Dorothy Rhoades wrote:
>
> The cycle repeats itself. As a Native American woman I find the term
> "squaw" very derogatory. When people use the term without meaning to
> be derogatory I can't help but label them as offensively ignorant. Squaw
> WAS used repeatedly as a derogatory term. When my female ancestors were
> referred to as squaws it was meant to be derogatory. When I was called
> squaw on the playground as a child (as recently as the late 1960's) it
> wasn't meant to be a term of endearment. It was an epithet.
>
> For persons who avoid using this term out of consideration or respect for
> the pain and suffering of generations of Native Americans, I say thank
> you. It does matter.
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> *Dorrie (Dorothy) Rhoades *
> *Seattle, Washington *
> *email: drhoades at u.washington.edu *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thank you, Dorrie, for your posting about "squaw." I'm often amazed by
people who say "I don't find (insert term) offensive" and assume that
because they don't, it must not be offensive. Often, the people who say
this, of course, are those who are the farthest from understanding who
would be offended and why.

It is true that many, many people certainly are not offended by a term
like "oldsquaw." It's probably true, also, that some who might have the
greatest claim to be offended are not offended. But some *are* offended,
and their feelings appear to be genuine and their experiences real.

When there is a term like "oldsquaw" that has been around for decades if
not centuries and used by people of good will with no malice intended,
it is to be expected that there will be reluctance, even irritation, at
the thought of rethinking the term. But I don't think derision or
dismissiveness are particularly admirable responses.

Sensitivity about language can be carried too far, as can anything. But
when we're trying to decide whether it has been carried too far,
shouldn't we at least listen and discuss the term in question with some
open-mindedness and some open-heartedness and especially seek out
comments and insight from those most likely to be offended?

That might not settle the debate, but at least there would be a debate,
and it would be one we could be satisfied with.

All too often, I find, the term "political correctness" is thrown out as
an excuse not to listen or to rethink long-established habits of speech
and thought.

--
Jane Hadley
jhadle at halcyon.com
Seattle, WA