Officials have approved the removal of the derogatory term “squaw” from more than 30 geographic features and place names on California lands, according to an announcement Friday by the state Natural Resources Agency.
The action stems from a bill that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in 2022, and follows a similar move by the U.S. Department of the Interior, which said “the term has historically been used as an offensive ethnic, racial, and sexist slur, particularly for Indigenous women.”
The California law, Assembly Bill 2022, banned use of the word in future location names and ordered the resources agency to begin renaming all places that used the term, including streets, bridges, public buildings, forest fire fuel breaks and cemeteries.
Native Americans won state backing to ban a term used to denigrate Native women from geographic place names. Fresno County says the state should butt out.
For Deputy Secretary for Tribal Affairs at the Natural Resource Agency Geneva Thompson — the first official to hold the title and a member of the Cherokee Nation — it’s a meaningful step to heal centuries of harm the state has inflicted on Indigenous people.
“Acknowledging those historical wrongs that were committed against Native Americans is extremely important, but we need to take the next step toward healing,” Thompson said. “While there are differences among folks, we can build communities that reflect and honor and celebrate those differences instead of alienating and perpetuating historical wrongs.”
The renaming will occur in early 2025. It comes on the heels of an order from U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland to rename any geographic features or location names on federal lands that use the term, including dozens in California.
The California Advisory Committee on Geographic Names, which the California Natural Resources Agency oversees, scoured maps of California for any uses of the word under state jurisdiction, and the agency partnered with local governments and Native tribes to select new names.
In West Sacramento, a local public agency worked closely with the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation to rename two streets.
The new name for the streets, “Tebti,” is a word and blessing that translates to “the streams that flow together” — a reference to the Sacramento and American rivers, which join in West Sacramento.
One local official framed the new name as a “gift to the community,” Thompson said.
In at least one place with the offending name — the unincorporated town of Squaw Valley near Kings Canyon National Park — discussions about what the name should be have already grown heated.
“The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation has led the effort to change demeaning mascot imagery of Native people, and we support replacing derogatory names locally and across state lands,” said Anthony Roberts, tribal chairman of the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, in a statement announcing the name changes. “With continued consultation, tribes can lead initiatives to eliminate such words from California’s public places.”
Some scholars believe the now-offensive term originated from the Algonquin language, which was spoken by many tribes on the East Coast, and originally meant “woman,” but was later corrupted by European colonists.
“It’s a racial stereotype. At times, it can even be a way of exerting harm against an individual or a group of people,” said Thompson. “You see that play out in the history of the state of California. You see this term written in military generals’ journals as a way of othering Native women to justify violence that was committed against them.”
AB 2022 was brought to the floor by Assemblymember James Ramos (D-Highland), who became the state’s first Native American lawmaker in 2018.
The word “denigrates Native American women and dehumanizes them,” Ramos said in a statement announcing the name changes.
“I believe that dehumanization has contributed to the Murdered and Missing Indigenous People crisis that affects all of our people but that strikes women and girls in disproportionate numbers,” he said. “Not one of my colleagues in the legislature voted against the bill because so many recognize this word is not a place name that belongs in California.”
