Origin of word "redskin"

[Beverly Flanigan]

At 09:13 AM 5/27/2005, you wrote:
>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.

I'm glad you mentioned "Native American."  Indians generally call
themselves Indians and find "Native American" artificial, pedantic, p.c.,
and maybe hypocritical.  "Indians" and "Indios" were not originally used
negatively, AFAIK--and even "savages" was from the French for "wild,"
right?  (Obviously the meaning was broadened soon, though, at least in
English.)