Name Changes - resend

[Mike Cleven]

Apparently there were some problems with some of my recent messages; Barbara
Harris got complete blanks, Theresa Kishkan got an HTML garble that
apparently is the result of the way Hotmail was configured at the webcafe I
was using (defaulting to Rich Text Format, supposedly, actually to HTML and
a useless bunch of <DIV></DIV> crap).

One in particular concerned the debate over "Sywash" and I'd responded to
Kara Briggs' entry entitled "Name Changes".  Upon resending it to Barbara
and Theresa I happened to have another couple of thoughts on what Kara in
particular had to say, although many of the messages on "Sywash".  This is
going to outrage some of you that I would criticize your holier-than-thou
politico-linguistic opinions, but all's fair in love and academia; many of
the comments made were offensive as well as revisionist and patently untrue
and/or contradictory.  To whit:

_____________________________

>Dear Folks, That was a really thoughtful discussion about sywash. Thanks
> >especially for sharing your family memories.  My one point is that intent
>is >everything,

if so, then you are indirectly (or directly) alleging that the property
developer who used Sywash (and Hyas) in street names did so in a
deliberately derogatory and offensive sense.  This is OBVIOUSLY not the
property developer's intent, although you might want to believe/allege that
it is.  Further below you claim something like "history is no excuse".
Neither is complete political fiction of the kind you are generating here.
If intent is everything, then an innocuous use of what someone does not know
to be an offensive word must be innocent, rather than guilty as
charged.......whether you like it or not.

>and when we run across these disparaging words history isn't enough >of a
>reason to forgive them.

That's a pretty absolutist statement, Kara - and wildly untrue. How can you
say that without considering the whole history of the word, including the
FACT that it was widely used _in_some_areas_ by native people themselves,
whether in Grand Ronde's French-influenced prononciation or in the same-same
prononciation common in BC.

William Safire would have a field day with the mutation of this word's
meaning by region and era; ignoring or dismissing this history and the
historical evolution of this word and others like it is REVISIONISM pure and
simple.  It's fine to say that "Siwash" is offensive NOW and was often
used offensively, but it's also real and straightforward that MANY people
used the word in a non-offensive way, including native people themselves as
well as those non-natives who spoke the Jargon or simply used the term in
English as a general reference word for natives without any derisive
context; just as some older texts refer to nearly all the peoples of Puget
Sound and Western Washington as "the tribe of Siwash Indians", as if Siwash
were an ethnic designation.If anything any 19th Century citation of "there
were two Siwashes sitting on the dock" need not be read as "there were two
savages sitting on the dock" or in any other derisive sense

Most of the rest of you are linguists and native politicos; I'm more of an
historian and REALLY don't like it when someone tries to rewrite history to
suit modern prejudices and perceptions. What I'm saying is don't throw the
baby out with the bathwater; OK, OK, Siwash is derogatory now (unless
pronounced Sawash and if you're in Grand Ronde) but don't go pretending that
all historical uses/users of it were derisive and negative.This is plainly
UNTRUE and "political correctness isn't reason enough to forgive" such a
refabrication of history. Be wary of overcompensating for the vices and
resentments of the past lest you create vices and resentments for the
future.

There was a parallel situation in BC concerning "Chinaman", when that word's
historical and cultural origins (in Chinese-English pidgin and/or the
Jargon) and its often-innocuous use by non-Chinese (historically) were
bulldozed by tub-thumping Chinese politicos who know little of the history
of North American Chinese, other than what's recited in the newly-prejudiced
modern curriculums.  The result?  Resentment, hostility, and a revival of
the use of the word in the non-Chinese population (as well as
vindication of it by many multilple-generation Chinese North Americans.
Governments and university faculties can legislate words in and out of
existence all the want; but it's actual usage and utility that determines a
word's existence as well as its meaning, as Safire could tell you.

Another example, which came up in a discussion I was having (in French) the
other day was the term "Polack" or "pollack" etc.  Now quite blatantly a
derisive word in modern English, this word actually is directly Polish in
origin, and variants can be found in other European languages without any
derisive intent, e.g. Italian "polacco" etc. (which is probably how it
entered American English and from there became derisive).  Words have not
always meant what they do now, as any etymologist can tell you.

I sympathize with the Warm Springs resistance to use of the S-word to mean
"Indian" or "native person" in the Jargon, since in their community (as in
others) the word has become clearly derisive in context with many unpleasant
memories, such that even "Sawash" isn't considerable as a useful alternative
in modern terms; their use of "tillikum" as an alternate of course doesn't
fit in other Jargon-speaking regions, especially in BC where it's often
cited to mean "friend" as well as "people" or "person" (of any race). 
This might be due to misapprehension of the term, or simply an evolution of
usage/meaning.  But given the sensitivity of the term it's well worth
considering that any new "Modern Jargon" which integrates Grand Ronde,
"ahnkuttie", and regional variations is going to have to have such a word,
unless simply the tribal names themselves are "borrowed in" as is often done
in BC English nowadays.  (some people don't even use "First Nations
person" anymore, but will say simply "I'm Squamish" or "I'm Shuswap", never
lumping themselves together racially ("native" or "Indian") but by actual
_nation_........

>slightly open a related linguistic can of worms, but only for preference;
>the
>term redskin first showed up in the Oxford dictionary in 1699 and was
>acknowledged then as derogatory to the indigenous peoples of North America.

Acknowledge by whom?  "Generally acknowledged" - if so, where?  In the
period you are speaking of native peoples were actually still somewhat
idealized in European culture as exiles from Eden.  I'm also not even sure
that the Oxford dictionary was even in publication in 1699; what are Dr.
Johnson's dates anyway?

>It's not that people meant the term any more kindly at that time.  It was
>probably much worse historically.

Now THAT's a statement I'm going to insist you retract unless you're ready
to prove it.  "Probably much worse historically" is just not the case; in
fact, it's a truism that words like "Chinaman" and "Siwash" were in common
use WITHOUT DEROGATORY INTENT in 19th Century English in the region, as a
read of newspapers, letters and other publications from the period quickly
demosntrates; they _could_ be used derisively; but so could "Dutchman",
"Frenchman" and even "Boston".  "Probably" is a pretty interesting
qualifier, Kara, and seems only to serve the purpose here of abdicating
intellectual responsibility for your claim, which is specious in the
extreme........


>But the tide has turned and in many ways sensitivity is truly reaching
>beyond the Native American community into the mainstream consciousness and
>law.

Someone else here may have noted that BC just passed laws/policies which
will see all references to "Siwash" and "Squaw" dropped from BC maps as was
done with "Chinaman" a couple of years ago.  Don't know what Squamish
word they're going to use to rename Siwash Rock (in Stanley Park) with, but
for the sake of the tourist trade I hope it's pronounceable....

"The law is an ass" is a worthy phrase to remember here when invoking them
might of the state against freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
Ideologues have always been happy on the one hand to invoke the powers and
legitimacy of the state to help them enforce their prejudices; and on the
other hand to condemn the state for listening to other peoples' prejudices,
or simply for not listening at all.  Language cannot be legislated, even in
Quebec or in France; expecting the US government or local jurisdictions to
police the way people speak and write is just plain EVIL and mean-minded.
Rather than looking for malicious intent in innocent mistakes you should
perhaps begin the process of self-examination and what we used to call in
the peace movement "personal disarmament"; the removal of one's own
hostilities from the processes of debate and action.  What this means is
that instead of complaining about and criticizing this property developer
for his unwittting offense against politically-correct priorities, a more
pro-active action or statement might have been a better idea.

BTW I'll check when I get home but I'm pretty sure I've seen a "Siwash
Crescent" in either the Squamish or Musqueam reserves in Greater Vancouver;
this may be off the map now but it was obviously ratified in its day by the
local band council, who themselves saw no harm in the term originally.  I
would hope you're ready to condemn them as easily as the Sywash Ridge
property development.......or are they exempt from criticism because they're
not white?

MC



_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.