The English word "squaw" was borrowed from the Algonquian language family of a few Indian tribes in Canada and New England and first appeared in the American vocabulary around 1634.¹   It has been used in literature and historical documents for much of this country’s history.  The Massachusett/Algonquian word means "young woman."   The word is unknown in the languages of Native Americans of the Western and Midwestern United States.

"Squaw" has been a familiar word in American literature and language since the 17^th century and has always been normally understood to mean "an Indian woman or wife." The term as commonly used contains no disrespect to Indian women any more than the words "woman" or "wife" do to Anglo-American women.

The controversy over the use of the word "squaw" appears to have started in 1973 with the book Literature of the American Indian, by Thomas E. Sanders and Walter W. Peek. Sanders and Peek are members of two different Indian Nations in Florida. Although they are not linguists, their book puts forth a rather racist and inflammatory accusation about the origin of the word ‘squaw’:

That curious concept of "squaw," the enslaved, demeaned, voiceless childbearer, existed and exists only in the mind of the non-Native American and is probably a French corruption of the Iroquois word otsiskwa meaning "female sexual parts," a word almost clinical both denotatively and connotatively. The corruption suggests nothing about the Native American’s attitude toward women; it does indicate the wasichu’s view of Native American women in particular if not all women in general.²

There are several serious problems with this statement:

1. All English and Native American linguists agree that there is absolutely no connection between the Mohawk [Iroquoian] word otsiskwa (also spelled ojiskwa) and the Algonquin word squa.³ One scholar writes "I am reliably told that Mohawk speakers do not equate the English word with their word and take no offense at the English word on that account."⁴

2. It accuses non-Native Americans of having a low opinion of Native American women. I do not believe the majority of whites ever held this attitude.

3. It accuses the "wasichu"⁵ of applying a vulgar term to Native American women.
4. The statement has anti-Anglo undertones, as demonstrated not only by the implication of the statement but also by calling the whites "wasichu."

In a 1992 appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show, Indian activist Susan Harjo broadcast this erroneous but inflammatory theory to a national audience, inflating it in the process. Harjo stated in part:

"The word ‘squaw’ is an Algonquin [sic] Indian word meaning vagina, and that’ll give you an idea of what the French and British fur trappers were calling all Indian women, and I hope no one ever uses that term again"⁶

Ms. Harjo is a Cheyenne & Hodulgee Muscogee Indian and is largely responsible for a 1992 lawsuit against Pro Football teams that use Indian names.⁷  I’m sure her comment was successful in stirring public outrage against her political opponents. The fact remains, however, that the word doesn’t mean what she claims.

Since the word "squaw" has never been a part of the native vocabulary in the western three-quarters of the nation, the only way the Indians in the Southwest can form an opinion of the word is by observing how it is used in the English language and listening to the teaching of linguistic "authorities." I believe that, until the occurrence of the two events mentioned above, the word ‘squaw’ was considered a completely acceptable word by both Native and non-Native Americans.

Despite the fact that the word ‘squaw’ has a perfectly acceptable definition, I don’t deny that it can be applied in a demeaning manner. I would never refer to an Indian woman as ‘squaw,’ just as I would never address any female as ‘woman.’ Perfectly honorable and acceptable words may be used in a disrespectful way. As one man said "It’s the way you say it, it’s not the word."⁸  Just because it’s possible to use a word in a disrespectful way does not mean it should be stricken from our language.

Are we going to purge the word 'squaw' www.wordorigins.org/wordors/htm#squawfrom the historical novels of Washington Irving and James Fennimore Cooper? Are we going to obliterate it from our Native American history? If not, why are we removing it as a historical name on a mountain? Although I would not apply the term squaw to a woman, I see nothing wrong with using it in a historical account or as a historical place name. There are well over 100 place names in Arizona that employ perfectly acceptable words that can be used as slang vulgarisms, or offensive terms. We could not possibly purge our language and history of everything that could offend someone.

We should still be free to use words in a respectful way. There is, in fact, a desire among many native Americans to preserve the usage of the word "squaw." Marge Bruchac (an Abenaki⁹ Indian) writes in her article Reclaiming "Squaw" in the Name of the Ancestors¹⁰:

When our languages are perceived as dirty words, we and our grandchildren are in grave danger of losing our self-respect. We must educate, rather than tolerate the loss of our language due to ignorance.

Ms. Bruchac suggests that we treat the word ‘squaw’ in the same way that the Institute for the Advancement of Aboriginal Women has: "They have declared that it will no longer be tolerated as an insult, but will instead be recognized as a term of honor and respect."¹¹

The word ‘squaw’ does not refer to a body part but to the totality of the woman. The place name ‘Squaw Peak’ does not refer to an individual woman – it’s the name of a mountain. As such it is not demeaning to any individual. Squaw Peak is a prominent landmark in Phoenix with a historic name that has, until recently, been unquestioned. Many of us have grown up climbing and picnicking on its slopes and seeing in on our skyline every day. It’s in our family pictures and our memories. Let’s not throw that away because of a divisive accusation based on a false premise.

In the last few years, the political correctness movement seems to be on a quest to search out any and every word that could possibly be used in an insulting or vulgar way and eliminate it from the English language. If this trend is carried to its logical end we could lose a large part of our vocabulary. Even seemingly innocent words like "God" and "mother" can have a vulgar use. The recently released book The Language Police by Diane Ravitch adds such innocuous words as "jungle," "courageous," and "founding fathers" to the list of offensive words. How far will we allow this to go? Let’s educate rather than decimate our language and our ability to express ourselves. Our history is important, we should preserve it.

^ENDNOTES

1.  www.wordorigins.org/