General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA 'REDSKIN' is the scalped head of a Native American, sold, like a pelt, for cash:
Native Americans pass down stories to preserve their history and heritage, because we dont have much of it left. As tribes were systemically exterminated, so too were their respective cultures. But we have our stories, and when my mother was young, her parents shared one about the term redskins.
It dates back to the institutionalized genocide of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on their heads. The grisly particulars are listed in a 1755 document called the Phips Proclamation, which zeroed in on the Penobscot Indians, a tribe today based in Maine.
Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, His Majestys subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians. They paid well 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12.
These bloody scalps were known as redskins.
The mascot of the Washington Redskins, if the team desired accuracy, would be a gory, bloodied crown from the head of a butchered Native American.
<snip>
Much more:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/true-redskins-meaning
Now does this give people a clue about why it's so offensive?
ProfessorGAC
(68,547 posts). . .i recall it differently from history classes. It wasn't that they were sold so much as it was proof of how many an "indian fighter" killed so that they would get paid.
Not quite remuneration, but close. More as fiduciary evidence.
Same bad concept though.
SnakeEyes
(1,407 posts)I have never heard of this. Anyone have additional reading on this? I'd love to get this added to wikipedia since there is nothing about this on the "redskin" entry.
TexasProgresive
(12,244 posts)It even mentions the OPs document.
Eric J in MN
(35,620 posts)...and one of them refers to scalps, but doesn't contain the term "red-skin."
The other document uses the term "red-skin" but seems to be calling people that.