Showing posts with label Indians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Indians. Show all posts

Sunday, February 6, 2022

Monday, February 6, 1922. Evolutions.

 On this day in 1922, the Conference on the Limitation of Armament resulted in the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty and the Nine-Power Treaty.

Signing the treaty.

The Washington Naval Treaty sought to limit the size of navies in the hope that would help prevent arms races and wars.  The treaty stated:

General Provisions Relating To The Limitation Of Naval Armament

Article I

The Contracting Powers agree to limit their respective naval armament as provided in the present Treaty.

Article II

The Contracting Powers may retain respectively the capital ships which are specified in Chapter II, Part 1. On the coming into force of the present Treaty, but subject to the following provisions of this Article, all other capital ships, built or building, of the United States, the British Empire and Japan shall be disposed of as prescribed in Chapter II, Part 2.

In addition to the capital ships specified in Chapter II, Part 1, the United States may complete and retain two ships of the West Virginia class now under construction. On the completion of these two ships, the North Dakota and Delaware, shall be disposed of as prescribed in Chapter II, Part 2.

The British Empire may, in accordance with the replacement table in Chapter II, Part 3, construct two new capital ships not exceeding 35,000 tons (35,560 metric tons) standard displacement each. On the completion of the said two ships the Thunderer, King George V, Ajax and Centurion shall be disposed of as prescribed in Chapter II, Part 2.

Article III

Subject to the provisions of Article II, the Contracting Powers shall abandon their respective capital ship building programs, and no new capital ships shall be constructed or acquired by any of the Contracting Powers except replacement tonnage which may be constructed or acquired as specified in Chapter II, Part 3.

Article IV

The total capital ship replacement tonnage of each of the Contracting Powers shall not exceed in standard displacement, for the United States 525,000 tons (533,400 metric tons); for the British Empire 525,000 tons (533,400 metric tons); for France 175,000 tons (177,800 metric tons); for Italy 175,000 tons (177,800 metric tons); for Japan 315,000 tons (320,040 metric tons).

Article V

No capital ship exceeding 35,000 tons (35,560 metric tons) standard displacement shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for, or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers.

Article VI

No capital ship of any of the Contracting Powers shall carry a gun with a calibre in excess of 16 inches (406 millimetres).

Article VII

The total tonnage for aircraft carriers of each of the Contracting Powers shall not exceed in standard displacement, for the United States 135,000 tons (137,160 metric tons); for the British Empire 135,000 tons (137,160 metric tons); for France 60,000 tons (60,960 metric tons); for Italy 60,000 tons (60,960 metric tons); for Japan 81,000 tons (82,296 metric tons).

Article VIII

The replacement of aircraft carriers shall be effected only as prescribed in Chapter II, Part 3, provided, however, that all aircraft carrier tonnage in existence or building on November 12, 1921, shall be considered experimental, and may be replaced, within the total tonnage limit prescribed in Article VII, without regard to its age.

Article IX

No aircraft carrier exceeding 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) standard displacement shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers.

However, any of the Contracting Powers may, provided that its total tonnage allowance of aircraft carriers is not thereby exceeded, build not more than two aircraft carriers, each of a tonnage of not more than 33,000 tons (33,528 metric tons) standard displacement, and in order to effect economy any of the Contracting Powers may use for this purpose any two of their ships, whether constructed or in course of construction, which would otherwise be scrapped under the provisions of Article II. The armament of any aircraft carriers exceeding 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) standard displacement shall be in accordance with the requirements of Article X, except that the total number of guns to be carried in case any of such guns be of a calibre exceeding 6 inches (152 millimetres), except anti-aircraft guns and guns not exceeding 5 inches (127 millimetres), shall not exceed eight.

Article X

No aircraft carrier of any of the Contracting Powers shall carry a gun with a calibre in excess of 8 inches (203 millimetres). Without prejudice to the provisions of Article IX, if the armament carried includes guns exceeding 6 inches (152 millimetres) in calibre the total number of guns carried, except anti-aircraft guns and guns not exceeding 5 inches (127 millimetres), shall not exceed ten. If alternatively the armament contains no guns exceeding 6 inches (152 millimetres) in calibre, the number of guns is not limited. In either case the number of anti-aircraft guns and of guns not exceeding 5 inches (127 millimetres) is not limited.

Article XI

No vessel of war exceeding 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement, other than a capital ship or aircraft carrier, shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for, or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers. Vessels not specifically built as fighting ships nor taken in time of peace under government control for fighting purposes, which are employed on fleet duties or as troop transports or in some other way for the purpose of assisting in the prosecution of hostilities otherwise than as fighting ships, shall not be within the limitations of this Article.

Article XII

No vessel of war of any of the Contracting Powers, hereafter laid down, other than a capital ship, shall carry a gun with a calibre in excess of 8 inches (203 millimetres).

Article XIII

Except as provided in Article IX, no ship designated in the present Treaty to be scrapped may be reconverted into a vessel of war.

Article XIV

No preparations shall be made in merchant ships in time of peace for the installation of warlike armaments for the purpose of converting such ships into vessels of war, other than the necessary stiffening of decks for the mounting of guns not exceeding 6 inch (152 millimetres) calibre.

Article XV

No vessel of war constructed within the jurisdiction of any of the Contracting Powers for a non-Contracting Power shall exceed the limitations as to displacement and armament prescribed by the present Treaty for vessels of a similar type which may be constructed by or for any of the Contracting Powers; provided, however, that the displacement for aircraft carriers constructed for a non-Contracting Power shall in no case exceed 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) standard displacement.

Article XVI

If the construction of any vessel of war for a non-Contracting Power is undertaken within the jurisdiction of any of the Contracting Powers, such Power shall promptly inform the other Contracting Powers of the date of the signing of the contract and the date on which the keel of the ship is laid; and shall also communicate to them the particulars relating to the ship prescribed in Chapter II, Part 3, Section I (b), (4) and (5).

Article XVII

In the event of a Contracting Power being engaged in war, such Power shall not use as a vessel of war any vessel of war which may be under construction within its jurisdiction for any other Power, or which may have been constructed within its jurisdiction for another Power and not delivered.

Article XVIII

Each of the Contracting Powers undertakes not to dispose by gift, sale or any mode of transfer of any vessel of war in such a manner that such vessel may become a vessel of war in the Navy of any foreign Power. Article XIX

The United States, the British Empire and Japan agree that the status quo at the time of the signing of the present Treaty, with regard to fortifications and naval bases, shall be maintained in their respective territories and possessions specified hereunder:

(1) The insular possessions which the United States now holds or may hereafter acquire in the Pacific Ocean, except (a) those adjacent to the coast of the United States, Alaska and the Panama Canal Zone, not including the Aleutian Islands, and (b) the Hawaiian Islands;

(2) Hong Kong and the insular possessions which the British Empire now holds or may hereafter acquire in the Pacific Ocean, east of the meridian of 110° east longitude, except (a) those adjacent to the coast of Canada, (b) the Commonwealth of Australia and its Territories, and (c) New Zealand;

(3) The following insular territories and possessions of Japan in the Pacific Ocean, to wit: the Kurile Islands, the Bonin Islands, Amami-Oshima, the Loochoo Islands, Formosa and the Pescadores, and any insular territories or possessions in the Pacific Ocean which Japan may hereafter acquire.

The maintenance of the status quo under the foregoing provisions implies that no new fortifications or naval bases shall be established in the territories and possessions specified; that no measures shall be taken to increase the existing naval facilities for the repair and maintenance of naval forces, and that no increase shall be made in the coast defenses of the territories and possessions above specified. This restriction, however, does not preclude such repair and replacement of worn-out weapons and equipment as is customary in naval and military establishments in time of peace.

Part 2.-Rules for Scrapping Vessels of War

The following rules shall be observed for the scrapping of vessels of war which are to be disposed of in accordance with Articles II and III.

I. A vessel to be scrapped must be placed in such condition that it cannot be put to combatant use.

II. This result must be finally effected in any one of the following ways:

(a) Permanent sinking of the vessel; (b) Breaking the vessel up. This shall always involve the destruction or removal of all machinery, boilers and armour, and all deck, side and bottom plating; (c) Converting the vessel to target use exclusively. In such case all the provisions of paragraph III of this Part, except sub-paragraph (6), in so far as may be necessary to enable the ship to be used as a mobile target, and except sub-paragraph (7), must be previously complied with. Not more than one capital ship may be retained for this purpose at one time by any of the Contracting Powers. (d) Of the capital ships which would otherwise be scrapped under the present Treaty in or after the year 1931, France and Italy may each retain two sea-going vessels for training purposes exclusively, that is, as gunnery or torpedo schools. The two vessels retained by France shall be of the Jean Bart class, and of those retained by Italy one shall be the Dante Alighieri, the other of the Giulio Cesare class. On retaining these ships for the purpose above stated, France and Italy respectively undertake to remove and destroy their conning-towers, and not to use the said ships as vessels of war.

III. (a) Subject to the special exceptions contained in Article IX, when a vessel is due for scrapping, the first stage of scrapping, which consists in rendering a ship incapable of further warlike service, shall be immediately undertaken.

(b) A vessel shall be considered incapable of further warlike service when there shall have been removed and landed, or else destroyed in the ship:

(1) All guns and essential portions of guns, fire-control tops and revolving parts of all barbettes and turrets;

(2) All machinery for working hydraulic or electric mountings;

(3) All fire-control instruments and range-finders;

(4) All ammunition, explosives and mines;

(5) All torpedoes, warheads and torpedo tubes;

(6) All wireless telegraphy installations;

(7) The conning tower and all side armour, or alternatively all main propelling machinery;

and (8) All landing and flying-off platforms and all other aviation accessories.

IV. The periods in which scrapping of vessels is to be effected are as follows:

(a) In the case of vessels to be scrapped under the first paragraph of Article II, the work of rendering the vessels incapable of further warlike service, in accordance with paragraph III of this Part, shall be completed within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, and the scrapping shall be finally effected within eighteen months from such coming into force.

(b) In the case of vessels to be scrapped under the second and third paragraphs of Article II, or under Article III, the work of rendering the vessel incapable of further warlike service in accordance with paragraph III of this Part shall be commenced not later than the date of completion of its successor, and shall be finished within six months from the date of such completion. The vessel shall be finally scrapped, in accordance with paragraph II of this Part, within eighteen months from the date of completion of its successor. If, however, the completion of the new vessel be delayed, then the work of rendering the old vessel incapable of further war-like service in accordance with paragraph III of this Part shall be commenced within four years from the laying of the keel of the new vessel, and shall be finished within six months from the date on which such work was commenced, and the old vessel shall be finally scrapped in accordance with paragraph II of this Part within eighteen months from the date when the work of rendering it incapable of further warlike service was commenced.

Part 3.-Replacement

The replacement of capital ships and aircraft carriers shall take place according to the rules in Section I and the tables in Section II of this Part.

Section I.-Rules For Replacement

(a) Capital ships and aircraft carriers twenty years after the date of their completion may, except as otherwise provided in Article VIII and in the tables in Section II of this Part, be replaced by new construction, but within the limits prescribed in Article IV and Article VII. The keels of such new construction may, except as otherwise provided in Article VIII and in the tables in Section II of this Part, be laid down not earlier than seventeen years from the date of completion of the tonnage to be replaced, provided, however, that no capital ship tonnage, with the exception of the ships referred to in the third paragraph of Article II, and the replacement tonnage specifically mentioned in Section II of this Part, shall be laid down until ten years from November 12, 1921.

(b) Each of the Contracting Powers shall communicate promptly to each of the other Contracting Powers the following information:

(1) The names of the capital ships and aircraft carriers to be replaced by new construction; (2) The date of governmental authorization of replacement tonnage; (3) The date of laying the keels of replacement tonnage; (4) The standard displacement in tons and metric tons of each new ship to be laid down, and the principal dimensions, namely, length at waterline, extreme beam at or below waterline, mean draft at standard displacement; (5) The date of completion of each new ship and its standard displacement in tons and metric tons, and the principal dimensions, namely, length at waterline, extreme beam at or below waterline, mean draft at standard displacement, at time of completion

(c) In case of loss or accidental destruction of capital ships or aircraft carriers, they may immediately be replaced by new construction subject to the tonnage limits prescribed in Articles IV and VII and in conformity with the other provisions of the present Treaty, the regular replacement program being deemed to be advanced to that extent.

(d) No retained capital ships or aircraft carriers shall be reconstructed except for the purpose of providing means of defense against air and submarine attack, and subject to the following rules: The Contracting Powers may, for that purpose, equip existing tonnage with bulge or blister or anti-air attack deck protection, providing the increase of displacement thus effected does not exceed 3,000 tons (3,048 metric tons) displacement for each ship. No alterations in side armor, in calibre, number or general type of mounting of main armament shall be permitted except:

(1) in the case of France and Italy, which countries within the limits allowed for bulge may increase their armor protection and the calibre of the guns now carried on their existing capital ships so as not to exceed 16 inches (406 millimeters) and (2) the British Empire shall be permitted to complete, in the case of the Renown, the alterations to armor that have already been commenced but temporarily suspended.

Capital Ship

A capital ship, in the case of ships hereafter built, is defined as a vessel of war, not an aircraft carrier, whose displacement exceeds 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement, or which carries a gun with a calibre exceeding 8 inches (203 millimetres).

Aircraft Carrier

An aircraft carrier is defined as a vessel of war with a displacement in excess of 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement designed for the specific and exclusive purpose of carrying aircraft. It must be so constructed that aircraft can be launched therefrom and landed thereon, and not designed and constructed for carrying a more powerful armament than that allowed to it under Article IX or Article X as the case may be.

Standard Displacement

The standard displacement of a ship is the displacement of the ship complete, fully manned, engined, and equipped ready for sea, including all armament and ammunition, equipment, outfit, provisions and fresh water for crew, miscellaneous stores and implements of every description that are intended to be carried in war, but without fuel or reserve feed water on board.

The word "ton" in the present Treaty, except in the expression "metric tons", shall be understood to mean the ton of 2240 pounds (1016 kilos).

Vessels now completed shall retain their present ratings of displacement tonnage in accordance with their national system of measurement. However, a Power expressing displacement in metric tons shall be considered for the application of the present Treaty as owning only the equivalent displacement in tons of 2240 pounds.

A vessel completed hereafter shall be rated at its displacement tonnage when in the standard condition defined herein.

Chapter III.-Miscellaneous Provisions

Article XXI

If during the term of the present Treaty the requirements of the national security of any Contracting Power in respect of naval defense are, in the opinion of that Power, materially affected by any change of circumstances, the Contracting Powers will, at the request of such Power, meet in conference with a view to the reconsideration of the provisions of the Treaty and its amendment by mutual agreement.

In view of possible technical and scientific developments, the United States, after consultation with the other Contracting Powers, shall arrange for a conference of all the Contracting Powers which shall convene as soon as possible after the expiration of eight years from the coming into force of the present Treaty to consider what changes, if any, in the Treaty may be necessary to meet such developments.

Article XXII

Whenever any Contracting Power shall become engaged in a war which in its opinion affects the naval defense of its national security, such Power may after notice to the other Contracting Powers suspend for the period of hostilities its obligations under the present Treaty other than those under Articles XIII and XVII, provided that such Power shall notify the other Contracting Powers that the emergency is of such a character as to require such suspension.

The remaining Contracting Powers shall in such case consult together with a view to agreement as to what temporary modifications if any should be made in the Treaty as between themselves. Should such consultation not produce agreement, duly made in accordance with the constitutional methods of the respective Powers, any one of said Contracting Powers may, by giving notice to the other Contracting Powers, suspend for the period of hostilities its obligations under the present Treaty, other than those under.

Articles XIII and XVII

On the cessation of hostilities the Contracting Powers will meet in conference to consider what modifications, if any, should be made in the provisions of the present Treaty.

Article XXIII

The present Treaty shall remain in force until December 31st, 1936, and in case none of the Contracting Powers shall have given notice two years before that date of its intention to terminate the treaty, it shall continue in force until the expiration of two years from the date on which notice of termination shall be given by one of the Contracting Powers, whereupon the Treaty shall terminate as regards all the Contracting Powers. Such notice shall be communicated in writing to the Government of the United States, which shall immediately transmit a certified copy of the notification to the other Powers and inform them of the date on which it was received. The notice shall be deemed to have been given and shall take effect on that date. In the event of notice of termination being given by the Government of the United States, such notice shall be given to the diplomatic representatives at Washington of the other Contracting Powers, and the notice shall be deemed to have been given and shall take effect on the date of the communication made to the said diplomatic representatives.

Within one year of the date on which a notice of termination by any Power has taken effect, all the Contracting Powers shall meet in conference.

Article XXIV

The present Treaty shall be ratified by the Contracting Powers in accordance with their respective constitutional methods and shall take effect on the date of the deposit of all the ratifications, which shall take place at Washington as soon as possible. The Government of the United States will transmit to the other Contracting Powers a certified copy of the procès-verbal of the deposit of ratifications.

The present Treaty, of which the French and English texts are both authentic, shall remain deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States, and duly certified copies thereof shall be transmitted by that Government to the other Contracting Powers.

In faith whereof the above-named Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty.

Done at the City of Washington the sixth day of February, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty-Two.

A fatal defect in the treaty would be to treat aircraft carriers specifically as a lesser vessel, meaning that the treaty had the effect of emphasizing that ship within navies, given that battleships and heavy ships were restricted.  Long term, the treaty did not achieve its goals.

The Nine Power Treaty was a treaty regarding Chinese sovereignty. 

It provided:

Treaty between the United States of America, Belgium, the British Empire, China, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and Portugal, Signed at Washington February 6, 1922

The United States of America, Belgium, the British Empire, China, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and Portugal:

Desiring to adopt a policy designed to stabilize conditions in the Far East, to safeguard the rights and interests of China, and to promote intercourse between China and the other Powers upon the basis of equality of opportunity;

Have resolved to conclude a treaty for that purpose and to that end have appointed as their respective Plenipotentiaries;

Who, having communicated to each other their full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE I

The Contracting Powers, other than China, agree:

(1) To respect the sovereignty, the independence, and the territorial and administrative integrity of China;

(2) To provide the fullest and most unembarrassed opportunity to China to develop and maintain for herself an effective and stable government;

(3) To use their influence for the purpose of effectually establishing and maintaining the principle of equal opportunity for the commerce and industry of all nations throughout the territory of China;

(4) To refrain from taking advantage of conditions in China in order to seek special rights or privileges which would abridge the rights of subjects or citizens of friendly States,[2] and from countenancing action inimical to the security of such States.

ARTICLE II

The Contracting Powers agree not to enter into any treaty, agreement, arrangement, or understanding, either with one another, or, individually or collectively, with any Power or Powers, which would infringe or impair the principles stated in Article I.

ARTICLE III

With a view to applying more effectually the principles of the Open Door or equality of opportunity in China for the trade and industry of all nations, the Contracting Powers, other than China, agree that they will not seek, nor support their respective nationals in seeking-

(a) any arrangement which might purport to establish in favour of their interests any general superiority of rights with respect to commercial or economic development in any designated region of China;

(b) any such monopoly or preference as would deprive the nationals of any other Power of the right of undertaking any legitimate trade or industry in China, or of participating with the Chinese Government, or with any local authority, in any category of public enterprise, or which by reason of its scope, duration or geographical extent is calculated to frustrate the practical application of the principle of equal opportunity.

It is understood that the foregoing stipulations of this Article are not to be so construed as to prohibit the acquisition of such properties or rights as may be necessary to the conduct of a particular commercial, industrial, or financial undertaking or to the encouragement of invention and research.

China undertakes to be guided by the principles stated in the foregoing stipulations of this Article in dealing with applications for economic rights and privileges from Governments and nationals of all foreign countries, whether parties to the present Treaty or not.

ARTICLE IV

The Contracting Powers agree not to support any agreements by their respective nationals with each other designed to create Spheres of Influence or to provide for the enjoyment of mutually exclusive opportunities in designated parts of Chinese territory.

ARTICLE V

China agrees that, throughout the whole of the railways in China, she will not exercise or permit unfair ,discrimination of any kind. In particular there shall be no discrimination whatever, direct or indirect, in respect of charges or of facilities on the ground of the nationality of passengers or the countries from which or to which they are proceeding, or the origin or ownership of goods or the country from which or to which they are consigned, or the nationality or ownership of the ship or other means of conveying such passengers or goods before or after their transport on the Chinese Railways.

The Contracting Powers, other than China, assume a corresponding obligation in respect of any of the aforesaid railways over which they or their nationals are in a position to exercise any control in virtue of any concession, special agreement or otherwise.

ARTICLE VI

The Contracting Powers, other than China, agree fully to respect China's rights as a neutral in time of war to which China is not a party; and China declares that when she is a neutral she will observe the obligations of neutrality.

ARTICLE VII

The Contracting Powers agree that, whenever a situation arises which in the opinion of any one of them involves the application of the stipulations of the present Treaty, and renders desirable discussion of such application, there shall be full and frank communication between the Contracting Powers concerned.

ARTICLE VIII

Powers not signatory to the present Treaty, which have Governments recognized by the Signatory Powers and which have treaty relations with China, shall be invited to adhere to the present Treaty. To this end the Government of the United States will make the necessary communications to nonsignatory Powers and will inform the Contracting Powers of the replies received. Adherence by any Power shall become effective on receipt of notice thereof by the Government of the United States.

ARTICLE IX

The present Treaty shall be ratified by the Contracting Powers in accordance with their respective constitutional methods and shall take effect on the date of the deposit of all the ratificationsn which shall take place at Washington as soon as possible. The Government of the United States will transmit to the other Contracting Powers a certified copy of the procès-verbal of the deposit of ratifications.

The present Treaty of which the French and English texts are both authentic, shall remain deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States, and duly certified copies thereof shall be transmitted by that Government to the other Contracting Powers.

IN FAITH WHEREOF the above-named Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty.

DONE at the City of Washington the Sixth day of February One Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty-Two.

The treaty had no enforcement provisions and would be violated by Japan in 1931.

These treaties can, of course, be run down, but they were made with the knowledge of the time and in a spirit of trying to prevent a Second World War.  That they did fail cannot, all in all, be regarded too severely.  These treaties sought to address what they could, but they couldn't really address the collapse of the old order and the rise of political extremism in its wake.

The College of Cardinals elected the Archbishop of Milan Achille Rattie as Pope.  He would take the name Pius XI.


Pope Pius XI would serve until 1939 and would therefore be on Peter's Chair during the agonizing Great Depression and the coincident rise of fascism and communism.

The headlines also featured the murder of movie director William Taylor, an Anglo-Irish Hollywood figure.  His murder would never actually be solved.

The Soviets dissolved the Cheka and replaced it with the supposedly less murderous GPU.  It was subject to the NKVD, and in a year would simply be replaced by it.

Ojibwe figure John Smith died.


He was a celebrated figure at the time of his death due to his old age, something his appearnce amplified.  He was probably between 96 and 100 years old, but his date of birth was not surprisingly not know,  and there are claims for him being as old as 140 years of age at the time of his death.  Even by his own recollections, however, his age would not have been that ancient.

As is often the case, what we might imagine about 19th and early 20th Century Native American figures is inaccurate.  Mr. Smith was old, but probably not as old as imagined, and he was a Catholic, making him a co-religious of such famous Native figures as Red Cloud and Black Elk.

Monday, January 17, 2022

Tuesday, January 18, 1922. The Lost Treaties.

"[D]elegation of Native American men from California representing 300 tribes and bands of Californian Indians assembled to petition Congress to honor the Lost Treaties of 1851 and 1852"

The men were seeking to have Congress honor 18 treaties signed in that time frame in California that provided reservations for various Californian Native American bands. Under pressure from California, the treaties had been kept secret and dishonored.


Congress' power in this area is nearly absolute, creating a completely now irreconcilable situation.



 

Saturday, November 27, 2021

Today In Wyoming's History: Wyoming has 43 federal places with 'squaw' in the name. A recent order will change that. Taking a closer look.

Today In Wyoming's History: Today In Wyoming's History: Wyoming has 43 federal...

Today In Wyoming's History: Wyoming has 43 federal places with 'squaw' in the name. A recent order will change that. Taking a closer look.

Arapaho woman (Hisei), late 19th Century.

Today In Wyoming's History: Wyoming has 43 federal places with 'squaw' in the ...:   Wyoming has 43 federal places with 'squaw' in the name. A recent order will change that.

So, what are they?

Takluit woman, 1910.  The coins are Chinese.

First, a precautionary note. Even setting the word squaw aside, some of these could legitimately be regarded as otherwise offensive.  I.e., if you edit "squaw" out and substitute for Indian Woman, or Native American Woman, some would still be offensive.

Hopi woman, 1900.


Okay, according to the Federal Government, this is the list in Wyoming.



I'll note right away that I know this list to be inaccurate at least in so far as what things are apparently actually called, as the clearly offensive "Squaw Teat" actually also applies to a peak, or high hill, in Natrona County.

Mohave woman, 1903.

And the last item, in case anyone wonders, is listed there as it was renamed recently from a name that formerly included the word squaw in it.

And we'd also note that one is a historical place name of a now abandoned settlement.  You probably can't, or at least shouldn't, do something in regard to that.

So let's next start first with the ultimate question  Is it offensive?

Native American woman in Oklahoma, 1939.

Let's take a look at an article recently published in Indian Country Today on that question, here's what they partially had to say on that.  For the full article, you should go to Indian Country Today.

Some historical connections

According to Dr. Marge Bruchac, an Abenaki historical consultant, Squaw means the totality of being female and the Algonquin version of the word “esqua,” “squa” “skwa” does not translate to a woman’s female anatomy. 

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines the term as “often offensive: an American Indian woman” and “usually disparaging: woman, wife.”

The Urban Dictionary paints a different picture. It says the word squaw “Does not mean vagina, or any other body part for that matter. The word comes from the Massachusett (no S) Algonquian tribe and means: female, young woman. The word squaw is not related to the Mohawk word ‘ojiskwa’: which does mean vagina. There is absolutely no derogatory meaning in the word ‘squaw.’ ‘Squaw’ has been a familiar word in American literature and language since the 16th century and has been generally understood to mean an Indian woman, or wife.” It is worth noting the Urban Dictionary is not an authoritative Native source.

In her article “Reclaiming the word ‘Squaw’ in the Name of the Ancestors,” Dr. Bruchac wrote the following excerpt about the meaning of squaw.

“The word has been interpreted by modern activists as a slanderous assault against Native American women. But traditional Algonkian speakers, in both Indian and English, still say words like ‘nidobaskwa’=a female friend, ‘manigebeskwa’=woman of the woods, or ‘Squaw Sachem’=female chief. When Abenaki people sing the Birth Song, they address ‘nuncksquassis’=‘little woman baby’.”

“I understand the concern of Indian women who feel insulted by this word, but I respectfully suggest that we reclaim our language rather than let it be taken over,” wrote Bruchac.

The first recorded version of squaw was found in a book called Mourt’s Relation: A Journey of the Pilgrims at Plymouth written in 1622. The term was not used in a derogatory fashion but spoke of the “squa sachim or Massachusets Queen” in the September 20, 1621 journal entry.

Though the earliest historical references support a non-offensive slant on the meaning of squaw and support Bruchac’s claims, there are also several literary and historical instances of squaw being used in a derogatory or sexually connotative way.

According to some proponents on the inflammatory side of the words meaning, squaw could just as easily have come from the Mohawk word ojiskwa’ which translates politely to vagina.

In the 1892 book An Algonquin Maiden by Canadian writer Pauline Johnson, whose father was a Mohawk Chief, the word squaw indicates a sexual meaning.

“Poor little Wanda! not only is she non-descript and ill-starred, but as usual the authors take away her love, her life, and last and most terrible of all, reputation; for they permit a crowd of men-friends of the hero to call her a ‘squaw’ and neither hero nor authors deny that she is a squaw. It is almost too sad when so much prejudice exists against the Indians, that any one should write up an Indian heroine with such glaring accusations against her virtue…”



So, what can we say?

Well, not knowing for sure, as I'm certainly not a linguist with a knowledge of any of these languages, and it's clear that linguist don't agree themselves, I suspect that Dr. Burchac is correct. The origin is likely from a native language and unlikely to have had an offensive origin.




But that doesn't really fully answer the question, and it's a really touchy one, which I'd bet Dr. Burchac will acknowledge.

At its bare root, the word means an Indian, or perhaps more accurately now, a Native American, woman, the same way that "papoose" has been used in the past to describe a Native American baby, and "brave" has inaccurately been used to describe all Native American men (although also the much more offensive "buck" also shows up in that use).  Simply left at that, it's probably no more offensive than the word "Frau" and "Fräulein" are to describe German women, or Madam and Mademoiselle, or Señora and Señorita are in French and Spanish respectively.

Two Charger Woman, a Brule Sioux, 1907.

Indeed, in a certain context, maybe even less so, as it at least is an acknowledgement to culture.  And that sort of seems how the original use was.  The 1622 use is not only amazingly early, it was an attempt at being descriptive and providing an honorific, the "Massachusetts Queen".  In that context, the early use of the work seems to have conveyed gender and ethnicity at the same time.

Woman Of Many Deeds, the granddaughter of Red Cloud, 1907.  Note the crucifix, she was Catholic, as the Red Could family was.

It's later uses that become the problem.  And that takes us quite a ways back in and of itself.

European colonization of the New World can really be viewed as colonization by three different ethnic groups for the most part, two Catholic and one Protestant.*  While early on the original European view seems to have been largely similar among all three groups, by the mid 1600s this was changing.  It would not be fair, we'd note, to really lump this into two groups, as it wouldn't be fair to compare the Spanish with the French.  And from the lens of 2021 looking at things that occurred in 1621 is fraught with dangers inherent in misconceptions and filtration through current views.

Dusty Dress, 1910.

Very generally, however, English colonists had a fascination with Native Americans when they first landed in North America, and were pretty open to the native cultures.  French colonization started at just about the same time as the English, for all practical purposes, and the French had a highly open view of the Native populations.  The Spanish started almost 3/4s of a century earlier, and their early interactions are considerably more complicated.  All three populations were not averse to mixing with Native populations at first, with the French and Spanish being very open to it, particularly in the case of the French whose Catholic faith had instructed them that the Natives were just as much children of God as they were.  This was also true of the Spanish, but the Spanish had met with considerably more armed resistance even by the 17th Century than either the English or the French had.

Papago woman, 1907.

Things really began to fall apart, however, for the English with King Philips War, which broke out in 1675 and ran through 1678.  Hard and brutally fought, the English began to pretty quickly modify their view of Native Americans in general. While, from our prospective, the war was a cleverly fought and logical Native reaction to an invasion, from the English prospective of the period it was a bitter betrayal by a heathenous people.

Lucy  Coyote

From that point on the English, and soon we might say the American, view of Native Americans was much different than the French or the Spanish one.  The French had their run-ins with native bands, but having colonized New France to a much smaller degree, they also tended to engage the Natives in commerce really quickly and their Catholicism caused them to regard the Natives in their region as souls to be brought into the Church, with intermarriage soon to be common.  The Spanish largely took the same view, although in their case they also ran into some large, and well organized, bands that put up fierce resistance to their presence, giving them, as previously noted, a more nuanced view. Nonetheless, the view of Spanish colonists is perhaps best reflected in that the populations of much of South and Central America today are from mixed Spanish and Native heritage.  In what became Canada it gave rise ultimately to the Métis, a recognized "native", but in fact mixed heritage, group of people with their own unique history.



In the Thirteen Colonies it gave rise to pretty bitter struggles which merged into bitter American ones with native bands once the Crown was ejected from what became the United States.  The intent here isn't to give a legal or military history of the events, but to only note it in the context of what's being discussed.

Alice Pat-E-Wa, 1900.

Humans being human, the ethnic struggle did not prove to be a bar to intermixing. This occurred simply naturally, and violently.  And this resulted in an interesting and opposing set of views.

"The Trapper's Bride" by Alfred Jacob Miller.  Miller painted versions of this scense at least three times, probably by request.

On the frontier, which was male dominated, frontiersmen fairly routinely began to take Native American wives.  For those of French origin this was highly common, but it was quite common for those of English heritage, or "American" heritage as well. At the same time, however, Native Americans were a looked down upon minority class who were in the way of what was regarded as progress, even though they were simultaneously celebrated as "noble savages".  Reconciling these views is difficult to do, but they were held be Americans simultaneously.  

Annie Kash-Kash, 1899.

What we can say, however, is that these relationships were likely as varied as any other, but we shouldn't presume by any means that they were forced.  In some instances, they likely were, or were relationships darned near akin to slavery.  An earlier article on Sacajawea we published here discussed a circumstance that certainly raises such questions.  At the same time, however. you can find such as Wyoming frontiersman John Robinson who married Native women twice and genuinely.  Famed scout Kit Carson had more than one Native bride.  And an extended view may be given of a Swiss artists, whose name I have forgotten, who went West to sketch Plains Indians and returned to Switzerland with a Native bride, an illustration of whom shows upon the book Man Made Mobile.

An historically important example is given in the example of William Bent and Owl Woman, the latter of whom was a Cheyenne.  Bent, who together with his brother Charles, were very successful traders in Colorado and New Mexico ultimately ended up with three Cheyenne wives, as he followed a Cheyenne custom and married Owl Woman's two younger sisters.  Charles became Governor of New Mexico.  William Bent and Owl Woman had a large, and historically significant family, although she died when some of their children were still quite young and her sister Island became their surrogate mother.  His two Cheyenne wives ultimately abandoned him, and then he married a "mixed" Indian/European woman of age 20, when he was 60, dying the following year.

George Bent and his wife Magpie.  Bent served as an underaged cavalryman in the Confederate Army before he was captured and paroled.  Upon his return to Colorado his father sent him to live with his aunt with the Cheyenne and he was at Sand Creek when it was attacked by Colorado militia.  Ironically, a brother of his was serving with the militia as a scout.  Bent was married three times, with all of his wives being Native Americans.

All of this is noted as William Bent's marriage into a Cheyenne family worked enormously to his advantage.  At the same time, his children lived in both worlds, taking part in the Plains struggle largely on the Cheyenne side.  George Bent contributed to one of the great accounts of the period.  William Bent's marriage into a Native family was not held against him.


Native woman from Pacific Northwest.

These matches show how complicated such things can become in some ways, and how simple in others.  They were mostly men taking Native women as brides, but there are few examples at least that are the other way around.    Nonetheless, at the same time, European Americans could dismiss Native brides pretty condescendingly as well as their husbands, who ended up with the pejorative "Squaw Men".


This, then is what gives rise to the problem.  By the late 19th Century if not considerably earlier, the use of the word "squaw" could mean simply a woman of Native ethnicity, or it could be a slam on the woman herself and her entire ethnicity.  And of course, for most Native women the word was not one from their own languages and therefore only had the meanings that others from the outside attributed to it.

Cheyenne woman, 1910.

That legacy has continued on, although the word simply isn't used now, at least not without intending to convey a shocking insult.

Be that as it may, that leaves us with the over 40 place names that bear that name in Wyoming and numerous others in other states. What did those people mean?  At the time they named them, they may have simply been so acclimated to the term that they meant nothing in particular. "Squaw Creek", for example, displays an obvious intent to name a creek after an Indian woman or women, but why?  Most of the others are the same way. The odd exception may be the ones named after breasts, but then the Grand Tetons are as well, and it isn't really clear whether we should regard the nameless French trapper who termed them that as of a higher mind, for naming the mountains after breasts in general, rather than after those for women who happened to be around, or whether we ought to simply dismiss all such names as of an excessively prurient nature, which would probably be more accurate, really.


Cayuse woman, 1910.

So what to do?

Well, whatever is done, I hope they don't scrub the women out of the names.  Squaw Creeks, for example, were named after Native women for some reason. That ought to be preserved.


And beyond that, there's a terrible tendency to treat these matters, which are cosmetic, as if they really pay attention to deeper problems that face Native Americans today.  Far too often those who seek to "help" Native Americans imagine them as a people of the past, when in fact they're very much a people of the present.  Ignoring that fact does no good for them at all.

Footnotes:

*This obviously omits the Russians, who were the original colonizers of Alaska and who had a settlement as far south as California, and it unfairly lumps the English and Scottish together, even though they are seperate people and that reflected itself in early immigration to North America.

Saturday, September 25, 2021

23,000 year old human footprints found in New Mexico.

And that's a big deal.

It's a big deal, as it pushes the human presence in North America way back beyond what had been previously suspected in a spectacular example of Holscher's First Law of History.

And if humans were in New Mexico 23,000 years ago, so far back that the Ice Age land bridge isn't a very good explanation for how humans got here from Asia, it means they arrived at least some time prior to that. After all, you can't walk from Point Barrow to New Mexico in a day.