Esquire article summarizes:
“Many have claimed that our story about the etymology of "Redskin" was wrong. This document from 1863 proves otherwise…The fact remains that to many Native Americans, the term "redskin" has long meant the act of our ancestor's scalps being collected for bounty.”
“The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.”
Our Response:
Right or wrong, there was a bounty for dead Native hostiles.
The use of the term “red skin” in no way refers to a scalp. It refers to the the self-identifying term Natives were known by: red skin. “Sending a red skin to Purgatory” means to kill Natives, not scalp their head.
The writer proclaims that the 1863 reference is the earliest etymology of the word and therefore established its origin. The correct etymology is revealed in the below two recorded use of Red Skin:
Red Skin etymology actually starts with PRIOR use of the word in 1812, 51 years earlier: Chief Meskwaki Black Thunder is quoted, “I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me.”
In 1822, it is recorded that Big Elk (chief of the Omaha tribe) self-described as a Red Skin. In conversation with President James Monroe: “I am almost the only Red Skin opposed to war.”
The etymology is simply incorrect.
Educate Not Eradicate.
####
In the Summer of 2006, extensive research on the 1862 Minnesota Uprising was done by Eunice Davidson, President of the Native American Guardian’s Association. The St Paul historical library, historical museums along the uprising trail in Minnesota, and the National Archives were all sources of her research.
Articles from back in that time confirmed there was a bounty put on the Indians. Not once was there any evidence pertaining to the word Redskin.
With research at personal cost of $6,000 in fees at 10 cents a copy, Eunice Davidson amassed a filing cabinet with four drawers of documents. There was no documentation found that connected the word Redskins to mean bloody scalps.
Text from Esquire article below that’s refuted:
“Update: Yes, A 'Redskin' Does, In Fact, Mean the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold for Cash”
From The Daily Republican newspaper in Winona, Minnesota from Sept. 24, 1863. It reads:
“The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.”
Refuted above w/simple misunderstanding of sentence structure.
Refuted above with etymology 51 years prior.
“forging and inventing the Phips Proclamation, a historical document from 1755 that called for the scalping of Indians.”
NAGA refutes this reference as there is no reference to “Redskin” in the Phips Proclamation from 1755.
Therefore, there is no etymology of the word red skin and no red skin word connected to scalping.
“A few cited a study written by Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard that makes the case that the word did not begin as an insult.”
Harjo refuted by the Smithsonian linguist officially and in court.
“…finding of disparagement is not supported by substantial evidence” and that “the doctrine of laches precludes consideration of the case.”(1) One need not accept Harjo’s unfounded claim that the word redskin “had its origins in the practice of presenting bloody red skins and scalps as proof of Indian kill for bounty payments”(2) to accept that many find the word objectionable in current use. But the actual origin of the word is entirely benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between Indians and whites. It emerged at a specific time in history among a small group of men linked by joint activities that provided the context that brought it forth. Before its documented history can be traced, however, the false history given for it in standard reference books must be expunged.”
Another member of the Smithsonian – Kevin Gover, a member of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma and director of the Institution's National Museum of the American Indian:
"I'm really not that interested in where the word comes from," Gover said. "I know how it was used. And it's been used in a disparaging way for at least a couple of centuries. Up to and including the time I was growing up in Oklahoma."
What is germane to the conversation? What is semantics? That is debatable.”
This opinion is not based in any fact.
We refute this with Eunice Davidson’s research above.
"The fact remains that to many Native Americans, the term "redskin" has long meant the act of our ancestor's scalps being collected for bounty." (Gover)
This isn’t a fact, it’s a misconception.
Refuted by Eunice Davidson’s research.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a29318/redskin-name-update/
Further objection as stated in the Esquire article By Baxter Holmes PUBLISHED: JUN 18, 2014
####
