California Removes Offensive Place Names

California Removes Offensive Place Names

cnn.com

California Removes Offensive Place Names

California is changing place names containing the offensive word "squaw" as part of a larger national effort to remove derogatory terms from geographic locations.

English
United States
PoliticsHuman Rights ViolationsCaliforniaUnited StatesIndigenous RightsCultural SensitivityPlace Names
CnnCalifornia Natural Resources Agency (Cnra)California Department Of Forestry And Fire ProtectionUnited States Census BureauInterior Department’s Derogatory Geographic Names Task ForceCalifornia Advisory Committee On Geographic Names
Gavin NewsomWade CrowfootDeb HaalandJames C. RamosSara SmartYan Kaner
What prompted California to begin changing place names containing the word "squaw?"
California is removing the offensive term "squaw" from over 100 place names across the state by January 1, 2025.
How significant is this renaming effort in a broader context, and what are its implications beyond California?
The process involves collaboration with California Native American tribes to select replacement names, and local governments have until 180 days after January 1, 2025 to propose alternatives.
What is the timeline for implementing these name changes, and what happens if local governments don't propose replacement names?
This renaming effort, mandated by a 2022 state law, is part of a larger national movement to eliminate derogatory terms from geographic locations and is considered a significant milestone for Native American women.

Cognitive Concepts

3/5

Framing Bias

The article frames the renaming as a positive act of correcting a historical wrong and celebrates the progress made. This framing emphasizes the positive impact on Native American communities while potentially downplaying any difficulties or controversies surrounding the process.

2/5

Language Bias

The article uses strong language in describing "squaw" as a "derogatory term" and a "slur," which clearly conveys negative sentiment toward the word and its historical context.

3/5

Bias by Omission

The article focuses heavily on the positive aspects of renaming and the support it received, while omitting potential negative viewpoints or challenges in the process. This omission could give a skewed perception of unanimous approval.

2/5

False Dichotomy

The article implies a false dichotomy by portraying the renaming effort as universally accepted, neglecting any possible opposition or complexities around the issue. This oversimplification could lead to misunderstandings.

Sustainable Development Goals

Gender Equality Positive
Direct Relevance

The renaming of places containing a derogatory term for Indigenous women directly addresses gender equality by working to remove offensive and discriminatory language.