Indian Corn vs Indian Giver

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Having recently gone back to drink from the firehose of Cecil’s wisdom in the archives, I’ve found something thats been bothering me a bit.

In article http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_102.html on Romans not having access to corn, Cecil says:

*“Indian corn,” as the plant is called now and then, is a more logical and precise name (at least if you’re willing to be tolerant about the “Indian” part). Better yet is “maize,” the term used by thinking botanists and by English-speaking peoples outside the Americas, where the word “corn” is already spoken for.

Maize is, of course, a product of the New World. No historical evidence suggests that any European had encountered it before Christopher Columbus landed in Cuba.
*

However, in article: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_253.html Cecil states:

*This whole thing is so ironic it’s an instant cure for pernicious anemia. “Indian” was once used by the white man as an all-purpose adjective signifying “bogus” or “false,” owing to the supposedly low morals of the red man. Thus you had “Indian summer,” false summer late in the year; “Indian corn” and “Indian tea,” cheap substitutes for products the original colonists had known back in England; and “Indian giver,” someone who gives you something and then takes it back. *

I’m assuming the “indian corn” reference in the second column was added by mistake?

2

Maize was indeed considered a “cheap substitute” for the grain they could get back in England. They would have preferred wheat, but corn is easier to grow in New England.

3

And where do “Indian wrestling” and “Indian burns” fit into this?

4

Indian burn appears in print only in 1956. Indian wrestling appears in 1913, but the term that was used before it(1825 and later) was Indian hug*.

DDG is right on about Indian corn.

Of course, we’ve just done a lot with Indian Summer and I think the jury is still out on whether it was as deprecating as one always assumed.

And, of course, Indian giver, while used disparagingly, was a misinterprtation of an Indian custom.

5

Really? Which tribe? What was the original custom?

6

http://www.word-detective.com/back-z.html#indian

I doubt that anyone in the 20th Century would think that an “Indian Giver” expected a greater gift in return.

They just wanted their gift back. Right? That’s what it has come to mean the last two hundred years.

7

Well, I don’t know about that link, samclem. After all, right below is his take on “Kemosabe”, where he says,

As well as bringing up the “soggy shrub” theory.

But everybody here knows the truth; after all, Cecil gave us the answer.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_061.html

8

Irishman . While I agree that Evan’s answer to the kemosabe question was poor and Cecil’s answer was very well done, I don’t agree that it invalidates the answer about “Indian Giver.”

Evan probably got it right, and the reason I think so is that I read quite a bit about it while researching “Indian Summer” in the last few weeks.

My Mathews, Dictionary of Americanisms offers the following:

Indian gift - 1764 Hutchinson Hist. Mass. I. 469 An Indian gift is a proverbial expression, signifying a present for which an equivalent return is expected.

He quotes it also from 1848 Bartlett 189 Indian Giver. When an Indian gives anything, he expects an equivalent in return, or that the same thing may be given back to him. This term is applied by children in New York and the vicinity to a child who, after haveing given away a thing, wishes to have it back again.

I’ll admit that the above don’t nail the phrase to a specific tribe, and there is wiggle room about the origin of the phrase.
I can’t believe I have to now go reading about kemosabe. Thanks a heep!