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
- Dale Lockwood on Mule deer in decline, crude oil spills and violence against federal staffers.
- G M Ferguson on Illegal bike trails and a Forest Service crackdown divide a town
- Kathy Dimont on Deaths renew calls for national parks to rescind BASE jumping bans
- Rich Schrader on How the West will feel groundwater shortages
- Rich Schrader on Freeway closure by flash flood should teach us a lesson