Just how offensive is it to use the term "redskin" to denote a Native American or as the name of a football team? After all, are not whites called "white" and blacks called "black?" Isn't "redskin" merely also a reference to the hue of the skin?
No, it actually is not a description of skin color, and it is easy to understand why any Native American who was aware of the origin of the term would be offended--even if one did accept the questionable premise that the nomenclature would be OK if based solely on epidermal pigmentation.
In 1755, Lieutenant Governor Spencer Phips of Massachusetts issued a proclamation directed at eliminating the Penobscot Indians. It provided for payment of a bounty for action against the Penobscots as follows:
For males over the age of twelve captured and taken to Boston--50 pounds
For males under the age of twelve or females taken to Boston--25 pounds
For the scalps of killed males over the age of twelve--40 pounds
For the scalps of killed females over the age of twelve--25 pounds
For the scalps of killed children under the age of twelve--20 pounds
In that the annual salary of a schoolteacher at that time was between 60 to 120 pounds, there were many individuals who were able to justify to themselves the morality of genocide. It was the white man who taught the Indians about scalping--not the other way around.
What does this have to do with redskins? Well, "redskin" was the term used to refer to the bloody scalps turned in for the bounty. As such, referring to a Native American as a "redskin" would be as offensive as calling a Jew "crematorium fodder," and its use as a moniker for a sports franchise would be akin to a Berlin soccer team naming itself the "Zyklon B."
No comments:
Post a Comment