Squaw Valley locals fail to make the case for why offensive town name should remain

Personally, I don’t believe state and federal agencies should force a town to change its name unless those living there are in general agreement.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people. Not against the people’s will.

That said, Squaw Valley locals aren’t exactly distinguishing themselves in this debate. If residents truly believe the unincorporated Fresno County foothill town would be better off continuing to bear a name that many Native Americans find offensive and is steadily being expunged, at least be able to make the case.

And it better be a strong one, considering California Gov. Gavin Newsom just signed AB 2022 into law, which removes “squaw” from all geographic place names throughout the state.

For starters, explain to neutral-minded observers why Squaw Valley residents are so attached to the name. Why the name matters, both to their current lives and personal histories. Why the place where they live would be diminished if it were called something else.

Opinion

Because so far, little to none of that has occurred. Rather than make compelling arguments for keeping the name, locals vented their hostility at speakers supportive of the change at a recent public meeting organized by Fresno County Supervisor Nathan Magsig.

Past atrocities committed against Native Americans have nothing to do with us, they objected to a tribal leader who presented a history lesson they didn’t want to hear. Don’t blame us for all those broken 19th century treaties, either.

“We didn’t do it!” one woman shouted, as if she were somehow the victim.

One speaker, who said she was related to one of the town’s founders, sought to downplay the name’s offensiveness by passing the buck. Sure, she allowed, American Indians suffered “true injustices” in other communities. Just “not here.”

To that let me interject my own two-word retort: Good grief.

Squaw Valley name hardly pervasive

Why can’t Squaw Valley residents defend the town’s name by explaining why it should remain rather than reacting angrily to change?

One reason, I suspect, is that it isn’t really all that meaningful to them. What makes me say that? Well, for one thing, the name Squaw Valley is hardly pervasive. Even in the community itself.

Sure, it appears on road signs along Highway 180. Both the post office and county fire station carry the name, as do a motel and convenience store.

However, the public library used for last week’s meeting is named after nearby Bear Mountain. So too are the town’s only restaurant (a pizza parlor) and auto parts store.

Squaw Valley residents seem OK with having Bear Mountain as an identifier. If the town’s name changed to Bear Mountain as well (or something else with local ties), who besides the most strident among them would care? Or even notice?

Changing the name would also alleviate outside confusion. Type the words “Squaw Valley” into Google Maps and the results don’t even take you to Fresno County. Instead, you’re directed to the Lake Tahoe-area ski resort that used to go by that name, but since 2021 has been known as Palisades Tahoe.

Demographics of small foothill town

Why the change? Because Squaw Valley was deemed offensive, by both the resort’s corporate owners and the surrounding community. Oh.

According to 2020 census figures, the Fresno County town has a population of 3,511 spread over an area of 63.6 square miles. (Which is more than twice the size of Clovis.) Residents are 80% white and have a median age of 50.8 years old. The median household income is $68,333, which is about 20% higher than the Fresno metro area.

Demographics never tell the whole story, but the picture formed by those numbers doesn’t exactly add up to a community overflowing with sympathy for long-oppressed minority groups.

I could be flat wrong about that, certainly. Except the general tone of Squaw Valley residents, at least those who’ve spoken out publicly, does little to dispel those notions.

Now that AB 2022 is state law, the town will likely have a new name by 2025 — irrespective of the community questionnaire being mailed to residents this week by Magsig’s office.

Which, truthfully, isn’t ideal. Still, I’d feel a whole lot more sympathetic for those against the name change if they could present a cogent argument why it truly matters to them. Rather than getting angry over what they perceive as political correctness run amok.