I smell a long post. Do you smell it? Yes, it smells good.
I’m touching on two things today, both of them stories in today’s issue of of the Deseret News. The first is a story about a movement to rename a few Utah landmarks so they no longer contain the term offensive to many American Indians: squaw. The second is a report that a rare genetic haplotype commonly found in Jews has been found in South American groups.
Let’s start with the first story. I don’t really want to touch or give my position on the issue itself, but in the interest of truth in advertising, yes, I believe we should change Squaw Peak in Provo Canyon to something else. Maybe Awesome Mountain. Maybe Robanddan Peak. When I spoke to my mom about this, she mentioned a town in Kentucky when she was younger called Nigger Creek (which from what I can tell has been renamed). It’s the same kind of thing. Whatever the history of the word, it’s a white-man’s word to which many Indians take great offense. Now, what I really want to do is bitch about the comments on the online comment board the fact that the DNews obviously didn’t consult a linguist.
Let’s look at a few gems from the comment board first (there are way too many of these to address individually):
…Personally, I think we should abolish the name “willow creek” from all maps because my wicked stepmother used to beat me with a willow, and whenever I hear the term “willow” it conjures up vivid memories of the psychological damage done to me in my poor, unfortunate childhood!
–Note
Not even remotely similar. Squaw is an ethnic slur, like the n-word, chink, kike, etc. You’re just being a dick.
Let’s just rename it “Honky” peak. Or maybe “Cracker” peak. I don’t think caucasians will cry about it. People need to get over themselves.
–New Name
White people (in general) don’t have a history of racial persecution in this country. That probably has something to do with most of us not being offended by the words honky and cracker.
Did anyone else giggle about Squaw Gulch in Beaver County? I sure did.
–Smirk
Yes.
…George Washington was a slave owner - should we abolish his name from the history books and landmarks? Should we just assign a number to everything e.g. -”valley 14″? That we would be a colorful world.
–pc police ride again
Again, different matter entirely. “George Washington” isn’t an ethnic slur.
Are there any “Native Americans?” If you watch the history channel they say that the first people came to this land from some other continent. That means there are no “Native Americans.” We are all emigrants.
–I wonder
Let’s disregard using the History Channel as a source for now. This one I hear a lot. This likely plays into why “American Indian” is preferred. Another common term is “First Nations.” Regardless of what we call them, they were here before us (and anyone else), and had been here for millenia.
This part native american isn’t offended even a little bit by the word squaw. It just reminds me of my heritage and the fact that my ancestors played a big part in the history of the state of Utah.
What is next? Renaming our entire state? Deseret? Yeah right…
–Anonymous
Pardon me for casting aspersions, but I don’t buy this one for a second. How much part American Indian? 1/8? Sorry.
Now, let’s address the shortcomings of the article itself.
Some linguists say squaw is a corruption of a Algonquian word that merely means woman. But a competing claim asserts that squaw actually comes from the Mohawk word “ojiskwa” — a derogatory term referring to female genitalia.
Frankly, no linguist would call any new linguistic form a corruption of anything.
Kathryn MacKay, a professor of history at Weber State University, used to study the history and culture of the West for the American West Center at University of Utah. She said the term squaw isn’t derogatory in the original language, but it has become pejorative in English, which is “reflective of our own misogynistic language.”
Wow. I could go on forever about this. Dr. MacKay has a background in gender studies, which by my book is the worst place to go if you want to learn about human language. No language is intrinsically misogynistic. Without going into too much unnecessary detail, I could use the standard she is probably using to determine that English is misogynistic and show how numerous Indian languages are as well. With that, I could demonstrate that Dr. MacKay needs to get off of her pop-whorfian soap box. Okay, enough venting.
The other story.
Was Hebrew DNA recently found in American Indian populations in South America? According to Scott R. Woodward, executive director of Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, a DNA marker, called the “Cohen modal haplotype,” sometimes associated with Hebrew people, has been found in Colombia, Brazil and Bolivia.
I find this story kind of silly on several levels. First, “Hebrew people” is a rather awkward, quaint thing to say. Second, this story is going to cause an uproar of reaction insisting that this is proof of the Book of Mormon’s historical accuracy, even though the director of the Sorensen Molecular Genealogy outfit himself is hedging: he says it’s remarkably weak evidence of nothing in particular.
Additionally, since it’s only a few South American tribesmen, there is probably something else responsible. The article itself mentions it: Jews in Spain intermarried with the Spaniards, who ultimately conquered most of the continent. Okay, actually, I’m really tired. Let’s just look at more comments.
I would not have had a problem had the marker never been found for the following reason.
The lamanites were changed to have a darker skin. This change would have had to be a change in DNA. Once a change in DNA takes place, then it will be different and not necessarily the same as it was in the past.
Therefore if the looked for markers are not found, there are now two possible explanations, not just one.
1. The markers were never there.
2. The markers were there but were erased.
Le sigh.
