Editor:
The recent debate over monuments on the Arcata Plaza makes this a good time to expand the issue. Let’s look at removing the numerous offensive place names that dot the Humboldt County map.
Most of these names either denigrate and insult Indians or honor people who murdered Indians.
Here are a few that come to mind:
Larabee Valley, Larabee Creek, Larabee community: These all refer to Henry P. Larabee, who was a participant in the series of massacres that included Indian Island and who singlehandedly murdered dozens of Indians.
D***** Creek: a stream near Iaqua in central Humboldt County that uses a word that rhymes with the “N” word that is so offensive to blacks, and is meant to convey the same level of racist scorn.
At least three Squaw creeks, including one on the Mattole River and another in Humboldt Redwoods State Park. This word insults both Indians and women in general.
Patrick’s Point: Named for Patrick Beegan, who fled the area after murdering at least two Indians.
Perhaps it is time for the county to form a commission, with full representation of the local Indian tribes, to compile a list of such names and to use this information as a starting point for local county, city and tribal governments to take concerted action to have these names removed from the maps. In many cases, there are good replacement names already available. For example, L****** Creek was called Slahn-ko by the Nongatl Indians who formerly lived along its banks, while P******’s Point was called Su’mig by the Yuroks who claimed it as part of their territory.
There is no time like the present to heal the wounds of the past.
Jerry Rhode, Eureka
Related Stories
A Monumental Decision
An American Genocide
This article appears in High Stakes.
This is yet one more Article where the core iss is to be mired in “Indian victimhood” scenarios more thatn130-years old. Perhaps it is time for the non-Indian citizens of the United States to recognize that post the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, there are no more “Indians” within the original meaning of the United States Constitution…only U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” entitled to no more and no less than every other non-Indian U.S./State citizen!
It never ceases to amaze me just how United States Constitution-stupid politicians-state and federal-are piled on top of how stupid their attorneys are! As of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, there are no more “Indians” within the original meaning of the United States Constitution…only U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” entitled to no more and no less than every other non-Indian U.S./State citizen in accordance with the U.S. Constitutions 14th Amendments equal protection Clause! And, yet, faux Title 25-INDIANS and faux ‘Indian treaties’ whereby these attorneys and politicians-state and federal-assert the United State Constitution has provision whereby We, the People, have ‘treaties’ with Other We, the People, because of the “Other’s” Indian ancestry/race and non-Indians believe this hoax.
Worse yet are judges-state and federal-who woefully fail to uphold and defend the United States Constitution in their oath of office clearly articulated in CJ Marshall’s Marbury decision posted below by accepting both sides attorney’s petition there are “Indian Treaties” and “Indian reservations” where politicians-state and federal-continue to regulate from womb to tomb a select group of U.S./State citizens health, welfare, safety, benefits, capacities, metes and boundaries because of their “Indian ancestry/race” at the same time condemn “Jim Crow Laws” citing the United States Constitution’s 14th Amendment for one….what hypocrites!
The United States Constitution makes for no provisions for “Indian reservations!” Land commonly known as an “Indian reservation” with rare exception is land owned by the People of the United States according to a federal document readily available on-line where U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” residing on said land are merely tenants with rights of ‘use and occupancy’ only!
If I can find these federal documents on-line, why are high-powered politicians-state and federal-and their highly paid attorneys and judges-state and federal-too stupid to do the same?
United States Supreme Court MARBURY v. MADISON, (1803) Argued: Decided: February 1, 1803:
If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.