Indian Summer etc.

[Jeffrey Kopp]

Ros' Haruo wrote:

> I quite agree with Jeffrey that, as a kid, Indian Summer had positive,
> romantic connotations, not at all derogatory, whatever its
> etymological origins might have been. My recollections of "Indian
> summer" are completely congruent with his.
>
> Not so, however, the concept/term "Indian giver", which was just as
> prevalent, and which was completely derogatory.
>
> lilEnd

Of course, it goes without saying that "Indian giver" falls on the other
side of the line. I felt that looking for something offensive in "Indian
Summer" was overreaching.

Okay, I'm strapping on my Chinook Jargon Crash Helmet (gee, it's gotten
a bit dusty) so I can venture an opinion.

In grade-school history, the term "Indian giver" was explained to us
thusly:  Much of the clash between Natives and settlers arose out of
their inherently different views of property. The Natives didn't regard
land as something that could be owned or sold, but would happily "lease"
it (i.e., trade a kind of "easement" or "right of use" for land they
customarily used themselves) for a season or a year. The whites
foolishly (or disingenuously) believed they had gotten a permanent
bargain. When the Natives returned to negotiate renewal of the deal,
they were regarded as "Indian givers." So this "derogatory expression"
at least did bear some contemporary educational fruit (even though it
may have been highly abridged or confused).

I was unaware that klootchman had ever taken on any negative
connotation. (I can see how "klootch" might have; that's a form I
haven't seen before.) But as with "squaw," I think we can see that any
appellation taken from a foreign tongue can be turned into an epithet by
repeated sarcastic use by non-native speakers. New ones can crop up at
any moment whenever there's friction (such as in the amusing recent
"french fries" flap). Such is human nature and society.

When reviewing words or place names for contemporary acceptability, one
has to regard the duration and prevalence of derogatory past usage, its
distance behind us in time, plus whether it is still found offensive
today. It's obvious that "squaw" still upsets some people. "Siwash" was
clearly used as an epithet, but its current acceptability remains under
debate (its current level of "offensiveness" appears to vary depending
on who's using it). Whether having a sports team called "Indians" is
genuinely offensive is doubtful. (Such a name's probably OK--though
Cleveland's caricature logo and others similar should be revised.) On
the other hand, "Indian Summer" would become offensive only if an issue
were manufactured around it.

Regards,

Jeff