Over 650 places with Native American slurs for names renamed

[parochial boy]

Places changing names for political reasons is hardly a new woke invention. Just ask the inhabitants of Byzantium.

Or else, when Matajudos in Spain and La Mort aux Juifs im France changed their names, this was widely seen as a long over due rectification of a dark historical legacy. What’s changed in actual fact is that right wing culture wars have suddenly tried to make it out as being cancel culture « erasure of the past » and not something as self evident and consensual as not having blatantly racist place names

[Sol]

"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.

Says who? Why is this test that the Government should have to meet to be able to change a wildly offensive place name?

In any case, many Native Americans were not even considered citizens prior to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (and thereby disenfranchised). Moreover, many continued to be disenfranchised by similar policies to those which blocked Black people, including poll taxes and literacy tests (this is why many Western counties were covered by the VRA). The list of state-sanctioned abuses against Native Americans is endless, but if you're looking for something more recent, take a look at the Indian Termination Policy or Indian Health Service sterilization of Native women.

In any case, let's look at the logical flip side of this argument--you seem to be implying that if there was a place-name with the n-word present now, it would be bad to change it. This is ridiculous and racist!

[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.

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

Well, treaty rights are rather serious and good faith effort should be made to honor them. Among other things, they are owed special compensation when, for example, a pipeline is built through their lands. But the special place they've got in our national fabric, both in legacy terms and in the present day, should not be sacrificed in a misguided effort to meet the spirit of said treaty through alternative means. And placenames are part of that. The Native American-influenced segment of our national fabric is not solely theirs to reshape, given our national culture is broadly shared. Switching from tyranny of the majority to tyranny of the minority still leaves tyranny in place and is not any more inclusive.

[Benjamin Frank]

Places changing names for political reasons is hardly a new woke invention. Just ask the inhabitants of Byzantium.

Or else, when Matajudos in Spain and La Mort aux Juifs im France changed their names, this was widely seen as a long over due rectification of a dark historical legacy. What’s changed in actual fact is that right wing culture wars have suddenly tried to make it out as being cancel culture « erasure of the past » and not something as self evident and consensual as not having blatantly racist place names

It doesn't seem to be popular here, and referring to it pejoratively as 'woke' to shut down discussion seems to be common but there is actually considerable evidence that slurs lead to negative stereotyping that leads to overt, conscious biases.  So, there is considerable evidence that these sorts of slurs have real world negative impact on people who already often have more difficult lives than most people.

Of course, no one episode of a program is going to be the final word on topics like that, but I believe this is the right episode of the Australian Broadcasting Company radio program 'All in the Mind' that discusses the harmful impacts of negative stereotyping (and the harmful impacts of positive stereotyping as well.)

You can dismiss these things as 'woke' if you want, but many people, not just on the left, are concerned because they appreciate that when the understanding of something changes, opinions should change as well. After all, what do you do, sir?

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/podcast-extra:-the-question-of-brain-bias/12863020

"What happens in our brain when we make assumptions about people who don’t seem to be like us – when they may look, speak, or behave differently. And can brain science help us to override our potential prejudices? "

[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.

Well, treaty rights are rather serious and good faith effort should be made to honor them. Among other things, they are owed special compensation when, for example, a pipeline is built through their lands. But the special place they've got in our national fabric, both in legacy terms and in the present day, should not be sacrificed in a misguided effort to meet the spirit of said treaty through alternative means. And placenames are part of that. The Native American-influenced segment of our national fabric is not solely theirs to reshape, given our national culture is broadly shared. Switching from tyranny of the majority to tyranny of the minority still leaves tyranny in place and is not any more inclusive.

The natives in question don't want the 'spirit of said treaty' to be enforced, they want the agreed upon treaty to be enforced. As the article says: how can one dismiss this treaty as an a 150 year old artifact that is now outdated, and then turn around and pledge allegiance and fealty to a 230 year old Constitution?

[Sol]

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

"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.

Says who? Why is this test that the Government should have to meet to be able to change a wildly offensive place name?

In any case, many Native Americans were not even considered citizens prior to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (and thereby disenfranchised). Moreover, many continued to be disenfranchised by similar policies to those which blocked Black people, including poll taxes and literacy tests (this is why many Western counties were covered by the VRA). The list of state-sanctioned abuses against Native Americans is endless, but if you're looking for something more recent, take a look at the Indian Termination Policy or Indian Health Service sterilization of Native women.

In any case, let's look at the logical flip side of this argument--you seem to be implying that if there was a place-name with the n-word present now, it would be bad to change it. This is ridiculous and racist!

I was a bit conflicted as to how to respond to this.
First part of the post is in fact rather illuminating, as I was under the impression that  Jim Crow measures were not, by-and-large, done out west. I was however familiar with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and it was in fact informing my argument.
Nonetheless, the time frames still don't exactly work for the n-word to be the proper frame of reference. Note that said placenames changes in the South happened in the 1950s and the 1960s, practically concurrently with segregation also being dismantled. Meanwhile, if sterilization ended in the 1970s, that's almost 50 years ago; the equivalent time frame is...the 1970s.
People from that time were closer to the beginning of FDR's presidency than now.
I do thank you for enlightening me on how relatively more recent this stuff was.

[Boobs]

"We didn't do the right thing in the past, therefore we should never do it" is certainly an interesting philosophy.

[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.

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

Well, treaty rights are rather serious and good faith effort should be made to honor them. Among other things, they are owed special compensation when, for example, a pipeline is built through their lands. But the special place they've got in our national fabric, both in legacy terms and in the present day, should not be sacrificed in a misguided effort to meet the spirit of said treaty through alternative means. And placenames are part of that. The Native American-influenced segment of our national fabric is not solely theirs to reshape, given our national culture is broadly shared. Switching from tyranny of the majority to tyranny of the minority still leaves tyranny in place and is not any more inclusive.

The natives in question don't want the 'spirit of said treaty' to be enforced, they want the agreed upon treaty to be enforced. As the article says: how can one dismiss this treaty as an a 150 year old artifact that is now outdated, and then turn around and pledge allegiance and fealty to a 230 year old Constitution?

I was thinking it's practically impossible to actually enforce the whole of all said treaties. Too many people having moved in and too much interests having something to lose from it. Ranchers...oil companies...people not of the tribe having moved onto large land territories where there are now cities that developed and have stood for what are now centuries...perhaps some conservationists...

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

"We didn't do the right thing in the past, therefore we should never do it" is certainly an interesting philosophy.

Yes, it is an interesting philosophy. Maybe one day you'll find a unicorn who holds such views.
That is not what either you nor I think. You hold generic "progressive" views on this, from the looks of it; I am more along the lines of "doing X thing in response to Y thing isn't realistic or desirable, let's do Z instead".

[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.

Well, treaty rights are rather serious and good faith effort should be made to honor them. Among other things, they are owed special compensation when, for example, a pipeline is built through their lands. But the special place they've got in our national fabric, both in legacy terms and in the present day, should not be sacrificed in a misguided effort to meet the spirit of said treaty through alternative means. And placenames are part of that. The Native American-influenced segment of our national fabric is not solely theirs to reshape, given our national culture is broadly shared. Switching from tyranny of the majority to tyranny of the minority still leaves tyranny in place and is not any more inclusive.

The natives in question don't want the 'spirit of said treaty' to be enforced, they want the agreed upon treaty to be enforced. As the article says: how can one dismiss this treaty as an a 150 year old artifact that is now outdated, and then turn around and pledge allegiance and fealty to a 230 year old Constitution?

I was thinking it's practically impossible to actually enforce the whole of all said treaties. Too many people having moved in and too much interests having something to lose from it. Ranchers...oil companies...people not of the tribe having moved onto large land territories where there are now cities that developed and have stood for what are now centuries...perhaps some conservationists...

I'm sure that is true, but as the U.S Constitution is still the law of the land, so are these treaty obligations, even if the government did not honor them. What that means, is a requirement for new nation to nation talks to lead to new treaties, even if any subsequent treaty is opposed by a majority of non native Americans, including, if part of any subsequent treaty, if necessary, the renaming of places.

[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.

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

Well, treaty rights are rather serious and good faith effort should be made to honor them. Among other things, they are owed special compensation when, for example, a pipeline is built through their lands. But the special place they've got in our national fabric, both in legacy terms and in the present day, should not be sacrificed in a misguided effort to meet the spirit of said treaty through alternative means. And placenames are part of that. The Native American-influenced segment of our national fabric is not solely theirs to reshape, given our national culture is broadly shared. Switching from tyranny of the majority to tyranny of the minority still leaves tyranny in place and is not any more inclusive.

The natives in question don't want the 'spirit of said treaty' to be enforced, they want the agreed upon treaty to be enforced. As the article says: how can one dismiss this treaty as an a 150 year old artifact that is now outdated, and then turn around and pledge allegiance and fealty to a 230 year old Constitution?

I was thinking it's practically impossible to actually enforce the whole of all said treaties. Too many people having moved in and too much interests having something to lose from it. Ranchers...oil companies...people not of the tribe having moved onto large land territories where there are now cities that developed and have stood for what are now centuries...perhaps some conservationists...

I'm sure that is true, but as the U.S Constitution is still the law of the land, so are these treaty obligations, even if the government did not honor them. What that means, is a requirement for new nation to nation talks to lead to new treaties, even if any subsequent treaty is opposed by a majority of non native Americans, including, if part of any subsequent treaty, if necessary, the renaming of places.

If that is being postulated, then I would not necessarily be opposed (unless the potential for chaos in the aftermath would reasonably cause too much ill will - not impossible; depends on specific text). The negotiations that follow should encourage pluralism and mutual respect, in both directions and not just one. That would be the ideal way forward.

There is room for a healthy style of #Landback to manifest. Of course, the government should stand for the rights of American citizens of all backgrounds and be willing to walk away if other side isn't willing to play ball. Lest this become a big wedge issue, to the detriment of most parties involved...that would be the worst outcome. It would make it political poison to give some ground, let alone a lot. If radicals on either side of this (or, worse, both) get too much power, we have a threat to internal unity, and that is just a gift to China or Russia that the world doesn't need.

[Boobs]

"We didn't do the right thing in the past, therefore we should never do it" is certainly an interesting philosophy.

Yes, it is an interesting philosophy. Maybe one day you'll find a unicorn who holds such views.
That is not what either you nor I think. You hold generic "progressive" views on this, from the looks of it; I am more along the lines of "doing X thing in response to Y thing isn't realistic or desirable, let's do Z instead".

Renaming places is certainly realistic, so that's strike one. Doing "Z" is not mutually exclusive with doing "X", and in fact, I don't really see why doing "Z" and not "X" is in anyway better than doing both, so there's strike two. Which brings us back to renaming these places with broadly offensive names... How is undesirable? You certainly haven't explained why beyond some mealy-mouthed nonsense about the evils of The Wokeism, and in fact espoused a position that perhaps renaming these places a century ago, or whenever, would have been desirable! So perhaps, my dear, you are the unicorn, and also, that's strike three, so you know the rest. Thanks for playing.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

"We didn't do the right thing in the past, therefore we should never do it" is certainly an interesting philosophy.

Yes, it is an interesting philosophy. Maybe one day you'll find a unicorn who holds such views.
That is not what either you nor I think. You hold generic "progressive" views on this, from the looks of it; I am more along the lines of "doing X thing in response to Y thing isn't realistic or desirable, let's do Z instead".

Renaming places is certainly realistic, so that's strike one. Doing "Z" is not mutually exclusive with doing "X", and in fact, I don't really see why doing "Z" and not "X" is in anyway better than doing both, so there's strike two. Which brings us back to renaming these places with broadly offensive names... How is undesirable? You certainly haven't explained why beyond some mealy-mouthed nonsense about the evils of The Wokeism, and in fact espoused a position that perhaps renaming these places a century ago, or whenever, would have been desirable! So perhaps, my dear, you are the unicorn, and also, that's strike three, so you know the rest. Thanks for playing.

You're like the last person I'd expect to show understanding towards those with differing views. I could get more uncharitable here, and it would not be undeserved, but this is not the time and place. Whatever. Good day Sir.

[Benjamin Frank]

Places changing names for political reasons is hardly a new woke invention. Just ask the inhabitants of Byzantium.

Or else, when Matajudos in Spain and La Mort aux Juifs im France changed their names, this was widely seen as a long over due rectification of a dark historical legacy. What’s changed in actual fact is that right wing culture wars have suddenly tried to make it out as being cancel culture « erasure of the past » and not something as self evident and consensual as not having blatantly racist place names

It doesn't seem to be popular here, and referring to it pejoratively as 'woke' to shut down discussion seems to be common but there is actually considerable evidence that slurs lead to negative stereotyping that leads to overt, conscious biases.  So, there is considerable evidence that these sorts of slurs have real world negative impact on people who already often have more difficult lives than most people.

Of course, no one episode of a program is going to be the final word on topics like that, but I believe this is the right episode of the Australian Broadcasting Company radio program 'All in the Mind' that discusses the harmful impacts of negative stereotyping (and the harmful impacts of positive stereotyping as well.)

You can dismiss these things as 'woke' if you want, but many people, not just on the left, are concerned because they appreciate that when the understanding of something changes, opinions should change as well. After all, what do you do, sir?

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/podcast-extra:-the-question-of-brain-bias/12863020

"What happens in our brain when we make assumptions about people who don’t seem to be like us – when they may look, speak, or behave differently. And can brain science help us to override our potential prejudices? "

This is indeed the correct episode. The relevant part starts right at the 15 minute mark where the host asks the guest "Is prejudice and racism a form of this dehumanization?"

The complete response and further discussion is too long to post here, but the short answer to that specific question is 'no, prejudice and racism are based on a threat response in the amygdala' but does indeed add that threat responses are culture specific based on social learning such as negative stereotypes.

The guest is Lasana Harris, a neuroscientist who specializes in experimental psychology.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

I fail to understand how this decision is "problematic" in any shape or form. Literally nothing of value is lost by renaming these places from their now former racist names.

[If my soul was made of stone]

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.

Read: "This is all Da Jooz' fault"

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

Read: "This is all Da Jooz' fault"

I could seriously engage with this nonsense of yours with a detailed reply. But I'm not in the mood. In any case, I don't think it raises to the level of anti-Semitism to note that the woke cause has imported Marxist intellectual forms for its own purposes, and it would hardly be surprising for someone with a moderate self-ID to express steadfast opposition to that. Additionally, I'm not actually hostile to Marxist class analysis outright; rather, it's simplistic in both how it portrays the world, and how it casts blame. I'm also against it being taken too far and/or it being used as a basis for taking policy away from the moderate middle. I could definitely say my worldview was once more Marxist-influenced.

[Ferguson97]

Lol is one of the arguments here really "changing the name won't solve 100% of racism so we shouldn't do it"?

[Koharu]

Here's a story about someone who is still alive who attended an "Indian boarding school," which was just one of the "tools" employed to erase Indigenous cultures.

Another tool of the same was child removal and adoption. The Indian Child Welfare Act wasn't passed until 1978. That means there are Indigenous people under then age of 50 who were very likely intentionally adopted out to non-Indigenous families.

[Ferguson97]

Here's a story about someone who is still alive who attended an "Indian boarding school," which was just one of the "tools" employed to erase Indigenous cultures.

Another tool of the same was child removal and adoption. The Indian Child Welfare Act wasn't passed until 1978. That means there are Indigenous people under then age of 50 who were very likely intentionally adopted out to non-Indigenous families.

Ruby Bridges is still alive, and is only 68. People don't realize how recent this stuff is.

[Badger]

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.

Oh please. They f***** up big time on that case and admitted it and paid substantial well-earned damages. And Morris Dees near the end of his tenure was a hot mess of sexual harassment and fiscal mismanagement. However, the organization is recovered mightily since his stepping down. The ratio of the good things splc has done, and more importantly the very accurate assessment they've done of hate groups from both the right and the left wing how's that numbered they're F UPS by about a hundred to one.

He thinks this is simply a painful reality check about just how intermeshed once mainstream Republican conservatism has become with unreserved hate groups.

[Badger]

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.

Tell me Tim, was renaming a mountain from "n#####r head Joe Peak" a dangerous slippery slope of political correctness?

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Seems like a very bad 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.
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.

Tell me Tim, was renaming a mountain from "n#####r head Joe Peak" a dangerous slippery slope of political correctness?

I think I've already answered this question.