Monday, July 31, 1899. Homeward bound.

Today In Wyoming's History: July 31: 1899  The Wyoming Battalion, having been in the Philippines for exactly one year, embarked on the Grant at Manila and started their journey home. Attribution:  On This D

Last edition:

Saturday, July 29, 1899. The results of the Hague Convention.

Labels: 1890s, 1899, Diplomacy, Hague Convention, War

Today In Wyoming's History: Sidebar: Confusing fiction for fact

Today In Wyoming's History: Sidebar: Confusing fiction for fact: 

Sidebar: Confusing fiction for fact

One of the things that's aggravating for students of history is the way that popular portrayals botch the depiction of the topic of their interest or interests.  Sometimes this is mildly irritating, and sometimes colossally aggravating.  This is just part of the nature of things, which doesn't make it any less aggravating, and this is just as true of Wyoming history and the depictions of Wyoming and its citizens as it is with any other topic.  I suspect that the residents or students of any one area could say the same thing.

Before I go further with this, however, I should also note that this blog is very far from perfect, and I don't mean to suggest otherwise. As a daily catalog of Wyoming's history it's doing okay, but even at that, it isn't anywhere near as complete as it should be, and with certain big events in Wyoming's history its grossly incomplete.  A blog of this type should allow a person to follow a developing story as it plays out, and so far, for the most part, this one doesn't do that, that well, yet.  It certainly isn't up to the same standard that the World War Two Day By Day Blog was before it sadly, and mysteriously, terminated on September 24, 2012.  It'll hopefully get better with time, and it's doing okay now, but it is an amateur effort done with very limited time, so it isn't as complete as it should be yet.  We can hope for better in the future, of course, and it is better this year as compared to last.  We can also hope that it gets more comments in the future, which would assist with making it more complete.

Anyhow, while noting that, it's still the case that there are a lot of aggravating errors and depictions out there.  Maybe this blog can correct a few of them, although with its low readership, that's pretty doubtful.  And people cherish myths, so that operates against this as well.

What motivated this is that I was doing a net search for an update of a recent entry here and hit, through the oddity of Google, a website devoted to the movie Brokeback Mountain, which I have not seen.  I'm surprised that there's a fan website devoted to the movie, which of course I have not seen, as I'm surprised by any fan movie site.  A movie has to be of massive greatness, in my view, before I can imagine anyone devoting a blog to it.  Say, Lawrence of Arabia, or a movie of equal greatness. There probably aren't a dozen movies that are that good.  

Anyhow, if a person wants to devote a blog to a movie they really like, but isn't one of the greatest movies of all time, that's their business, but there is a difference between fact and fiction. And the reason I note the site noted is that there's a page on the site the one I hit debating the location of the Brokeback Mountain. The blogger thought it was in one place, but cited author Larry McMurtry for another location.

Well, McMurtry notwithstanding, there is no Brokeback Mountain. The book and movie are fiction.  It makes no more sense to say that some mountain is Brokeback Mountain than it does to say that the Grand Tetons are Spencer's Mountain, unless the point was intended to be that some backdrop for a film was a certain identified location.  If that's the case, i.e., identifying an actual location, I get it, but that's not what they seemed to be debating.  I don't think the film was actually filmed in Wyoming, although I could be mistaken and perhaps some background scenes were (although I don't think so).  Of course, if I am in error, I'm in error, in which case they're trying to identify a location they saw in the film, and I'm off base.

Along these same lines, when the film Unforgiven came out, I went to see it.  The movie was getting a lot of press at the time, and it was hailed as great.  It isn't.  It's not really that good of a film frankly, and I didn't think it was at the time.  I think it was hailed as great as a major Western hadn't been released in quite some time, and it starred Clint Eastwood.  Eastwood has been in some fine movies to be sure, but he's been in some doggy Westerns also, and this one, while not a dog, wasn't great.

At any rate, while watching that film, I recall a young woman asked her date, several rows in front of me, where the town the film depicts, Big Whiskey, Wyoming, was located.  I thought surely he'd say "there isn't one," but, dutifully he identified its location, essentially morphing Whiskey Mountain, a mountain, into the fictional town.  Whiskey Mountain is a real place, but Big Whiskey, the town, is a complete fiction.  It doesn't even sound like the name of a 19th Century Wyoming town.  I don't know of any Wyoming town named after an alcoholic beverage, or even a beverage of any kind.  For that matter, I don't know of any named for anything edible or potable, save for Chugwater.  In the 19th Century, the founders of towns like to name towns after soldiers if they could, which gives us Casper, Sheridan, Rawlins, Lander and probably other locations.  

While on the topic of fictional towns, there's the fictional characters in them.  Big Whiskey, in the film, was ruled over by a well dressed tyrannical sheriff and a well dressed tyrannical Englishman, if I recall correctly.  Tyrannical sheriffs are popular figures in Western movies, and in recent years they're well dressed tyrants.  In quite a few films the tyrannical sheriff is the ally of a tyrannical (probably English) big rancher.

In actuality, sheriffs all stood for election in those days, just as now.  They often had a really rough idea of what law enforcement entailed, but they did not tend to be tyrannical.  They tended to be grossly overworked, covering huge expanses of territory.  They also probably didn't tend to be snappy dressers.  While some of them had been on both sides of the law, quite a few were Frontier types that fell into the job for one reason or another, like Johnson County's "Red" Angus or Park County's Jeremiah Johnson (the famed mountain man).  Sheriff's of that era tended to spend days and in the saddle without the assistance of anyone and often tended to resort to gun play, which average people did as well, but they did not tend to be agents of repression.  If they were, they would loose office pretty quickly.  Probably one of the better depictions of a Frontier lawman is the recent depiction of Marshall Cogburn in the Cohen Brothers version of True Grit.

The tyrannical local big rancher thing is way overdone as well.  The reason that there was a Johnson County War is that the old big landed interests were loosing control so rapidly, not because they were retaining it.  Films like Open Range, or Return to Lonesome Dove, which depict people straying into controlled territory are simply wrong.  The cattle war was more characterized by an ongoing struggle than Medieval fiefdoms.  There were some English and Scottish ranchers as well, but there were big interests that weren't either.  And the both sides in those struggles formed interests groups that involved lots of people, rather than one big entity against the little people, contrary to the image presented in Shane and so many other films.

As part of that, one thing that these period films never seem to get correct is that the West was a territory of vigorous democracy.  Yes, in Wyoming large cattle interests tried to squash the small ones in Johnson and Natrona Counties through a shocking armed invasion, but they also had to content with the ballot box. When things went badly for them in the Invasion, the legislature briefly turned Democratic and Populist.  Newspapers were political arms in those days as well, and they were often exceeding vocal in their opinions.  Their opinions could sometimes be shouted down, or crowded out, but the concept that some English Duke would rule over a vast swatch of territory unopposed is simply incorrect.  More likely his domain would be subject to constant carving up and the sheriff was less than likely to be in his pocket.

While on the topic of films, the way that characters are depicted, visually, is very often incorrect.  In terms of Westerns, to a large extent, films of the 30s and 40s depicted characters the way that film makers wanted them to look, films of the 50s the way that people thought the viewers wanted them to look, films of the 60s reflected the style of day, and so on.  It wasn't until the 1980s, with Lonesome Dove, that a serious effort was made to portray 19th Century Western figures the way they actually looked, with a few really rare exceptions.  Shane, which I otherwise do not like, did accurately portray the visual look of a couple of characters, the best example being the gun man portrayed by Jack Palance. Why they got that one correct, for the region, and few else, is a mystery.  The older film Will Penny did a good job in these regards.  The Culpepper Cattle Company is very well done..  In recent films, the film Tombstone was very accurate in terms of costume for the region it was set in, so much so that it received criticism for the odd dress styles it depicted, even though they were period and location correct.  Modern Westerns tend to botch this if set in Wyoming or the Northern Plains, and are almost never correct in these regards.

Hats get very odd treatment in this context.  From the 20s through the 30s, hats were fanciful in film, and didn't reflect what people actually wore.  In the 50s, the hats that were then in style were shown as being in style in the late 19th Century.  Only recently have historical films generally been correct, and they still hit and miss on films set in the present era.  A lot of movie makers can't tell the difference between Australian drover's hats and real cowboy hats, and would probably be stunned to find that a lot of cowboys look like they did over a century ago, to a large extent.

The expanse of territory is also routinely inaccurate in old and new depictions.  Film depictions of Wyoming either seem to think that Wyoming has the geographic expanse of Alaska or, alternatively, Rhode Island.  Distances seem to be rarely related to the period in which they are set, with some depictions set in the 19th Century seemingly thinking that a town was always nearby, while ones set now seemingly thinking there isn't one for a thousand miles.  Expanses in Wyoming are vast, but the state is not Alaska.  Conversely, ranch and farm geography isn't grasped at all, and frankly its forgotten by most Wyomingites, in a historic concept, now.  Up into the 1930s there were an increasing number of small homesteads, meaning the farm and ranch population, throughout the West, was much higher than it is now. 

Probably the single worst depiction of modern geography, geography in general and ranch geography, is the horribly bad film Bad Lands, a fictionalized account of a series of events that actually mostly took place in the Mid West but which ended in Wyoming, in reality.  In that film the teenage murderers are shown driving across the prairie and there's actually an absurd line about being able to see the lights of Cheyenne in the distance in one direction and some extremely far off feature to the north.  In reality, you can not drive a car, any car, across the prairie as the prairie is rough and cut with gullies, ravines, gopher holes, etc.  And there's a lot of barbed wire fences.  The thought, as the movie has it, of driving dozens and dozens of miles straight across the prairie is absurd.  Not quite as absurd as being able to see Cheyenne's lights from a safe vast distance away, however.  Cheyenne sits in a bit of a bowl in the prairie, and if you see its lights, you are pretty close, and if you are driving across the prairie, pretty soon you're going to be entering some ranch yard or F. E. Warren Air Force Base.

One of the best depictions of geography, however, comes in McMurtry's Lonesome Dove, which does get it basically correct, and which the film gets basically correct.  In the film, the cattle are driven across arid eastern Wyoming, which is actually correctly depicted as arid.  Film makers like to show Wyoming as being Jackson's Hole.  Jackson's Hole is Jackson's Hole, and while it is very beautiful, and in Wyoming, it's darned near in Idaho and most of the state doesn't look like that.

On the topic of land, a really goofball idea depicted in many, many, current depictions of Wyoming and Montana is that you can go there and buy a ranch. No, you cannot.  Well, if you have a huge amount of money you can, but otherwise, you are not going to.  In spite of this, films all the time have the idea that people will just go there and buy a ranch.  One episode of Army Wives, for example, had an episode where a Specialist E4 was going to leave the Army and buy a ranch.  Baloney.  Buying any amount of agricultural land actually sufficient to make a living on in the United States is extremely expensive, and you aren't going to do it on Army enlisted pay.  Specialist E4 pay wouldn't buy a house in a lot of Wyoming.  Part of this delusion is based on the fact that in Western conditions the amount of land needed to make a living on is quite large and Eastern standards, which most people have in mind, bear no relationship to this in the West.  Out of state advertisers sometimes take advantage of this ignorance by suggesting that people can buy a "ranch" in some area of Wyoming, by which they mean something like 20 to 40 acres.  That isn't a ranch in the working sense of the words by any means in that there's no earthly way a person could make a living ranching it ,or farming it, or even come anywhere close to making a fraction of a living wage.  I've run into, however, people on odd occasion who live very far from here but believe that they own a ranch, as they bought something of this type site unseen.  In one such instance a person seriously thought he would bring 100 cattle into a small acreage that was dry, and wouldn't even support one.  This, I guess, is an example of where a mis-impression can actually be dangerous to somebody.

On ranching, another common depiction is that it seems to be devoid of work.  People are ranchers, but they seem to have self feeding, self administering, cattle, if a modern ranch is depicted.  Ranching is actually very hard work and a person has to know what they are doing.  Even if a person could purchase all the ranch land and all the cattle they needed to start a ranch (ie., they were super wealthy), unless they had a degree in agriculture and had been exposed to it locally, or they had grown up doing it and therefore had the functional equivalent of a doctorate in agriculture, they'd fail.  This, in fact, is also the case with 19th Century and early 20th Century homesteads, the overwhelming majority of which failed.  People who had agricultural knowledge from further East couldn't apply all of it here, and often had to pull up stakes and move on.  And, often missed, it took a lot of stuff to get started.  One account of a successful Wyoming 19th Century start up homestead I read related how the homesteader had served in Wyoming in the Army for years, specifically saving up his NCO pay and buying equipment years before he filed his homestead, and he still spent a year back east presumably working before he came back and filed.  J. B. Okie, a huge success in the Wyoming sheep industry, worked briefly as a sheepherder, in spite of being vastly wealthy, prior to coming out well funded to start up.  Many of the most successful homesteaders, but certainly not all, had prior exposure to sheep or cattle prior to trying to file a homestead.

On erroneous depictions, one particularly aggravating one is when films attempt to depict what they think the regional accent is.  There is a bit of a regional speech pattern, i.e, an accent, but it's so rarely done accurately that it shouldn't be tried.  For the most part, native Wyomingites have the standard American Mid Western accent, but they tend to mumble it a bit.  That sounds insulting, but it isn't meant to be, and Wyomingites are so attuned to it, as are rural Coloradans and Montanans, that they generally cannot perceive it.  I'm from here, and no doubt I exhibit that accent.  Most people don't recognize an accent at all, and it takes a pretty attuned ear to be able to place it, although some people very definitely can.  I can recall my father having told me of that having occurred to him on a train in the 50s, and I've had it happen once in the 1980s.  In my father's case, the commenter noted that he must be from one of the Rocky Mountain states.  In mine, I was specifically asked by a fellow who had worked for the Park Service for decades if I was from the West Slope of Colorado, as many park rangers were and I had the same accent.  Most Wyomingites, at some point, probably get a puzzled question from somebody about where they are from that's accent based, but the questioner never reveals that.  It's a regional accent, so the best a person can do is tell that you are from rural Colorado, Wyoming, or Montana if they know what the accent entails, or that there even is one.  Film makers, who must be aware that there is an accent, occasionally try to insert one in a modern Western, but when they try it they present a bizarre laughable accent that doesn't occur anywhere on the planet.  Years ago, for example, there were advertisements on television here for the Laramie Project, which is another film I haven't seen, and which I couldn't have watched due to the horribly bad efforts an accent that the filmmakers were attempting. We do not drawl.  We speak more like Tom Brokaw, but perhaps with a bit of mumbling that we don't recognize as mumbling. 

I've read that Irishmen find American attempts at an Irish accent hilarious.  Some English attempts at an American Mid Western accent are really bad.  Our accent here is fairly rare, and there's no way that they're going to get it right, and they ought not try.  By not trying, they're closer to the mark.

Today In Wyoming's History: The grave of Alvah H. Unthank

Today In Wyoming's History: The grave of Alvah H. Unthank: 

The grave of Alvah H. Unthank

Alvah H. Unthank was a 19-year-old pioneer travelling the Oregon who died of Cholera at a spot near the Dave Johnson Power Plant outside Glendrock in July, 1850.  

One of many such tragic deaths on the trails.

 

Today In Wyoming's History: Updates for January through 2022

Today In Wyoming's History: Updates for January through 2022:   January 6, 1942.  President Roosevelt's State of the Union Address for 1942. January 6, 2022.  President Biden's address to the na...

Today In Wyoming's History: June 9, 2022. Mount Doane renamed First People's Mountain

Today In Wyoming's History: June 9: 2022  The US Board on Geographic names has announced that Mount Doane in Yellowstone National Park is being renamed First People's Mountain.

Gustavus Doane was an Army officer and the peak was named for him during his lifetime.  He is associated with the Marius Massacre where he was an officer, and Native American groups have accordingly been seeking a change in the mountain's name since at least 2018

Saturday, May 23, 1942. Site for Heart Mountain Internment Camp chosen.

Today In Wyoming's History: May 23:  1942   Site for Heart Mountain, Wyoming, Internment camp selected.

Friday, May 22, 1942. Selective Service Registration reaches down to 18.

Today In Wyoming's History: May 22:

1942   President Roosevelt orders the Selective Service registration of all male Americans residents who reach the age of 18 or 19 before June 30th or has reached the age of 20 since December 31, 1941.

Friday, April 7, 1922. Founding of Parco, Wyoming.

1922  Ground broken for the town of Parco.  Parco still exists, but it is now known as Sinclair, and is the site of the Sinclair Refinery.  At the time of its founding, it was the location of a very nice hotel on the Lincoln Highway. The hotel's buildings still exist, but the hotel itself is long closed.  Attribution:  Wyoming State Historical Society.

Echos of Parco. Sinclair Wyoming.

Parco was a company town, as noted below, built by a refining company in 1924-25.  The luxury hotel  was built by the company on the then fairly new Lincoln Highway, and the town no doubt benefited as it was also a stop on the Union Pacific.  Only seven miles away from the larger and older town of Rawlins, the Interstate Highway bypasses it and its a remnant of its former self.

Not too many people stop at Sinclair who are just passing through.  But at one time that wasn't true.  And that's why the town has what was once a luxury hotel (now a Baptist church), a spacious park, really nice tennis courts, and the like.  Only the sign on the hotel remains, as well as a historical monument, to remind us that Sinclair is the town's second name.  It was originally Parco, a company town founded by the founder of what is now the Sinclair Refinery, the Producers & Refiners Corporation.

Also in Wyoming on this day:

1922 U.S. Secretary of Interior leased Naval Reserve #3, "Teapot Dome," in Wyoming to Harry F. Sinclair.

Quite a day for things Sinclair.

On the same day, the first midair collision between an airliner and another airplane occurred when a Grand Aeriens Farman F.60 hit a Daimler Airway de Havilland DH.18. The latter airplane was carrying mail.  All the occupants of both airplanes, seven people, were killed in the collision.  The tragic event took place over Picardie, France.

Cherry blossoms were in bloom in Washington D. C.

Lt. Mina C. Van Winkle, Director of the Women's Bureau of the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, was on trial for refusing to turn two girls over to two men purporting to be their father's. The panel was a police review board, and the charger was insubordination. As such things will do, the event brought attention to the fate of female runaways.

Of some slight interest, police dress uniforms of the era remained very much like the Civil War era Union Army uniform from which they were drawn.

Ms. Van Winkle would pass away in 1933 at age 57.

March 1, 1872. Congress authorizes the creation of Yellowstone National Park.

Today In Wyoming's History: March 1: 1872

1872 Congress authorized creation of Yellowstone National Park.

Wednesday, January 28, 1942. Comings and Goings.

"One of our Filipino boys, injured in the fighting on Bataan, January 28, 1942, being brought back to a first aid station by his comrades. Longoskawayan Point, West Coast."

On this day in 1942, the Germans and Italians retook Benghazi.

The Ninth Pan American Conference adjourned. Twenty-one nations agreed to sever relationship with the Axis powers as a result of it, although quite a few already had.  Brazil and Paraguay did that day.

From Sarah Sundin's Today In World War Two History blog, we learn the following:

January 28, 1942: 80 Years Ago—Jan. 28, 1942: US Navy PBO Hudson pilot claims to sink a U-boat off Newfoundland and radios “Sighted sub, sank same,” but no U-boat was sunk, an honest error. US Eighth Air Force is activated in Savannah, GA, under Brig. Gen. Asa Duncan; originally intended for North Africa but will serve in Britain. US Naval Magazine at Port Chicago, CA, is established as a subcommand of Naval Ammunition Depot at Mare Island.

And from our  Today In Wyoming's History blog, we learn this:

Today In Wyoming's History: January 28: 1942   The USS Wyoming put in at Norfolk and began a series of gunnery training drills in Chesapeake Bay. Attribution:  On This Day.

Oakland Army Base, January 28, 1942.

Thursday January 26. The Joss House (Chinese house of worship) in Evanston burns down.

A cold snap hit Washington, D. C.

As noted for this day, among other things, on our companion blog This Day In Wyoming's History, a disaster struck in Evanston..

1922  On this day in 1926, the Joss House, a Chinese house of traditional worship, burned down in Evanston.

In spite of really pronounced discrimination against them, southeastern Wyoming retained a significant Chinese and Japanese population into the mid 20th Century, reflecting a population that had been brought into the region due to the construction of the Union Pacific Railroad.  Following World War Two the population largely dispersed and this is no longer true.

Pope Benedict XV was buried in St. Peter's Basilica on this day.

An anti lynching bill was passed in the House of Representatives, but it never came to a vote in the Senate.

A Blog Mirror Look Back. Today In Wyoming's History: Wyoming History in the Making: January 6, 2014, Liz Cheney drops out of U.S. Senate race.

Looking back seven years ago. . . 

Today In Wyoming's History: Wyoming History in the Making: January 6, 2014, L...: 

Wyoming History in the Making: January 6, 2014, Liz Cheney drops out of U.S. Senate race.

Liz Cheney dropped out of the primary campaign for the U.S. Senate citing a health concern within her family.  While some rumors indicate that one of her children has developed diabetes, always a serious disease and a particularly worrisome one in children, no official news has disclosed what that concern is.

Cheney, the daughter of former controversial Vice President Dick Cheney, mounted a controversial historic challenge of popular incumbent Mike Enzi.  Seeking to find a ground to stand against Enzi, she tacked to the right of Cheney in a campaign which drew a lot of attention, but at the time of her withdrawal was clearly failing.

While an internal party challenge to a sitting incumbent member of Congress from Wyoming isn't unusual, one that is such a serious effort is.  It is undoubtedly the most expensive such effort ever mounted in the state, and it started stunningly early.  While Cheney failed to gain enough adherents by this stage to make her primary election likely, she did polarize the GOP in the state, which seems to be emerging from a long period of internal unity, and which also seems to be beginning to move away from the Tea Party elements within it, much like the national party is. This could be the beginning of an interesting political era within the state or at least within the state's GOP.

It also served to bring up distinct arguments about who is entitled to run in Wyoming, with Liz Cheney's campaign apparently badly underestimating the degree of state identity born by many Wyomingites.  Voters appeared to not accept Cheney as a Wyomingite based upon her long absence from the state and appear to have also misinterpreted Wyoming's long re-election cycle for her father as a species of deep person admiration, rather than an admiration of effectiveness.  Late in the campaign she was forced to introduce television advertisements which did nothing other than to point out her family's connection (through her mother, her father was born in Nebraska and spent his early years there) to the state and which were silent on her career as a Virginia lawyer married to a man who is still a Virginia lawyer.

All in all, this early primary effort will likely remain a fairly unique historical episode in the state's history, but potentially one with some long term impacts.

We certainly couldn't have foreseen all that was coming, and where Cheney would emerge, let alone the contest that she's now in, both for her seat in this upcoming Primary Election, and well as the 2024 Presidential election.

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.