Leaving the legal world for a moment, we offer a link to a very strange defense of the use of the word “squaw” by the Oxford Etymologist Anatoly Liberman (here). We could be wrong, but this article seems to be a classic case of an academic wearing blinders, or worse, an etymological ideologue.

In short, Liberman concludes that the etymology of “squaw” is that the word simply means “woman,” and so therefore cannot possibly be an epithet. He mocks advocates for changing place names to eliminate the use of the word.

There are several problems in the argument, especially the tone of Liberman’s writing (just read the article — the part about squirrels is baffling), but we’ll focus on just the most obvious problems.

First, the Oxford Etymologist’s etymology is incredibly superficial, and downright ethnocentric.

We’d like to see an indigenous etymology of this word, which is undeniably an epithet no matter the so-called “science” behind it. Assuming the scholars upon which Liberman relies are correct (and we have no reason to doubt it) and “squaw” derives from an eastern Algonkian language, then merely concluding the word means “woman” is nowhere near conclusive. It is our understanding that the vast majority of words in Anishinaabemowin, the language of many Michigan Indians and an Algonkian language, are verbs. What this means is perhaps the Massachusett word from which “squaw” derives is actually a verb. So-called nouns in many Indian languages are actually verbs, so that the word that non-Indians say means “woman” very possibly means something along the lines of “person who does something.” And likely that “something” will let us know if the word is intended as a respectful word, or not. We don’t see from the sources available online (e.g., here) a serious attempt to provide a proper etymology of the word.

Regardless of the etymology, there is a second important reason to reject Liberman’s position.

Continue reading →