But I wonder if there might not be a hidden cost to sanitizing the maps too much. Like it or not, the military conquest of the West is part of the nation’s history, and I’m not sure erasing the evidence of it from the maps is the wisest course to follow. Wouldn’t it be just another way of sanitizing American history ... which, God knows, has been sanitized enough in the history texts already? If a "Squaw River" or two survives somewhere in the West, might it not be wise to leave the name in place?
Maybe leaving some reminders on the maps will keep alive in coming generations some sense of how it once was, what the struggle to end it cost, and how much things have changed. Perhaps when a new generation of young people comes across such names, it will prompt them to ask what the names mean and how it could have happened. Or so we can hope.
Ms. Stange’s essay was an interesting one and got me thinking about names upon the land in ways I hadn’t before.
Robert A. Becker Ogden, Utah
- The taxpayer money that fuels federal land transfer demands
- Latest: California fracking companies inject protected aquifers with wastewater
- Obama's preemptive strike to reform Endangered Species Act
- Wyoming trespass law is the latest in grazing battle
- Sightseeing at an open pit mine in Arizona copper country
- Garrett Allen on The view from 31,000 feet: A philosopher looks at fracking
- Robb Cadwell on The view from 31,000 feet: A philosopher looks at fracking
- Amy & Chris Gulick on The view from 31,000 feet: A philosopher looks at fracking
- Richard H Ernst on The taxpayer money that fuels federal land transfer demands
- Luwella Leonardi on Blood Quantum