Jane,

Thank you for your elegant post on this thread. If I had tried to
convey my sentiments, I'm sure that I would have ended by foaming at the
mouth (or keyboard) and annoying everyone, regardless of their position.
Your answer was clear and insightful; I applaud your handling of the
situation.

-Pat
scott931 at uidaho.edu



On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Jane Hadley wrote:

> 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
>