Hello All, I have this question.
Does anyone know why some use the term Indian giver
If anyone knows, let me in on the info. Ive heard this term all my life, but never really understood it. Thanks
I always thought it was because the Indians gave away their land and then wanted it back. Really stupid and offensive.
I always thought it had more to do with the way Indians used to barter with settlers, and / or their reputation for trying to swindle the white man, aka the “cigar-selling Indian” caricature. Really stupid and offensive, no question. Sorry, no cite.
I really hope someone knows for sure, especially b/c if chula is right and that really is where the term came from, that’s the most ridiculous and insulting thing I’ve ever heard, considering what we know today about the particulars of how they “gave” us their land…
I haven’t heard that one in a while, but this is close to the meaning of the term as I understood it.
http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/meanings/202850.html
You were expected to give back something of equal or greater value.
“Hey, man. Give me that aggie. I gave you my cat’s-eye last week.”
Sorta like that. 
Yep, it’s offensive.
Peace,
mangeorge
In my line of work, I often find myself thinking that the phrase is quite accurate if I think of it in terms of one who gives to an Indian with the intention of later stealing the gift back.
Uncle Sam, I’m looking in your direction…
I learned that “Indian (anything)” meant something false, or not genuine. Hence “Indian summer” as well.
But scanning the OED, it appears that it stems from an early 19th century idea that Indians always wanted something in return for anything they gave. This quid pro quo eventually morphed into someone wanting back what they originally gave.
Also, it looks like Cecil already addressed What’s the origin of the expression “Indian giver”?
peepthis Thanks for actually giving a reply with links. And, just for good measure, your reply was essentially correct. I hate it when people reply without any basis in fact. It’s not that tough to search first to see if Cecil did a column. And then, if he did, search for a follow-up thread about the topic. There are at least two good ones on the board.
peep When you said
I personally think the jury is still out on that one. While your view is the most commonly held one, The early cites leading to that conclusion are open to debate.
After reading Cecil’s column, my memory was jogged somewhat.
Prior to the Colony of Connecticut’s securing of a Charter in 1662, the only way to “legally” acquire land there was to purchase it from the local Indian tribes. This caused a lot of problems, because tribes often maintained overlapping claims and sometimes had no idea what it was they were selling.
The General Court of Connecticut sought to intervene by passing a precursor of the Non-intercourse Act, which prevented colonists from purchasing land directly from the Indians. Instead, the Colony would (in theory) purchase the land from the Indians and sell it to the colonists. Variants of that law remain on the books to this day.
There was a loophole, however. Land could still be transferred directly from an Indian to a colonist–if the transaction was a gift. Here is what I think is a fairly typical example, where a group of Mattabessets “gave” some colonists virtually the whole of Middletown.
I have seen several deeds which state that so-and-so gives the “gift” of a parcel of land to someone, “in return for various considerations.” In other words, it was a thinly veiled sale. This practice opened an entirely new can of worms as it was not uncommon for some Indian leaders to “give” land belonging to a rival, or sometimes to contest a “gift” by claiming that they actually owned the land (for example, Owaneco, son of Uncas).
I’ll work on the citations, but it seems to me this might be a candidate for the origin of the phrase.
Hey, I apologized. Forgive me for assuming the OP searched before asking.
dooku I didn’t mean you specifically. It was a comment addressed to just about everyone who has ever posted. I’ve done it myself.
I think Bricker started a thread about people posting answers to GQ’s (without any kind of cites or research) in the last two weeks. That’s what probably got me started.
The term orginated largely because of the huge differences between settlers and Indians over the idea of property. Indians held usufrust rights over the land, which they were often willing to share. Settlers used ownership rights to a defined territory.
The correct term is “Native American Giver.”
I know samclem, but I really did think twice this time, but posted anyway, so I felt bad
I guess I don’t mind so much if not everyone has a cite, b/c it gets a conversation going in interesting directions…
The third reply 
answered the OP and gave a cite. Even gave an example. I don’t think further discussion (and cite) is unwarrented.
I’ll bet Elizabeth is satisfied.
Here’s another related and appropiate saying;
“Too many chiefs and not enough indians”.
Peace,
mangeorge