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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Is the name "Washington Redskins" in any way insulting, derogatory or offensive? [View all]Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)64. Apparently, that's not so.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/12/18/redskins_the_debate_over_the_washington_football_team_s_name_incorrectly.html
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?
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."
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?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
83 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Is the name "Washington Redskins" in any way insulting, derogatory or offensive? [View all]
CreekDog
Mar 2014
OP
to whom and how? In my tiny home town we were the Sanford Redskins. we were little kids,
dionysus
Mar 2014
#2
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
Well, Snyder is known for making sensible, well-thought-out decisions, right?
Recursion
Mar 2014
#14
Nope, some folks just love to dig in and maintain as much nasty offense as possible.
TheKentuckian
Mar 2014
#82
Dan Snyder is more concerned with keeping an offensive mascot than recruiting an offensive line
Recursion
Mar 2014
#12
The day is young, but I'll nominate this for best response of 3-26-14. n/t
Smarmie Doofus
Mar 2014
#33
To some of course it is. To others it isn't. The dividing line is the question
whatthehey
Mar 2014
#35
I refer you to the first sentence of the post to which you are indirectly responding
whatthehey
Mar 2014
#63
Fair enough, but would you not give more credibility to the intended target nonetheless? Why not?
whatthehey
Mar 2014
#69
you are more offended at simply being asked, it's obvious from this and a previous poll/thread
CreekDog
Mar 2014
#73