Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Proud Public Servant

(2,097 posts)
64. Apparently, that's not so.
Wed Mar 26, 2014, 01:59 PM
Mar 2014
http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/12/18/redskins_the_debate_over_the_washington_football_team_s_name_incorrectly.html

In 2005, the Indian language scholar Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable and consequential study of redskin's early history. His findings shifted the dates for the word's first appearance in print by more than a century and shed an awkward light on the contemporary debate. Goddard found, in summary, that "the actual origin of the word is entirely benign."

Redskin, he learned, had not emerged first in English or any European language. The English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called black, white, and so on.

But the language into which those terms for Indians were first translated was French. The tribes among whom the proto forms of redskin first appeared lived in the area of the upper Mississippi River called Illinois country. Their extensive contact with French-speaking colonists, before the French pulled out of North America, led to these phrases being translated, in the 1760s, more or less literally as peau-rouge and only then into English as redskin. It bears mentioning that many such translators were mixed-blood Indians.

Half a century later, redskin began circulating. It was used at the White House when President Madison requested that various Indian tribes steer clear of an alliance with Britain. No Ears, a chief of the Little Osages, spoke in reply and one of his statements was translated as, "I know the manners of the whites and the red skins." Only in 2004, however, when the Papers of James Madison project at the University of Virginia reached the year 1812 did this and another use of redskin from the same meeting come to light.

The word became even more well known when the Meskwaki chief Black Thunder delivered a speech at a treaty conference after the War of 1812. Black Thunder, whose words were translated by an interpreter, said that he would speak calmly and without fear, adding, "I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me."


So if the term is Indian in origin, was a means of self-description, and was used by chiefs on important ceremonial occasions, is it still offensive?
That's a no-brainer. Smarmie Doofus Mar 2014 #1
If the name evokes prowess and courage, I think it's ok. Maedhros Mar 2014 #18
Chomsky has a view: I think the correct one: Whisp Mar 2014 #20
to whom and how? In my tiny home town we were the Sanford Redskins. we were little kids, dionysus Mar 2014 #2
The word "redskins" has always been derogratory... Jeff In Milwaukee Mar 2014 #5
i get it i, i just mean, growing up, we never saw or meant anything malicious by it. it's for the dionysus Mar 2014 #36
I have a guitar... Jeff In Milwaukee Mar 2014 #54
guitar polish. works wonders for sticker goo... dionysus Mar 2014 #70
This message was self-deleted by its author CFLDem Mar 2014 #53
Not sure where you're getting your information... Jeff In Milwaukee Mar 2014 #57
I stand corrected. CFLDem Mar 2014 #60
To the people mounting a campaign to get Snyder to change it? Recursion Mar 2014 #15
I thought we were the Peoples Front of Laconia?? SQUEE Mar 2014 #65
Of course it is, don't be stupid. flvegan Mar 2014 #3
derogatory terms are not "everything" CreekDog Mar 2014 #4
Milk is not "a chimney" flvegan Mar 2014 #6
have your say CreekDog Mar 2014 #7
True, but... pipi_k Mar 2014 #43
ALL human beings have breasts joeglow3 Mar 2014 #52
That's true, but... pipi_k Mar 2014 #58
I cannot imagine how my User Name, for example, could be offensive to anyone. Maedhros Mar 2014 #19
That's an interesting, subjective and unsupported allegation... LanternWaste Mar 2014 #76
Dan Snyder is never going to change the name, unless NFL forces him npk Mar 2014 #8
Well, Snyder is known for making sensible, well-thought-out decisions, right? Recursion Mar 2014 #14
Brownskins Blackskins otohara Mar 2014 #9
Exactly n/t. Feral Child Mar 2014 #32
Offensive? technotwit Mar 2014 #10
Let us think on it and plug in some alternatives in. TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #11
There wasn't this hand-wringing when the Bullets became the Wizards Recursion Mar 2014 #13
Nope, some folks just love to dig in and maintain as much nasty offense as possible. TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #82
I always wanted a "Fighting Whities" tee shirt.... MADem Mar 2014 #29
Did they have Fighting Whities tighty whities? pintobean Mar 2014 #39
I doubt it, but if they put them on the market, they'd sell out, I'm sure. nt MADem Mar 2014 #42
They could call the practice squad the diapers TheKentuckian Mar 2014 #83
Yup. Shadowflash Mar 2014 #80
Dan Snyder is more concerned with keeping an offensive mascot than recruiting an offensive line Recursion Mar 2014 #12
Cownboys tie-in: The Washington Steers KamaAina Mar 2014 #48
Suppose the name was Washington Rednecks... HooptieWagon Mar 2014 #16
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2014 #17
Just sayin' defacto7 Mar 2014 #21
That didn't sound like what I had heard, so I double checked. Behind the Aegis Mar 2014 #24
I think "Redskins" is offensive, though "Seminoles" is not eridani Mar 2014 #22
What does President Obama think? Aerows Mar 2014 #23
The day is young, but I'll nominate this for best response of 3-26-14. n/t Smarmie Doofus Mar 2014 #33
... bullwinkle428 Mar 2014 #46
Obama has weighed in, I'm surprised you missed it. CreekDog Mar 2014 #50
Oh, okay Aerows Mar 2014 #66
Dan Snyder has already admitted that the name of his NFL team Jenoch Mar 2014 #25
It certainly is to some. bluedigger Mar 2014 #26
. XemaSab Mar 2014 #27
+1 CreekDog Mar 2014 #40
I wish the Indians would do away with Chief Wahoo altogether ok_cpu Mar 2014 #55
Not in the slightest, if they'd only change their LOGO. MADem Mar 2014 #28
16% indian & i am and always was offended. pansypoo53219 Mar 2014 #30
"Redskin" has ALWAYS been derogatory Scootaloo Mar 2014 #31
Apparently, that's not so. Proud Public Servant Mar 2014 #64
Red. Skins. Iggo Mar 2014 #34
To some of course it is. To others it isn't. The dividing line is the question whatthehey Mar 2014 #35
majority of whom needs to be offended? Native Americans? CreekDog Mar 2014 #38
The former would make the most sense whatthehey Mar 2014 #49
I don't need to be NA to be pissed off at deragatory and racist terms for NA. Iggo Mar 2014 #61
I refer you to the first sentence of the post to which you are indirectly responding whatthehey Mar 2014 #63
I'm not saying it's offensive to Indians. I'm saying it's offensive to me. Iggo Mar 2014 #67
Fair enough, but would you not give more credibility to the intended target nonetheless? Why not? whatthehey Mar 2014 #69
Surprised it lasted this long nt treestar Mar 2014 #37
How much pipi_k Mar 2014 #41
This message was self-deleted by its author CreekDog Mar 2014 #44
why don't you do your own work? CreekDog Mar 2014 #45
This isn't something pipi_k Mar 2014 #62
you're more offended at being ASKED if the name is offensive CreekDog Mar 2014 #68
Is that all pipi_k Mar 2014 #72
you are more offended at simply being asked, it's obvious from this and a previous poll/thread CreekDog Mar 2014 #73
Again, being asked pipi_k Mar 2014 #77
You are offended at being asked, it's why you've complained about this poll and the previous one CreekDog Mar 2014 #78
It most certainly is! KamaAina Mar 2014 #47
Unless you're talking about potatoes, it's offensive. Orrex Mar 2014 #51
Yes, not because I find it offensive (my belief doesn't count) rock Mar 2014 #56
This message was self-deleted by its author Proud Public Servant Mar 2014 #59
Quite offensive. Glassunion Mar 2014 #71
I think there are bigger fish to fry. DefenseLawyer Mar 2014 #74
No shit...agree totally... pipi_k Mar 2014 #75
well you think they shouldn't be offended anyway CreekDog Mar 2014 #81
Yes-- it should been changed years ago nt ismnotwasm Mar 2014 #79
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is the name "Washing...»Reply #64