Re: Re: Origin of word "redskin"

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

In a message dated 5/26/05 2:06:28 PM, laurence.horn at YALE.EDU writes:


> 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.  (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?
> 
> Larry
> 

The first ten hits for "dirty redskin" that I looked at on a Google search 
today go more to undercut Larry's contention here than to support it. The 
contexts are either archaic references or sardonic usages. It just is not the case 
that, for the vast majority of speakers today, "redskin" is an active 
slur--certainly not in the same way that "kike," "nigger," "redneck," or "faggot" are.

"Oklahoma Injuns" would not be so much unacceptable as ridiculous, like, say, 
the Nebraska Norskis or the Milwaukee Octoroons. The term is indeed pretty 
much obsolete, and while there is some evidence that it was always used at least 
somewhat pejoratively, it is rarely used in ANY way. It has no history. It is 
impossible to imagine using such names without trying to imagine a context 
for their use, and no plausible context comes to mind.

There is a context, however--both historical and synchronic for "Washington 
Redskins." There is, moreover, a long history of the use of "Redskin" 
nonpejoratively in the United States. (David Bowie conjectures, "... it clearly *was* 
offensive, including presumably to a largproportion of Native Americans, at 
some point in the past," but my research indicates that this is simply NOT the 
case.)
Most people just don't think of it as anything other than a positive term 
within the sports context (one of my North Carolina friends is a woman of Indian 
ancedstrsy who proudly wears a "Redskins" jacket). The history of the 
oppression of the indigenous peoples of the Americas is ugly and brutal and 
shameful--and ongoing. But the use of the term "Redskin" played little or any role in 
that history, and (it seems to me) spending millions of dollars in court costs 
to try to get a sports team's trademark revoked is not even a symbolically 
useful exercise.

The question "Is it acceptable?" is one that any linguist knows must be 
answered by the questions, "Acceptable to whom?" "Acceptable under what 
conditions?"