What's in a Word?

Governor John Baldacci signed a bill on Monday that tightens a nine-year-old law banning the use of the word “squaw” from official place names (Portland Press Herald, Sun Journal).

After this law took effect, many places, including the names of mountains and creeks, were changed. But, believe it or not, some people just couldn’t let it go. Their need to use a racial slur that degraded and dehumanized Native American women was too strong. Shorter versions of the word started to appear, such as “squa,” or the combination of “squa” with other more acceptable names.

I hope I don’t sound angry; because I’m not. I’m tired. I’m tired of debating fellow Mainers (and Americans in general) on discrimination, tolerance, and respect.

The argument defending the use of this word (or parts therein) shocks me. Again, believe it or not, some of these defenders are Native Americans. What’s their argument? Their argument is that the ORIGIN of the word wasn’t offensive. And, I’ll concur, it wasn’t. It meant woman, female, chief’s wife, etc. And, that just because the word’s connotation over time became a slanderous assault against Native American women, doesn’t mean its original meaning or the original way the word was intended should be deemed inappropriate now.

The first thing that comes to mind, when hearing this argument, is the origin of MOST racial slurs. Almost 90% of racial slurs had an original meaning that was far from offensive. They were often derived from other languages, and their use was common place and accepted by all backgrounds. But, over time, the tone, pejorative connotation, and discriminative categorization, became racially demeaning, and yes, offensive. Some of these racial slurs are now so representative of hate that using them as an example here would be extremely unacceptable and downright wrong.

So, I say, where is the merit in the defensive of using the word squaw? Do they also feel that we should use ALL slang words with an original meaning that at one time was socially acceptable and in some respects harmless?

Hmmm … what do you think?