, showing that it is indeed an english language term. Crescent77 (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Also please note. All sources in the original original content are only opinions. Not actual sources. Editor1326 (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Please reference specific sources when making specific claims. Crescent77 (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2023

Add new section under "Efforts to rename placenames and terms": "Evergreen, a name that was suggested and voted on by community residents will be the new name of Squaw Cap, New Brunswick. These changes will take effect in January 2024."

Change: "As of December 2022, Squaw Peak Inn, Squaw Lake (Minnesota), Squaw Grove Township (DeKalb County, Illinois), Squaw Canyon Oil Field, Squaw Cap (New Brunswick), Squaw Creek Southern Railroad, Squaw Gap (North Dakota), and Squaw Township (Iowa) remained unchanged."

To: "As of Novemeber 2023, Squaw Peak Inn, Squaw Lake (Minnesota), Squaw Grove Township (DeKalb County, Illinois), Squaw Canyon Oil Field, Squaw Creek Southern Railroad, Squaw Gap (North Dakota), and Squaw Township (Iowa) remained unchanged." Joesmithboy123 (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The name change has not happened yet. Meters (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

References