Redskin (1699) is a “dated or offensive” term for Native Americans. It seems to be more common in the US than in Britain: British dictionaries and usage guides do not always list it.
The idea that Natives had “red” skin goes back to the 1580s in English. But the word “redskin” did not appear till 1699.
There are different accounts of where the word came from:
- C. A. Weslager, a White American historian of the Delaware Indians, says it comes from Natives painting their skin red.
- Geoffrey Nunberg, a White American linguist, says it came into English 200 years ago (early 1800s) from a Native term.
- Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, a Native American historian, says it comes from what a scalped body looks like: covered in blood. According to Webster-Merriam dictionary, the word goes back to 1699, which was just when scalping of Natives by White Americans was becoming common.
In Google Books, the word first appears in 1784 and did not become a trending term till the late 1800s, from 1857 to 1896. That was when Whites were wiping out Natives in what is now the western US.
However innocently the word may have started, all the White stereotypes about Natives as savages, whether brutal or noble, were poured into the word. When the word was brought up, the stereotypes were there too, whether in book or film.
Despite all that, Whites regarded the term as “purely descriptive”. They used to think the same about the N-word.
In 1961, “Webster’s Third International” dictionary warned its readers not to use “nigger”, “kike” and “chink”, but not “white trash”, “gook”, “wetback”, “fag” – or “redskin”.
In 1967, in the wake of the civil rights movement, White dictionaries began to mark it as offensive, beginning with Random House.
By the 1990s, it was regarded as offensive by Webster-Merriam, American Heritage and Oxford/Fowler’s.
Even so, it is still used by some 300 high school sports teams in the US. And, most infamously, by the Washington Redskins, the American football team of Washington, DC. They have had the name since 1933.
Bruce Allen (White American), the team’s president, says the name:
“has always been respectful of and shown reverence toward the proud legacy and traditions of Native Americans.”
Professor Devon Mihesuah (Choctaw) sees it differently:
“Sports teams fans of the Cleveland Indians and the Washington Redskins insult Indians with their drunkenness, dyed turkey feathers and sloppy face paint, screeching war hoops and spasmodic dance steps that belong to no tribe.”
Protests against the team’s name began in 1968.
In 1995, the team was taken to court: under the Lanham Act, the government does not protect trademarked names that disparage a group. In 2014, the courts ruled against the team, but the team appealed the decision, so it is not yet settled.
Dan Snyder, the team’s owner, instead of changing the name, said he would start the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation – repeating the mistake! Stephen Colbert made fun of that – at the expense of Asian Americans!!!
– Abagond, 2015.
Sources: Etymology Online (2015); Google Ngram Viewer (2015); Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, “An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States” (2014); The Atlantic (2014); Devon A. Mihesuah, “American Indians: Stereotypes & Realities” (1996); C.A. Weslager, “The Delaware Indians: A History” (1972).
See also:
It baffles me how anyone can defend these names and references and mascots. My high school had the “Indian Chief” mascot but the teams were called “Little Green” as a nod to Dartmouth being “Big Green.” It bothered me then as a teenager and it horrifies me now. It seems schools here in New England are particularly guilty of this abhorrent clinging to offensive stereotypes and “traditional” team names. I don’t get it. It wouldn’t be that hard to publicly admit that these are highly inappropriate and make the change to something that doesn’t marginalize anyone. Yet administrators and fans keep making excuses.
LikeLike
Rename it the Washington Whiteskins -pretty catchy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think they should stop pretending they don’t know what’s going on. It’s racist but they don’t give a f.ck. It goes back to stealing the land, killing people and then not even granting minimum of human respect when they tell you to stop being so racist. How is naming a team a racist slur equivalent to respect?
Idk what to say about Colbert. I guess it’s pretty clear what he meant in the context.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stephen Colbert is a racist.
There I said it.
If Irish-Americans were indeed modern victims of oppression, that is the group he should have used to illustrate his point. Or he could have picked Jews, as Snyder has Jewish background. But he didn’t. He picked an outgroup that he can get away with making racist comments about with no (apparent) fear of retribution.
Not just Colbert showed his racist colours. His fans were even worse.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Okay… I get that ‘Redskins’ is offensive but some are also calling for the Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians (I can understand this one), Kansas City Chiefs, and Chicago Blackhawks to change their names as well.
The team could keep their Native themed mascot but they could be the Washington Warriors instead. (Washington Whiteskins IS pretty funny though.)
LikeLike
[…] Sourced through Scoop.it from: abagond.wordpress.com […]
LikeLike
It could be a dual problem with the name and the mascot itself.
I agree that Kansas City and Atlanta should be fine, esp. since they changed their mascot, but we could understand why the Chicago Blackhawks is still objectionable.
But by far, Redskins is the worst – the name and the image are both problematic.
So, no, keeping the Washington mascot is not a good thing. How would you feel about the Washington Pickaninnies with the corresponding logo to boot? For my whole entire childhood and young adult years, I heard whites constantly refer to the place as “chocolate city”.
BTW, I am a native of DC so I have seen the Redskins my whole entire life. I felt uncomfortable with the name even 40 years ago.
Too bad the original inhabitants of DC are no longer here to voice an opinion.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jefe I’m also in DC bud. Maybe we can meet up one day….
LikeLike
I am not in DC, only go back every so often.
If you are in DC, are you connected to any of the Native American organizations there, or did you attend anything for Native American Heritage month?
LikeLike
Abagond
People of West Indian origin use this word to refer to one another too when someone is deemed fair skin – does it derive from the original meaning somehow??
LikeLike
@ Bobby M
Comment deleted for using Mock Ebonics.
LikeLike
@ Omnipresent
If I remember correctly, some West African languages called Whites “red”. Some say that is what gave rise to the word redneck. So it could be like that.
On the other hand, some light-skinned Black people in the US are called redbone. That word could have come from the belief they are part Indian. I am not sure.
The singer Martha Redbone is, in fact, part Indian:
LikeLike
Regarding the Washington Redskins, why not simply change the team name to the Washington Americans? They could then keep the illustration of a native American and have an honorable context for him. Native Americans are indigenous to the new world and, therefore, can lay accurate claim to the name in a way no other population can. And the team represents the nation’s capitol–so it’s fitting for a population that historically has been present from sea to shining sea. As for the billionare owner’s real concern, the colors and the jersey could remain virtually intact so merchandising wouldn’t be affected.
LikeLike
^ I don’t think it is just the name of the team, but the appropriation of the icon as well.
Also, “American” is not always an honourable context for American Indians, when that refers to the anglo government that removed and replaced the original inhabitants.
Before the baseball team was called the Washington Senators. The name of the current soccer team is the Washington Diplomats. Maybe a more fitting name would be the Washington Bureaucrats? Washington Lobbyists?
I say, pick a local bird like the Washington Ospreys
LikeLike
In a curious twist of fate, the continued use of the trademark name “Redskins” hangs in the balance due to a case that is currently right before the Supreme Court of the US at this moment: the Slants.
They are a Portland Oregon based Asian American band that calls themselves “the Slants”. They need to register their trademark to sign deals with record labels and agents.
They have even been invited by the White House and the armed forces to perform.
They feel that the First Amendment should guarantee their right to use it. Besides, they feel that by co-opting the use of it, they are taking ownership over what used to be widely regarded as a disparaging racial slur. They also argue that the US Trademark office has already approved a wide range of disparaging terms, including many words and phrases recognized as Asian slurs.
They are young enough not to remember the widespread disparaging use of it during the major US wars in Asia, especially towards Japanese-Americans during the WWII Internment camps.
So Dan Snyder of the Washington Redskins has become an unlikely (and according to the Slants, an unwanted) ally in this case. What’s more curious is the connection between Asian slurs and the use of the term “Redskin” that sparked the twitter campaign “Cancel Cobert” a couple year’s ago.
More information about this:
The Supreme Court arguments:
Can disparaging trademarks be denied? The Supreme Court is skeptical.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-skeptical-of-governments-withholding-disparaging-trademarks/2017/01/18/b97b6752-dd05-11e6-918c-99ede3c8cafa_story.html
Background of the case:
Will Asian American band’s First Amendment argument resonate with Supreme Court?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/will-asian-american-bands-first-amendment-argument-resonate-with-supreme-court/2017/01/15/cc8111b6-d8ba-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html
LikeLike
^ Sorry, one point I forgot to insert.
One of the major fears is that if the SCOTUS approves this (and overturns the lower court’s ruling), then in the future, that leaves a loophole for other disparaging terms that could be trademarked, including the N-word.
But, expect a flurry of lawsuits to erupt if they do not approve, as the Trademark office has already approved a slew of other disparaging trademarks. Hundreds, maybe thousands of already approved trademarks could then be put on the line, not just the Redskins. Who decides what is appropriate and what is not? At the present, it seems to be very discretionary, with no rule applying.
LikeLike