A bill that would prohibit the Arizona Board on Geographic and Historic Names from naming any geographic feature, place of historical significance, or specified road using the derogatory term “sq***” has passed the Arizona Senate and is headed to the House.
“Words like this have no place in our language and on our state lands,” Sen. Victoria Steele said during the Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committee Hearing on Feb. 16.
“Our state lands are meant to be celebrated and enjoyed and shared,” Steele continued. “There is no need to use it in a way that would be considered offensive to Native women, hurtful to Indigenous people.”
The bill was introduced by Steele, a Tucson Democrat, and won approval from the full Senate on Feb. 24, the same day the U.S. Department of Interior announced their replacement names for the more than 660 geographic features with the derogatory term on federal land, 67 of which are in Arizona. The bill passed 26-2.
In many cases, people see the term to simply mean Native woman or Native wife, but within the Indigenous community and among Indigenous women it has a more negative and offensive meaning tied to it. Historically been used to sexualize Indigenous women because it refers to female genitalia.
“For centuries this term has been considered and used as an offensive ethnic or racial and sexist slur against Indigenous women,” Steele said in the committee hearing. “Indigenous women should be honored and held sacred, not the recipient of insults and slurs. Let’s begin by removing these hurtful terms.”
In response to Steele’s remarks in the committee, Sen. Rick Gray said when he initially saw the bill, he was confused because he’s only ever known about the term is “that’s a wife, and I don’t see anything negative in that.”
“We’ve had Sq*** Peak, and I don’t look at that as derogatory. If anything, it’s saying, here is a Native American wife and we name a peak after her,” Gray, a Republican from Sun City, said.
Steele said that the renaming of Piestewa Peak in 2008 is a more high-profile case that has occurred in the Valley, but it doesn’t surprise her that a lot of people don’t know the term is derogatory.
Steele said that although it may have been used to refer generally to a woman or wife, Europeans historically used it to sexualize Indigenous women — and that is how it is still perceived by Indigenous women.
“Our women were not valued and held sacred,” she said. “I’m literally shaking, I’m nervous inside because this is hard to talk about.” “It reminds me of this painful part of history and it’s hard to talk about,” Steele said.
“This word is received that way by Native women, and if you’ve never been a Native woman, you’ve probably never had occasion to even think about it. It is very hurtful.”
Steele’s bill, Senate Bill 1279, would require the Board on Geographic and Historic Names to identify any geographic features, places of historical significance, highways, parkways, historic roads or scenic roads that include the term and work to propose a name change that is culturally appropriate, according to provisions in the bill.
During the committee hearing for the bill, Ginger Sykes Torres, a Navajo woman, spoke in support of the bill, saying that it’s a step toward empowerment for all residents in the community.
“Being Native American in Arizona is not easy sometimes,” Torres said.
She recalled growing up in the Valley knowing that there was a peak bearing that hurtful name, and she knew exactly what that word meant.
“It is a derogatory word for Native women,” Torres said. “No one in this room would want ourselves, our mothers, and our daughters to be referred to by this word or by this meaning.”
When Piestewa Peak was renamed, Torres said the street leading up to the mountain still had the former name. She was always concerned driving along that street that her children would someday see the name and they’d ask what the term meant.
In 2021, the street was renamed.
The bill would allow the board to initiate proposals for changes in or additions to geographic or historic names in Arizona. That would include accepting name change proposals from people, groups, or agencies. The proposal and supporting information must be submitted to the board for evaluation and recommendation.
Two Republican senators voted against the bill on the Senate floor: Nancy Barto and Warren Petersen. Barto told the Arizona Mirror that she didn’t see any point in changing names of places or geographic features, even if they are slurs.
“The work of righting injustices isn’t achieved in changing names, amending history books, and pulling down statues,” Barto said in an email. “Instead, this seems a part of the re-writing history that is occurring, much of which does a disservice to future generations.”
The bill is now making its way through the House, where it has been assigned to the Government & Elections Committee.
This article was originally published in the Arizona Mirror, a nonprofit news organization.
This article appears in Mar 3-9, 2022.
Waiting for them to force a name change for aqua spray system at outdoor restaurants from Misters to “non binary spitters.”
So rename it “Sq*** Peak” and be done with it.
Ooh! I know! Why don’t we all pretend that African slaves simply won an all expenses paid cruise! And when they reached their destination they decided to work pro bono until death This way we won’t have to burn history books or prevent true history from being taught and no one will have to feel sad or guilty
Ooh! I know! Why don’t we just pretend that African slaves just really won an all expenses paid cruise! And when they arrived at their destination they simply decided to work pro bono and give up their children and families until they died See this way no one will have to burn true history books or delete true history courses and most importantly no one will feel sad or guilty See? Problem solved
Sorry to burst your bubble Yendor, but white slaves suffered just as badly as blacks on their “cruises.” Some think more so, since blacks were considered to be more valuable cargo and had merchandise value, something whites did not possess.
“The transportation of convicted felson (sic) to remote and inhospital (sic) frontier areas to expiate their offences by unremitting hard labour is a practice at least as old as the Roman Empire. Few colonizing powers, however, can have relied as heavilyi (sic) and consistently on the wholesale deportation of their prison population as did England throughout two and a half centuries of imperial expansion. By the time America made her Declaration of Independence in 1776, the prisons of England had disgorged over 40,000 of their inmates to her colonies, there, most of them to survive and populate the land of their exile. Often, within the space of their own lifetime, they achieved freedom and respectability, though many remained tied to a form of serfdom which made them little different from bonded slaves. The standard history books have little or nothing to tell us about this great wave of dispossessed human kind or of their significant part in the development of colonial America. Those who were transported for their petty economic crimes were largely illiterate and have left us few records of their sufferings and later achievements; while those who transported them chose to ply their trade well away from the public stage, where few questions were asked of them. The transportation agents performed a useful service. How, and with what results in terms of human misery and degradation, were matters of small public interest. When William Wilberforce and the reformers go to work to bring to notice the atrocities of the traffic in black slaves, the almost equally appalling activiites (sic) of the white slave traders were fading from memory – and the more closely regulated transportation schemes to Australia had yet to begin.”— Introduction to “Bonded Passengers to America, Vol 1”