Redskin: derogatory or term of respect?

[standingwave]

I always assumed it was derogatory but then there’s this:
On Monday, Fox’s Outnumbered took on the controversy surrounding the NFL’s Washington Redskins, which reached a new level last week when 50 senators signed a letter urging the league to remove the “racial slur” from the team’s name. Of the five hosts, it was the one man, Pete Hegseth, who argued most aggressively in favor of keeping the name in place, saying it is actually a “term of respect” for Native Americans.

Fox's Pete Hegseth: Redskins Name a Term of Respect

Is it possible that it was an horrific and a recognition of their ferocity?

[jayjay]

No. It’s much more likely that Fox is being Fox, which basically means “anything that makes liberals angry is mandatory, even if we have to lie”.

[friedo]

@jayjay

No. It’s much more likely that Fox is being Fox, which basically means “anything that makes liberals angry is mandatory, even if we have to lie”.

Given that a majority of actual Indians don’t give a shit, and the only people complaining about it are white politicians, how sure are you that it’s a lie?

[jimbuff314]

Originally used by we Indians to distinguish ourselves from those unfortunates with white/paler skins. Redskin

Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. In time, however, through a process that in linguistics is called pejoration, by which a neutral term acquires an unfavorable connotation or denotation, redskin lost its neutral, accurate descriptive sense and became a term of disparagement. Red man is first recorded in the early 17th century and was originally neutral in tone. Red Indian is first recorded in the early 19th century and was used by the British, far more than by Americans, to distinguish the Indians of the subcontinent from the Indians of the Americas. All three terms are dated or offensive. American Indian and Native American are now the standard umbrella terms. Of course, if it is possible or appropriate, one can also use specific tribal names (Cheyenne, Nez Percé, etc.).

I think we’re (Lenape - aka Delaware) in the OED as well, but OED won’t let you look up words without paying, apparently. I remember the first time I heard the term “Red Indian”. It was a real WTF moment.

One Indian who gives a shit.

[Duckster]

@friedo

Given that a majority of actual Indians don’t give a shit, …

Cite?

[pulykamell]

@Duckster

Cite?

I assume the reference is to the Annenberg poll, which there is some criticism of.

[chacoguy]

Just rename the Lions as the ‘Detroit Blackskins’ and see how that works out.

[UDS]

I have access to the OED.

The OED notes that “early quots. are in the speech of American Indians”, but in fact they are in the reported speech of American Indians - reported by whitefellas. Plus, either the American Indians spoke in their own language, in which case the report involves translation, or the American Indians spoke in English or French, in which case might they have used the terms which they understood their (white) interlocutors to use?

The earliest cite is from c. 1769:

[QUOTE=OED]
tr. Mosquito in Papers Sir W. Johnson (1931) VII. 137, I shall be pleased to have you come to speak to me yourself if you pity our women and our children; and, if any redskins [Fr. quelques peaux Rouges] do you harm, I shall be able to look out for you even at the peril of my life.
[/QUOTE]

Then there’s a cite from 1812:

[QUOTE=OED]
French Crow in J. C. A. Stagg et al. Papers J. Madison Presidential Ser. (2004) V. 182, I am a red-skin, but what I say is the truth.
[/QUOTE]

And that looks as though redskin might have been pejorative by then.

From 1815:

[QUOTE=OED]
Black Thunder in Niles’ Weekly Reg. 14 Oct. 113, I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me.
[/QUOTE]

And from 1823:

[QUOTE=OED]
J. F. Cooper Pioneers ii. xvii. 256 There will soon be no red-skin in the country.
[/QUOTE]

What all the early cites have in common is that they point to tension and mistrust between American Indians and while settlers. In that context, “redskin” might have been almost inherently pejorative in the mouths of whites, and if American Indians adopted the term and used it in discourse with whites, that might have been deliberately confrontational; challenging language, rather than an acceptance of the neutrality of the term.

On the other hand, the OED point out that the term comes into English from French, and that it came into French apparently as a transliteration of an Illinois term meaning “person with red skin”. Similarly, the use of the term in the 1815 quote is said to correspond to a Meskawi term (Meskawi being the vernacular of the speaker in that quote) which meant “person with brown skin”.

In short, the OED does suggest that the French, and then the English, acquired “redskin” by transliteration from one or more American Indian languages. The OED doesn’t suggest that this had anything to do with battle paint or body decoration.

One other point: Although the term has cites in English going back to at least 1769, the OED notes that it was popularised by J Cooper Fenimore, i.e. well into the nineteenth century, by which time negative attitudes to the American Indians were deeply entrenched. So while it may have originated as a neutral term in the mouths of American Indians, it may have been received into English as a pejorative.

The OED notes that it’s now “somewhat dated and freq. considered offensive”, and that highlights the point that whether the term is offensive or not is not determined by its origins, but by whether people are offended by it.

[Captain_Amazing]

@UDS

And that looks as though redskin might have been pejorative by then.

I don’t think that quote shows that. It’s not saying that “redskin” was used as a pejorative, but just that Indians weren’t trusted. Which is to say, it’s possible that “redskin” was a neutral term, but that Indians themselves were just looked on negatively, which seems to be what the rest of your cites suggest.

[jimbuff314]

From an interesting article in the Washington Post 2005:

Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard spent seven months researching its history and concluded that “redskin” was first used by Native Americans in the 18th century to distinguish themselves from the white “other” encroaching on their lands and culture.

When it first appeared as an English expression in the early 1800s, “it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level,” Goddard said in an interview. “These are white people and Indians talking together, with the white people trying to ingratiate themselves.”

It was not until July 22, 1815, that “red skin” first appeared in print, he found – in a news story in the Missouri Gazette on talks between Midwestern Indian tribes and envoys sent by President James Madison to negotiate treaties after the War of 1812.

The envoys had rebuked the tribes for their reluctance to yield territory claimed by the United States, but the Gazette report suggested that Meskwaki chief Black Thunder was unimpressed: “Restrain your feelings and hear calmly what I say,” he told the envoys. “I have never injured you, and innocence can feel no fear. I turn to all red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me.”

Not perjorative there. The article goes on to statements by Suzanne Harjo, who is an activist opposing the use of the term Redskin and the use of an actual people as mascots to a sports team.

Goddard says :

the first known public use of “redskin” in English occurred on Aug. 22, 1812, in Washington at a meeting between Madison and a group of visiting Indian chiefs.

Madison, worried about possible alliances between Indian tribes and the enemy British, delivered a long, stylized plea liberally sprinkled with the expressions “red people,” “red tribes” and “my red children.”

In response, Little Osage chief Sans Oreilles (No Ears) pledged loyalty despite provocations against his tribe and noted that “I know the manners of the whites and of the red skins.” Then Sioux chief French Crow, making much the same argument, said: “I am a red-skin, but what I say is the truth, and notwithstanding I came a long way, I am content, but wish to return from there.”

In context, then, French Crow’s use of the term “red-skin” appears to be a little less (self)-perjorative, to me anyway. After this, the article talks about the term entering the popular culture, becoming ever-more perjorative.

Goddard’s take on whether the term entered the various Indian languages from another (French) language or not:

Goddard acknowledged it is impossible to know whether the chiefs said “redskin” in their own languages, but interpreters in many contexts and with many tribes in this time period treated the word as an expression that only Indians used. The same is true of “white-skin.”

ETA: University of Connecticut historian Nancy Shoemaker says “even if the Indians were the first to use it, the origin has no relationship to later use. What happened at the beginning doesn’t justify it today.” I concur.

[chacoguy]

How is THIS

Any less offensive than THIS

or THIS

or THIS?

[stui_magpie]

^

This pic probably sums it up.

http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/cleveland-indians-stereotype-hat-poster.png

For mine, what UDS said is most relevant.

The OED notes that it’s now “somewhat dated and freq. considered offensive”, and that highlights the point that whether the term is offensive or not is not determined by its origins, but by whether people are offended by it.

Arguing whether the term was originally offensive should be irrelevant, it’s do Native Americans find it offensive now that matters.

[Senegoid]

Politically Correct sensitivities sometimes seem to go overboard just looking for something to be sensitive about.

Why is the team name “Atlanta Braves” considered racist? It hardly seems to be an offensive term, referring instead to a perceived quality of American Indians – bravery – that is highly prized. What’s the offense there?

[MrDibble]

@Senegoid

Why is the team name “Atlanta Braves” considered racist? It hardly seems to be an offensive term, referring instead to a perceived quality of American Indians – bravery – that is highly prized. What’s the offense there?

You don’t see how reducing a people to a sterotype of violence and warfare could be offensive? Or how it’s not just the name, but it’s coupled with stereotypical violence imagery as well (tomahawk, and the old image of a mohawked warrior)? Or how a city like Atlanta really shouldn’t be celebrating its Muscogee heritage…especially as it did, with a pic of what looks like some sort of…Iriquois? Mohegan? Fucked if I can tell…

[md2000]

@Senegoid

Politically Correct sensitivities sometimes seem to go overboard just looking for something to be sensitive about.

Why is the team name “Atlanta Braves” considered racist? It hardly seems to be an offensive term, referring instead to a perceived quality of American Indians – bravery – that is highly prized. What’s the offense there?

@MrDibble

You don’t see how reducing a people to a sterotype of violence and warfare could be offensive? Or how it’s not just the name, but it’s coupled with stereotypical violence imagery as well (tomahawk, and the old image of a mohawked warrior)? Or how a city like Atlanta really shouldn’t be celebrating its Muscogee heritage…especially as it did, with a pic of what looks like some sort of…Iriquois? Mohegan? Fucked if I can tell…

North Dakota Fighting Sioux?
Notre Dame Fighting Irish?

Of course, a people defending encroachment of their land in battle is patently more offensive than drunken brawling… when we’re the side doing the encroaching?

[running_coach]

@MrDibble

You don’t see how reducing a people to a sterotype of violence and warfare could be offensive?

Sports are all about violence or at least supreme physical effort. That’s why mascots are typically fierce or powerful animals or people.
It’s intended to call to mind bravery/courage, physical and/or moral strength, agility, etc.

That’s why people are amused by oddball mascots like the Boll Weevil or Banana Slug.

[jtur88]

The Chicago Blackhawks were named after the WWI infantry division, in which the hockey team’s founder had served. The name of the military unit happened to be the same as the name of the well-known and commemorated chief of a tribe of Indians in Illlinois, so it seemed fitting in the pre-PC era. The hockey team uses a likeness of the Chief on their sweaters.

[Omar_Little]

@jimbuff314

…opposing <snip> the use of an actual people as mascots to a sports team.

The Cowboys, Patriots, Packers, Raiders, Vikings, 49ers, and Buccaneers have all been put on notice.

[fiddlesticks]

@md2000

North Dakota Fighting Sioux?
Notre Dame Fighting Irish?

Of course, a people defending encroachment of their land in battle is patently more offensive than drunken brawling… when we’re the side doing the encroaching?

FWIW, the NCAA after some effort finally got North Dakota to drop their Fighting Sioux nickname in 2012 and for the time being have no nickname at all. Florida State gets to keep the Seminole name because the local Seminoles in Florida say its okay. The Lakota people in the Dakotas weren’t quite so okay with North Dakota using their name.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@fiddlesticks

FWIW, the NCAA after some effort finally got North Dakota to drop their Fighting Sioux nickname in 2012 and for the time being have no nickname at all. Florida State gets to keep the Seminole name because the local Seminoles in Florida say its okay. The Lakota people in the Dakotas weren’t quite so okay with North Dakota using their name.

How about the Central Michigan Chippewas?