Over 650 places with Native American slurs for names renamed

[Orwell]

This like y'all complaining abt the Redskins or Seminoles, y'all white savior complex is insane if natived dgaf abt y do u? I'll tell u y Cuz u need to feel that you're the savior of all these downtrodden groups. Fr, I doubt 99% of the people who complain abt this have ever done anything real to help Indigenous people. White savior sh**t is through the roof.

Imma ask you what race Debbie Haaland is…

 She is married to a colonizer.

[Donerail]

Disturbing precedent.

It's been twenty-four hours. Have you been able to figure out what you find "disturbing" about this move and what "precedent" you think it creates?

[It’s so Joever]

This like y'all complaining abt the Redskins or Seminoles, y'all white savior complex is insane if natived dgaf abt y do u? I'll tell u y Cuz u need to feel that you're the savior of all these downtrodden groups. Fr, I doubt 99% of the people who complain abt this have ever done anything real to help Indigenous people. White savior sh**t is through the roof.

Imma ask you what race Debbie Haaland is…

 She is married to a colonizer.

Wait, Debbie Haaland is secretly married to Xi Jinping?! Oh my gosh the press has to know.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Disturbing precedent.

It's been twenty-four hours. Have you been able to figure out what you find "disturbing" about this move and what "precedent" you think it creates?

Cody has spoken for me, and we think largely in accord on this specific issue.
In general though, I'm hostile to the idea of some misguided cultural radicalism reshaping this country's fabric and this move is cut from that mold. I hate the self-glorifying putdown of past things this move represents and runs rampant in our society, and I feel this nation's history is something we can be proud of, overall.

Steps like this are not how we produce a more perfect union. This only screams of a less sane America version of "#Landback", which is a fantasy that is neither feasible nor inclusive to the broad majority. Unjustly robbing people today of their rights as citizens of this country is not the solution to the crimes of the past. Elevating the minority's worldview and considering it the only one that matters is very much against the spirit of democracy. Our glorious collective history is the property of everyone, and undermining that is taking from every American. This move is a step in that direction and one I firmly oppose.

American public lands are the property of each and every American, and I have the right to move around in the Black Hills regardless of what a Lakota or Sioux person tells me.

[Donerail]

Disturbing precedent.

It's been twenty-four hours. Have you been able to figure out what you find "disturbing" about this move and what "precedent" you think it creates?

Cody has spoken for me, and we think largely in accord on this specific issue.

Cody has used this thread to criticize another user for mentioning a related project of the Southern Poverty Law Center. He has not offered a substantive defense of your views.

In general though, I'm hostile to the idea of some misguided cultural radicalism reshaping this country's fabric and this move is cut from that mold. I hate the self-glorifying putdown of past things this move represents and runs rampant in our society, and I feel this nation's history is something we can be proud of, overall.

Why should "we" be proud of the historic use of the word "squaw" in place names? Please be specific in your response.

Steps like this are not how we produce a more perfect union. This only screams of a less sane America version of "#Landback", which is a fantasy that is neither feasible nor inclusive to the broad majority. Unjustly robbing people today of their rights as citizens of this country is not the solution to the crimes of the past. Elevating the minority's worldview and considering it the only one that matters is very much against the spirit of democracy. Our glorious collective history is the property of everyone, and undermining that is taking from every American.

American public lands are the property of each and every American, and I have the right to move around in the Black Hills regardless of what a Lakota or Sioux person tells me.

Completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Disturbing precedent.

It's been twenty-four hours. Have you been able to figure out what you find "disturbing" about this move and what "precedent" you think it creates?

Cody has spoken for me, and we think largely in accord on this specific issue.

Cody has used this thread to criticize another user for mentioning a related project of the Southern Poverty Law Center. He has not offered a substantive defense of your views.

In general though, I'm hostile to the idea of some misguided cultural radicalism reshaping this country's fabric and this move is cut from that mold. I hate the self-glorifying putdown of past things this move represents and runs rampant in our society, and I feel this nation's history is something we can be proud of, overall.

Why should "we" be proud of the historic use of the word "squaw" in place names? Please be specific in your response.

Steps like this are not how we produce a more perfect union. This only screams of a less sane America version of "#Landback", which is a fantasy that is neither feasible nor inclusive to the broad majority. Unjustly robbing people today of their rights as citizens of this country is not the solution to the crimes of the past. Elevating the minority's worldview and considering it the only one that matters is very much against the spirit of democracy. Our glorious collective history is the property of everyone, and undermining that is taking from every American.

American public lands are the property of each and every American, and I have the right to move around in the Black Hills regardless of what a Lakota or Sioux person tells me.

Completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

I don't think you are framing Cody's views correctly. In any case, I don't have an opinion on "squaw", but I do think I would not trust what the SPLC says about it and I am skeptical of the merits of changing placenames to virtue signal in the present.
Also, considering a rather powerful neo-Marxist framework encourages elements of the political left to adopt overly broad interpretations of "[insert attribute]-ism", then I don't trust the fruit of that intellectual framework uncritically. And this is one of those fruit that doesn't pass scrutiny. Contrary to your claims, that is in fact quite relevant, because that's the intellectual basis by which this is being justified.

[Sol]

Tim, if you don't know that the word sq*** is a slur, you must be living under a rock. Basically every Native person and nearly any book about native topics will tell you that it's obviously offensive.

No one is harmed by removing obvious slurs from the landscape and Indians living in the area will not have to see a nasty racist (and sexist!) term on road signs or hiking trails--a clear net benefit to society.

I have mixed feelings about renamings but IMO removing nasty bigoted epithets from the landscape is a world of difference from even renaming a Jefferson Davis Blvd. or suchlike.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Tim, if you don't know that the word sq*** is a slur, you must be living under a rock. Basically every Native person and nearly any book about native topics will tell you that it's obviously offensive.

No one is harmed by removing obvious slurs from the landscape and Indians living in the area will not have to see a nasty racist (and sexist!) term on road signs or hiking trails--a clear net benefit to society.

I have mixed feelings about renamings but IMO removing nasty bigoted epithets from the landscape is a world of difference from even renaming a Jefferson Davis Blvd. or suchlike.

If I cross the border to visit Mexico, you won't see me crying when I see "Matamoros" on the signage (despite it meaning "Kill the Moors" in Spanish).
Who freaking cares about changing placenames. That's such a phony "fix", it's insulting. Instead, I'd improve the material lot of Indians in the present day by giving them more tools to deal with their problems.
Not something like this though.
Yes, I do believe that things like this can be in fact vetoed by the broader majority. That's how democracy ought to work.

[Donerail]

Who freaking cares about changing placenames.

You, evidently.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Who freaking cares about changing placenames.

You, evidently.

Please increase your reading comprehension of my arguments before you reply back to me. Bye.

[Figueira]

Pretty cool. The SPLC has

Stopped reading here.

An angry response to a post criticizing the Confederacy posted by a Republican, and being recommended by four Republicans. It's amazing how far your party has fallen.

The SPLC is not a trustworthy organization. Look at what they did to Maajid Nawaz. All of their labelings are suspect, and these things need to be handled on a case by case basis.

Do you think they're lying about places named after Confederates?

[Boobs]

Actually I think it was very rude of the Americans to come up with new names for all of these places. Why couldn’t they have just used the native names to begin with? Why were they so offended by the original names of such locations? It’s very concerning that they were controlled by some misguided cultural radicalism to reshape this nation’s fabric, and I hate the self-glorifying putdown of past things (indigenous culture) that runs rampant in our society, and I feel this nation's history is something we can be proud of, overall.

[MaxQue]

Disturbing precedent.

Precedent for what?

My feelings on this move are very close to what Cody probably thinks. He could put it better than I, I guess.

So, you are openly and proudly racist?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Tim, if you don't know that the word sq*** is a slur, you must be living under a rock. Basically every Native person and nearly any book about native topics will tell you that it's obviously offensive.

No one is harmed by removing obvious slurs from the landscape and Indians living in the area will not have to see a nasty racist (and sexist!) term on road signs or hiking trails--a clear net benefit to society.

I have mixed feelings about renamings but IMO removing nasty bigoted epithets from the landscape is a world of difference from even renaming a Jefferson Davis Blvd. or suchlike.

If I cross the border to visit Mexico, you won't see me crying when I see "Matamoros" on the signage (despite it meaning "Kill the Moors" in Spanish).
Who freaking cares about changing placenames. That's such a phony "fix", it's insulting. Instead, I'd improve the material lot of Indians in the present day by giving them more tools to deal with their problems.
Not something like this though.
Yes, I do believe that things like this can be in fact vetoed by the broader majority. That's how democracy ought to work.

Style is easier to effect than substance.

And it is a phony fix.  If we replaced the Confederate monuments on Monument Ave. in Richmond, VA, and replaced them with Tupac Shakur, Malcolm X, MLK, Barack Obama, etc. how much of an effect would it have on the urban poor of Richmond, VA?

These renamings bring up the same principle; how does all of this concretely improve the lives of those one proposes to help?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Disturbing precedent.

Precedent for what?

My feelings on this move are very close to what Cody probably thinks. He could put it better than I, I guess.

So, you are openly and proudly racist?

I dislike 1) phony fixes that do little to nothing to help minorities and 2) the efforts by the woke to radically retell this nation's story. This move fits both of these things, so I am opposed.
In the long term, it would be helpful to help the poor, regardless of their race or background. The least fortunate in society deserve some assistance from the government to help them reach their potential.
If this is being "proudly racist" by your parameters, then your parameters need revision.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

Who freaking cares about changing placenames.

You, evidently.

Please increase your reading comprehension of my arguments before you reply back to me. Bye.

You posted in thread complaining about an issue several times then dismissively questioned whether anybody cares about said issue. What’s there to not comprehend?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Who freaking cares about changing placenames.

You, evidently.

Please increase your reading comprehension of my arguments before you reply back to me. Bye.

You posted in thread complaining about an issue several times then questioned whether anybody cares about said issue. What’s there to not comprehend?

It's possible to care about someone in power doing something you oppose while simultaneously rejecting the idea that it's something that deserves to be considered important to do at all as a matter of policy.
In fact, red and blue avatars alike show this kind of behavior, only on different topics - on topics (or facets of said topics) that they don't consider important or real issues.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

Tim, if you don't know that the word sq*** is a slur, you must be living under a rock. Basically every Native person and nearly any book about native topics will tell you that it's obviously offensive.

No one is harmed by removing obvious slurs from the landscape and Indians living in the area will not have to see a nasty racist (and sexist!) term on road signs or hiking trails--a clear net benefit to society.

I have mixed feelings about renamings but IMO removing nasty bigoted epithets from the landscape is a world of difference from even renaming a Jefferson Davis Blvd. or suchlike.

If I cross the border to visit Mexico, you won't see me crying when I see "Matamoros" on the signage (despite it meaning "Kill the Moors" in Spanish).
Who freaking cares about changing placenames. That's such a phony "fix", it's insulting. Instead, I'd improve the material lot of Indians in the present day by giving them more tools to deal with their problems.
Not something like this though.
Yes, I do believe that things like this can be in fact vetoed by the broader majority. That's how democracy ought to work.

Nobody is claiming that this will improve the material lot of Indians, so its not a “phony fix”. Indian poverty and prejudice against Indians are different issues and both can be dealt with. What a stupid strawman argument.

I still haven’t heard a single reason why this move is actually bad beyond vague non-arguments like the one quoted above. Why is changing a place name that contains an unambiguously offensive and racist term a problem?

[7,052,770]

Tim, if you don't know that the word sq*** is a slur, you must be living under a rock. Basically every Native person and nearly any book about native topics will tell you that it's obviously offensive.

No one is harmed by removing obvious slurs from the landscape and Indians living in the area will not have to see a nasty racist (and sexist!) term on road signs or hiking trails--a clear net benefit to society.

I have mixed feelings about renamings but IMO removing nasty bigoted epithets from the landscape is a world of difference from even renaming a Jefferson Davis Blvd. or suchlike.

If I cross the border to visit Mexico, you won't see me crying when I see "Matamoros" on the signage (despite it meaning "Kill the Moors" in Spanish).
Who freaking cares about changing placenames. That's such a phony "fix", it's insulting. Instead, I'd improve the material lot of Indians in the present day by giving them more tools to deal with their problems.
Not something like this though.
Yes, I do believe that things like this can be in fact vetoed by the broader majority. That's how democracy ought to work.

Style is easier to effect than substance.

And it is a phony fix.  If we replaced the Confederate monuments on Monument Ave. in Richmond, VA, and replaced them with Tupac Shakur, Malcolm X, MLK, Barack Obama, etc. how much of an effect would it have on the urban poor of Richmond, VA?

Not sure if this was intended as a serious question, but probably a very good one in the medium and long term.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Tim, if you don't know that the word sq*** is a slur, you must be living under a rock. Basically every Native person and nearly any book about native topics will tell you that it's obviously offensive.

No one is harmed by removing obvious slurs from the landscape and Indians living in the area will not have to see a nasty racist (and sexist!) term on road signs or hiking trails--a clear net benefit to society.

I have mixed feelings about renamings but IMO removing nasty bigoted epithets from the landscape is a world of difference from even renaming a Jefferson Davis Blvd. or suchlike.

If I cross the border to visit Mexico, you won't see me crying when I see "Matamoros" on the signage (despite it meaning "Kill the Moors" in Spanish).
Who freaking cares about changing placenames. That's such a phony "fix", it's insulting. Instead, I'd improve the material lot of Indians in the present day by giving them more tools to deal with their problems.
Not something like this though.
Yes, I do believe that things like this can be in fact vetoed by the broader majority. That's how democracy ought to work.

Nobody is claiming that this will improve the material lot of Indians, so its not a “phony fix”. Indian poverty and prejudice against Indians are different issues and both can be dealt with. What a stupid strawman argument.

I still haven’t heard a single reason why this move is actually bad beyond vague non-arguments like the one quoted above. Why is changing a place name that contains an unambiguously offensive and racist term a problem?

I...doubt changing some placenames will do anything about whatever prejudice still exists against Indians. Relatively speaking, few people are going around seeing placenames like "Squaw Valley" and thinking "ah yes, [insert bigotry towards a specific tribe or number of tribes here]". This is the political class doing something and claiming it will make a difference. When in reality it does nothing (to solve the things that are claimed to be the reason for said thing). It doesn't matter if (and I'm not passing judgement on that specific thing) these arguments for a change held true in 1872; they don't hold true in 2022, which is what counts.

The woke use exceptionally, uselessly broad definition of bigotry categories to justify remaking our culture wholesale. And I am opposed to that. The vacuousness of this all is really cherry on the top as well. Politicians will play their games, and what is fair play will be played with. Not even timeless placenames are safe from political virtue-signalling. I think there's clearly ample evidence that this has gone too far.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

Tim, if you don't know that the word sq*** is a slur, you must be living under a rock. Basically every Native person and nearly any book about native topics will tell you that it's obviously offensive.

No one is harmed by removing obvious slurs from the landscape and Indians living in the area will not have to see a nasty racist (and sexist!) term on road signs or hiking trails--a clear net benefit to society.

I have mixed feelings about renamings but IMO removing nasty bigoted epithets from the landscape is a world of difference from even renaming a Jefferson Davis Blvd. or suchlike.

If I cross the border to visit Mexico, you won't see me crying when I see "Matamoros" on the signage (despite it meaning "Kill the Moors" in Spanish).
Who freaking cares about changing placenames. That's such a phony "fix", it's insulting. Instead, I'd improve the material lot of Indians in the present day by giving them more tools to deal with their problems.
Not something like this though.
Yes, I do believe that things like this can be in fact vetoed by the broader majority. That's how democracy ought to work.

Nobody is claiming that this will improve the material lot of Indians, so its not a “phony fix”. Indian poverty and prejudice against Indians are different issues and both can be dealt with. What a stupid strawman argument.

I still haven’t heard a single reason why this move is actually bad beyond vague non-arguments like the one quoted above. Why is changing a place name that contains an unambiguously offensive and racist term a problem?

I...doubt changing some placenames will do anything about whatever prejudice still exists against Indians. Relatively speaking, few people are going around seeing placenames like "Squaw Valley" and thinking "ah yes, [insert bigotry towards a specific tribe or number of tribes here]". This is the political class doing something and claiming it will make a difference. When in reality it does nothing (to solve the things that are claimed to be the reason for said thing). It doesn't matter if (and I'm not passing judgement on that specific thing) these arguments for a change held true in 1872; they don't hold true in 2022, which is what counts.

The woke use exceptionally, uselessly broad definition of bigotry categories to justify remaking our culture wholesale. And I am opposed to that. The vacuousness of this all is really cherry on the top as well. Politicians will play their games, and what is fair play will be played with. Not even timeless placenames are safe from political virtue-signalling. I think there's clearly ample evidence that this has gone too far.

Good Lord, this is like talking to a brick wall. This isn’t ”the political class” “doing something and claiming it’s going to make a difference” while not solving “the problem.” The government can do multiple things at once, and there is no reason they can’t take the minor step of changing these place names while also preparing larger more substantive changes.

Furthermore, the term squaw is considered very offensive by just about every native I’ve heard of. It’s a slur. That’s not because of some “uselessly broad definition of bigotry.” Renaming some random creek that contains a racial slur in the American Southwest isn’t “remaking our culture wholesale” and this isn’t “virtue signaling.”

Would you have opposed taking the n word out of place names, as was done in the 1950s and 60s? Was that pointless virtue signaling? If that wasn't, why is this?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Tim, if you don't know that the word sq*** is a slur, you must be living under a rock. Basically every Native person and nearly any book about native topics will tell you that it's obviously offensive.

No one is harmed by removing obvious slurs from the landscape and Indians living in the area will not have to see a nasty racist (and sexist!) term on road signs or hiking trails--a clear net benefit to society.

I have mixed feelings about renamings but IMO removing nasty bigoted epithets from the landscape is a world of difference from even renaming a Jefferson Davis Blvd. or suchlike.

If I cross the border to visit Mexico, you won't see me crying when I see "Matamoros" on the signage (despite it meaning "Kill the Moors" in Spanish).
Who freaking cares about changing placenames. That's such a phony "fix", it's insulting. Instead, I'd improve the material lot of Indians in the present day by giving them more tools to deal with their problems.
Not something like this though.
Yes, I do believe that things like this can be in fact vetoed by the broader majority. That's how democracy ought to work.

Nobody is claiming that this will improve the material lot of Indians, so its not a “phony fix”. Indian poverty and prejudice against Indians are different issues and both can be dealt with. What a stupid strawman argument.

I still haven’t heard a single reason why this move is actually bad beyond vague non-arguments like the one quoted above. Why is changing a place name that contains an unambiguously offensive and racist term a problem?

I...doubt changing some placenames will do anything about whatever prejudice still exists against Indians. Relatively speaking, few people are going around seeing placenames like "Squaw Valley" and thinking "ah yes, [insert bigotry towards a specific tribe or number of tribes here]". This is the political class doing something and claiming it will make a difference. When in reality it does nothing (to solve the things that are claimed to be the reason for said thing). It doesn't matter if (and I'm not passing judgement on that specific thing) these arguments for a change held true in 1872; they don't hold true in 2022, which is what counts.

The woke use exceptionally, uselessly broad definition of bigotry categories to justify remaking our culture wholesale. And I am opposed to that. The vacuousness of this all is really cherry on the top as well. Politicians will play their games, and what is fair play will be played with. Not even timeless placenames are safe from political virtue-signalling. I think there's clearly ample evidence that this has gone too far.

Jesus Christ, this is like talking to a brick wall. This isn’t ”the political class” “doing something and claiming it’s going to make a difference” while not solving “the problem.” The government can do multiple things at once, and there is no reason they can’t take the minor step of changing these place names while also preparing larger more substantive changes.

Furthermore, the term squaw is considered very offensive by just about every native I’ve heard of. It’s a slur. That’s not because of some “uselessly broad definition of bigotry.” Renaming some random creek that contains a racial slur in the American Southwest isn’t “remaking our culture wholesale” and this isn’t “virtue signaling.”

Would you have opposed taking the n word out of place names, as was done in the 1950s and 60s? Was that pointless virtue signaling? If that wasn't, why is this?

Maybe they consider the term hugely offensive. I'm not doubting that it is, to them anyway. I don't believe in that being the only thing relevant though. They (and people looking to be offended) are probably the only ones who see the term as this thing designed to put them down. I reject the idea that a singular minority group can dictate to the overall majority what is and isn't offensive and dictate to them how they ought to act in that department. It's not just theirs to decide, and it's flagrantly anti-democratic. Culture is a collaborative project, not a dictatorship of the minority. (I'm aware this was not how things were on the Plains and West, but two wrongs don't make a right here)

The N word comparison makes no sense because in the 50s and 60s black Americans were railroaded out of politics for centuries and banned from voting and categorically denied most of their constitutional rights, while in 2022, that has not been the existence of America's Indian population since...some point in the earlier half of the 20th century.

[Benjamin Frank]

Tim, if you don't know that the word sq*** is a slur, you must be living under a rock. Basically every Native person and nearly any book about native topics will tell you that it's obviously offensive.

No one is harmed by removing obvious slurs from the landscape and Indians living in the area will not have to see a nasty racist (and sexist!) term on road signs or hiking trails--a clear net benefit to society.

I have mixed feelings about renamings but IMO removing nasty bigoted epithets from the landscape is a world of difference from even renaming a Jefferson Davis Blvd. or suchlike.

If I cross the border to visit Mexico, you won't see me crying when I see "Matamoros" on the signage (despite it meaning "Kill the Moors" in Spanish).
Who freaking cares about changing placenames. That's such a phony "fix", it's insulting. Instead, I'd improve the material lot of Indians in the present day by giving them more tools to deal with their problems.
Not something like this though.
Yes, I do believe that things like this can be in fact vetoed by the broader majority. That's how democracy ought to work.

Nobody is claiming that this will improve the material lot of Indians, so its not a “phony fix”. Indian poverty and prejudice against Indians are different issues and both can be dealt with. What a stupid strawman argument.

I still haven’t heard a single reason why this move is actually bad beyond vague non-arguments like the one quoted above. Why is changing a place name that contains an unambiguously offensive and racist term a problem?

I...doubt changing some placenames will do anything about whatever prejudice still exists against Indians. Relatively speaking, few people are going around seeing placenames like "Squaw Valley" and thinking "ah yes, [insert bigotry towards a specific tribe or number of tribes here]". This is the political class doing something and claiming it will make a difference. When in reality it does nothing (to solve the things that are claimed to be the reason for said thing). It doesn't matter if (and I'm not passing judgement on that specific thing) these arguments for a change held true in 1872; they don't hold true in 2022, which is what counts.

The woke use exceptionally, uselessly broad definition of bigotry categories to justify remaking our culture wholesale. And I am opposed to that. The vacuousness of this all is really cherry on the top as well. Politicians will play their games, and what is fair play will be played with. Not even timeless placenames are safe from political virtue-signalling. I think there's clearly ample evidence that this has gone too far.

Jesus Christ, this is like talking to a brick wall. This isn’t ”the political class” “doing something and claiming it’s going to make a difference” while not solving “the problem.” The government can do multiple things at once, and there is no reason they can’t take the minor step of changing these place names while also preparing larger more substantive changes.

Furthermore, the term squaw is considered very offensive by just about every native I’ve heard of. It’s a slur. That’s not because of some “uselessly broad definition of bigotry.” Renaming some random creek that contains a racial slur in the American Southwest isn’t “remaking our culture wholesale” and this isn’t “virtue signaling.”

Would you have opposed taking the n word out of place names, as was done in the 1950s and 60s? Was that pointless virtue signaling? If that wasn't, why is this?

Maybe they consider the term hugely offensive. I'm not doubting that it is, to them anyway. I don't believe in that being the only thing relevant though. They (and people looking to be offended) are probably the only ones who see the term as this thing designed to put them down. I reject the idea that a singular minority group can dictate to the overall majority what is and isn't offensive and dictate to them how they ought to act in that department. It's not just theirs to decide, and it's flagrantly anti-democratic. Culture is a collaborative project, not a dictatorship of the minority. (I'm aware this was not how things were on the Plains and West, but two wrongs don't make a right here)

The N word comparison makes no sense because in the 50s and 60s black Americans were railroaded out of politics for centuries and banned from voting and categorically denied most of their constitutional rights, while in 2022, that has not been the existence of America's Indian population since...some point in the earlier half of the 20th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Occupation
1973

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Tim, if you don't know that the word sq*** is a slur, you must be living under a rock. Basically every Native person and nearly any book about native topics will tell you that it's obviously offensive.

No one is harmed by removing obvious slurs from the landscape and Indians living in the area will not have to see a nasty racist (and sexist!) term on road signs or hiking trails--a clear net benefit to society.

I have mixed feelings about renamings but IMO removing nasty bigoted epithets from the landscape is a world of difference from even renaming a Jefferson Davis Blvd. or suchlike.

If I cross the border to visit Mexico, you won't see me crying when I see "Matamoros" on the signage (despite it meaning "Kill the Moors" in Spanish).
Who freaking cares about changing placenames. That's such a phony "fix", it's insulting. Instead, I'd improve the material lot of Indians in the present day by giving them more tools to deal with their problems.
Not something like this though.
Yes, I do believe that things like this can be in fact vetoed by the broader majority. That's how democracy ought to work.

Nobody is claiming that this will improve the material lot of Indians, so its not a “phony fix”. Indian poverty and prejudice against Indians are different issues and both can be dealt with. What a stupid strawman argument.

I still haven’t heard a single reason why this move is actually bad beyond vague non-arguments like the one quoted above. Why is changing a place name that contains an unambiguously offensive and racist term a problem?

I...doubt changing some placenames will do anything about whatever prejudice still exists against Indians. Relatively speaking, few people are going around seeing placenames like "Squaw Valley" and thinking "ah yes, [insert bigotry towards a specific tribe or number of tribes here]". This is the political class doing something and claiming it will make a difference. When in reality it does nothing (to solve the things that are claimed to be the reason for said thing). It doesn't matter if (and I'm not passing judgement on that specific thing) these arguments for a change held true in 1872; they don't hold true in 2022, which is what counts.

The woke use exceptionally, uselessly broad definition of bigotry categories to justify remaking our culture wholesale. And I am opposed to that. The vacuousness of this all is really cherry on the top as well. Politicians will play their games, and what is fair play will be played with. Not even timeless placenames are safe from political virtue-signalling. I think there's clearly ample evidence that this has gone too far.

Jesus Christ, this is like talking to a brick wall. This isn’t ”the political class” “doing something and claiming it’s going to make a difference” while not solving “the problem.” The government can do multiple things at once, and there is no reason they can’t take the minor step of changing these place names while also preparing larger more substantive changes.

Furthermore, the term squaw is considered very offensive by just about every native I’ve heard of. It’s a slur. That’s not because of some “uselessly broad definition of bigotry.” Renaming some random creek that contains a racial slur in the American Southwest isn’t “remaking our culture wholesale” and this isn’t “virtue signaling.”

Would you have opposed taking the n word out of place names, as was done in the 1950s and 60s? Was that pointless virtue signaling? If that wasn't, why is this?

Maybe they consider the term hugely offensive. I'm not doubting that it is, to them anyway. I don't believe in that being the only thing relevant though. They (and people looking to be offended) are probably the only ones who see the term as this thing designed to put them down. I reject the idea that a singular minority group can dictate to the overall majority what is and isn't offensive and dictate to them how they ought to act in that department. It's not just theirs to decide, and it's flagrantly anti-democratic. Culture is a collaborative project, not a dictatorship of the minority. (I'm aware this was not how things were on the Plains and West, but two wrongs don't make a right here)

The N word comparison makes no sense because in the 50s and 60s black Americans were railroaded out of politics for centuries and banned from voting and categorically denied most of their constitutional rights, while in 2022, that has not been the existence of America's Indian population since...some point in the earlier half of the 20th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Occupation
1973

"banned from voting and categorically denied most of their constitutional rights" This is the test you need to meet. If the case is strong enough, then it should easily pass.

[Benjamin Frank]

Tim, if you don't know that the word sq*** is a slur, you must be living under a rock. Basically every Native person and nearly any book about native topics will tell you that it's obviously offensive.

No one is harmed by removing obvious slurs from the landscape and Indians living in the area will not have to see a nasty racist (and sexist!) term on road signs or hiking trails--a clear net benefit to society.

I have mixed feelings about renamings but IMO removing nasty bigoted epithets from the landscape is a world of difference from even renaming a Jefferson Davis Blvd. or suchlike.

If I cross the border to visit Mexico, you won't see me crying when I see "Matamoros" on the signage (despite it meaning "Kill the Moors" in Spanish).
Who freaking cares about changing placenames. That's such a phony "fix", it's insulting. Instead, I'd improve the material lot of Indians in the present day by giving them more tools to deal with their problems.
Not something like this though.
Yes, I do believe that things like this can be in fact vetoed by the broader majority. That's how democracy ought to work.

Nobody is claiming that this will improve the material lot of Indians, so its not a “phony fix”. Indian poverty and prejudice against Indians are different issues and both can be dealt with. What a stupid strawman argument.

I still haven’t heard a single reason why this move is actually bad beyond vague non-arguments like the one quoted above. Why is changing a place name that contains an unambiguously offensive and racist term a problem?

I...doubt changing some placenames will do anything about whatever prejudice still exists against Indians. Relatively speaking, few people are going around seeing placenames like "Squaw Valley" and thinking "ah yes, [insert bigotry towards a specific tribe or number of tribes here]". This is the political class doing something and claiming it will make a difference. When in reality it does nothing (to solve the things that are claimed to be the reason for said thing). It doesn't matter if (and I'm not passing judgement on that specific thing) these arguments for a change held true in 1872; they don't hold true in 2022, which is what counts.

The woke use exceptionally, uselessly broad definition of bigotry categories to justify remaking our culture wholesale. And I am opposed to that. The vacuousness of this all is really cherry on the top as well. Politicians will play their games, and what is fair play will be played with. Not even timeless placenames are safe from political virtue-signalling. I think there's clearly ample evidence that this has gone too far.

Jesus Christ, this is like talking to a brick wall. This isn’t ”the political class” “doing something and claiming it’s going to make a difference” while not solving “the problem.” The government can do multiple things at once, and there is no reason they can’t take the minor step of changing these place names while also preparing larger more substantive changes.

Furthermore, the term squaw is considered very offensive by just about every native I’ve heard of. It’s a slur. That’s not because of some “uselessly broad definition of bigotry.” Renaming some random creek that contains a racial slur in the American Southwest isn’t “remaking our culture wholesale” and this isn’t “virtue signaling.”

Would you have opposed taking the n word out of place names, as was done in the 1950s and 60s? Was that pointless virtue signaling? If that wasn't, why is this?

Maybe they consider the term hugely offensive. I'm not doubting that it is, to them anyway. I don't believe in that being the only thing relevant though. They (and people looking to be offended) are probably the only ones who see the term as this thing designed to put them down. I reject the idea that a singular minority group can dictate to the overall majority what is and isn't offensive and dictate to them how they ought to act in that department. It's not just theirs to decide, and it's flagrantly anti-democratic. Culture is a collaborative project, not a dictatorship of the minority. (I'm aware this was not how things were on the Plains and West, but two wrongs don't make a right here)

The N word comparison makes no sense because in the 50s and 60s black Americans were railroaded out of politics for centuries and banned from voting and categorically denied most of their constitutional rights, while in 2022, that has not been the existence of America's Indian population since...some point in the earlier half of the 20th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Occupation
1973

"banned from voting and categorically denied most of their constitutional rights" This is the test you need to meet. If the case is strong enough, then it should easily pass.

That's your test. Denied their treaty rights is pretty serious.

For instance:
In 1868, Two Nations Made a Treaty, the U.S. Broke It and Plains Indian Tribes are Still Seeking Justice
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/1868-two-nations-made-treaty-us-broke-it-and-plains-indian-tribes-are-still-seeking-justice-180970741/

Also, when these places were being named, natives did not have the right to vote. That's a pretty serious democratic infringement as well.