August 22, 1996
Ongoing late 20th Century colonization of America demands that thousands of times each year non-Indians honor their own by naming local landmarks after individuals who've hopefully left at least some token legacy of benevolence or leadership to the locale during their lifetime. Just about everyone of import in the non-Indian world has been honored by having his or her name affixed to some bridge, mountain, stream, crossing, rock, walkway, skyway, expressway or what have you.
Sometimes the connection between the honoree and the particular geographical site so-named is a bit thin, to say the least. I think Indians quietly wonder about the reasoning of non-Indian government officials who continually name local sites after Anglos, basically ignoring that the Indians have recognized sites with tribal words frequently dating back to ancient times. An example of this Indian concern over the naming (or Anglo re-naming) phenomenon was captured in a recently overheard conversation between two Indians. The two were on a jaunt along a county road when they came upon a newly dedicated sign. First Indian: "Says here the Chester M. Snavely Memorial Walkway. Who was he?" Second Indian: "He was an undertaker." First Indian: "Did he ever help bury anyone in your family?" Second Indian: "No, he was actually a funeral director in a Philadelphia suburb in the 1890s." First Indian: "Did the Indians there respect his work?"
I really should qualify some of the thrust of this column by stating
that there are Indian names retained by many sites. After all, many states
have Indian names (Oklahoma means "Red Man" in Choctaw), cities (Chicago,
Minneapolis, etc.) also come to mind. In northern California we have a
few vague, or nondescript names of sites, including "Squaw Rock" in Mendocino
county and "Pomo Crossing," just north of Ukiah. I think that where necessary,
it is appropriate to drop the demeaning names (e.g.,Squaw).