At 07:43 PM 5/8/01 -0400, Lee Bell wrote:
>Most informative, thanks.  I must admit that I do not understand the
>sensitivity of some to names that, to me, are nothing more than names.  Of

I agree and I'm pretty sensitive to others' feelings.  But, I can't imagine
what would be derogatory about Jewfish.  I have uncovered the original
announcement by the committee that makes such changes, and it doesn't
provide much information as to who was offended or why.

>Is Squaw considered a derrogatory term?

Apparently so.  I found an article in a 1998 scientific journal on my shelf
that described the reluctance with which the board decides to change common
names, but in this case squaw is widely considered derogatory.  See also
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/Melungeon/2000-04/0954816657

Regardless of these official positions, common names are still going to
differ from one locale to the next and that keeps things interesting.  A
standard common name is just a crutch for us fishheads who chose to take
French in high school instead of Latin and can't remember the
multi-syllabic scientific name of every critter we come across.

-Mark B.