Origin of word "redskin"

[David Bowie]

From:    Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
> Ron Butters wrote:

<snip>

>> David Barnhart and I both worked on the history and present meaning
>> of "redskin." Except as a term applied to peanuts, fire hoses,
>> motorcycles, and the Washington, DC, football team, the term is
>> actually pretty much obsolete today.

> Obsolete, perhaps, but still functional when needed as a slur.  If it
>  were really obsolete, the various "dirty redskin" hits on google
> wouldn't be understood...

I'm not sure--as i still remember learning in my one sociolinguistics
(though it wasn't called that) class as an undergrad, you can turn *any*
word into an insult if you tried hard enough. After all, "dirty Native
American" would, i think, still come across as an insult.

> ...(Their source does not appear to be Cowboys or Giants fans.)  And
> this in turn makes me wonder about the non-derogatory claim of the
> federal court below.  No, "a redskin family moved into my
> neighborhood" wouldn't be heard, but that would be the wrong
> register, as would "The underrepresented minorities in the student
> body include 8% African-Americans, 7% Hispanics, and 0.5% Redskins".
> "Injun" is also obsolete,  but would the "Oklahoma Injuns" be
> acceptable?

Jonathan Lighter (sp?) asked what percentage of <insert name of the
referred-to ethnic group here> find the term "Redskin" derogatory--and
the answer, as borne out by repeated polls, is "not very much at all".

Now, this of course leads to the question of whether a word's history
(since it clearly *was* offensive, including presumably to a large
proportion of Native Americans, at some point in the past) should be
taken into account when using it nowadays.

The usual reaction of overly-knowledgable-in-language types like those
of us on this list, when asked whether the history of a word makes any
difference in its current use, is "no"--except when it comes to a
hot-button issue like ethnic labelling. I do wonder why.

(Of course, i grew up in the DC area, so maybe i'm biased--but my
professional sport of choice to watch was always hockey, not football,
so i can still claim *some* detachment.)

It's worth noting that a somewhat parallel case, though not involving
ethnic labelling, goes on in relation to The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, and gets debated (with some vehemence) among members
of that church. The better-known term "Mormon" to refer to the church
and to its members clearly began as a pejorative term, and some members
of that church hold that the term should be avoided because of that
history. Other members of that church (full disclosure: including me)
hold that it's not an insult any more, and so can be used freely.

In my experience/observation, though, those members of that church who
hold that "Mormon" should be avoided as historically an offensive term
are in the minority, though they do include a high proportion of the
people in the church's leadership/power structure.

Seems a pretty decent parallel to the "Redskin" case, though without
involving the ethnicity issue. Therefore, i have to wonder if my
suspicions are right, and it really is a sensitivity to ethnic labelling
and not a sensitivity to the history of pejoratives that have been
bleached--so, questions: Do those who believe that "Redskin" should be
avoided (presumably using "Native American" or somesuch) also hold that
"Mormon Church" should be avoided (using "The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints")?

If yes, does this mean that we should avoid *all* terms that have been
historically pejorative? (And how would we know what they all are?) If
not, then why the difference?

<snip>

David, who never heard that "Redskin" was offensive until college
--
David Bowie                                         http://pmpkn.net/lx
     Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
     house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
     chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.