The Historical Etymology of "Redskin"

I'm not particularly interested in football. Let me rephrase that: I actively dislike football. Until this weekend, I was fairly disinterested in the Washington Redskins name controversy. I figured it was one of those conflicts like the Iran-Iraq War in which, to quote Henry Kissinger, "It's a shame they can't both lose."

This weekend, one of my friends from my undergraduate years drew my interest with this claim:

"In case you don't know, "Redskin" refers to the bloody scalps the U.S. federal government paid bounty for. Scalps of Native Americans. $75 paid for the scalp of a Dakota in 1863. $75."

I had never, ever, ever, heard this claim. I was absolutely stunned, because this version ran contrary to everything I had ever heard about the term "redskin". So, I decided to do some research.

I started with Wikipedia. I know, "boo, hiss, Wikipedia!", but the thing about Wikipedia is that it tends to be a decent place to find sources. The most authoritative source that everyone else seems to claim appears to be Smithsonian linguist Ives Goddard. To quote Wikipedia:

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) cites its earliest use in a 1699 letter from an English colonialist, Samuel Smith, living in Hadley, Massachusetts, which supposedly contains the following passage: "Ye firste Meetinge House was solid mayde to withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins."[1] [1] Goddard, Ives (2005). "I AM A RED-SKIN: The Adoption of a Native American Expression (1769-1826)". Native American Studies (19:2): 1. Retrieved July 1, 2014. (link)

Goddard also notes that "the actual origin of the word is entirely benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between Indians and whites."

So, where does the "redskin-as-scalp" definition come from? According to what appears to be a well researched article by Adrian Jawort entitled "Redskins Not So Black and White":

This conclusion originates from American Indian activist Suzan Shown Harjo (Cheyenne and Muscogee) and a National Congress of American Indians’ brief. In the Pro Football vs. Harjo trademark case in a bid to force the Washington Redskins to change their name, Harjo and six others made it to the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. before the Supreme Court eventually rejected their longstanding case in the 2009. And while that fight still goes on via Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., Harjo’s team had previously claimed “redskin” derived from referring to bloody Indian scalps during the onset of the French and Indian War. Particularly cited is England’s 1755 Phips Proclamation, a declaration of war against the non-British allied Penobscot Nation stating: “... For every Scalp of such Female Indian or Male Indian under the Age of twelve years that Shall be killed and brought in as Evidence of their being killed as aforesaid, Twenty pounds.” As appalling and emotionally appealing as it is, the Phips Proclamation doesn’t include the words “red skins” in it. Claiming “scalps” automatically means “red skins” is revisionist history, to be blunt. It was the Native Americans who first used the term “red” in order to differentiate between indigenous, white, and black people. When not referring to their individual and other tribes collectively, why would they use Indian, Native, or other adjectives to describe their obvious skin differences back then?

So, I challenged my friend to produce some actual sources to corroborate the claim. She produced two sources. The first was a blurb from an 1897 edition of the Los Angeles Herald. It lists the bounty on a scalp, but critically fails to link the term "redskin" with "scalp". As such, its content is awful, but completely irrelevant to the "redskin-as-scalp" debate. The second source she provided from Esquire - not exactly an objective source - and is provocatively titled "Update: Yes, A 'Redskin' Does, In Fact, Mean the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash". Its sub-headline reads: "Many have claimed that our story about the etymology of "Redskin" was wrong. This document from 1863 proves otherwise."

Except... No, it doesn't. The document 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."

At most, this document offers a vague suggestion that, in the mid-1800's, a parallel definition of "redskin" may have been used. However, the phrase about "dead bodies of all the Indians" suggests that the use of "red-skin" in this passage actually refers to the entire corpse, rather than the just the scalp. In so doing, this "proof" actively undermines the case the article's author is trying to make. If this is the best evidence that the "redskin-as-scalp" advocates have, then they have failed to make a compelling case.

Beyond failing to make the "redskin-as-scalp" connection, these sources come too late in American history to corroborate the case for this etymology. By 1897, Europeans and their descendants had been in contact with the American Indians for nearly three centuries. And, as Goddard's study notes, the earliest known instance of the term "redskin" dates back as far as 1699. I'm not ruling out the possibility that a second definition of "redskin" pertaining to scalps arose later, but such a suggestion simply isn't in evidence. There's also the inconvenient detail that virtually no one is even aware of the "redskin-as-scalp" claim, so the accusation that Americans who support the continuity of the team name are actively or passively supporting such an odious definition is simply ridiculous.

None of this is meant to defend the treatment that the American Indians suffered in the 18th and 19th centuries. I also suspect that no one would argue that the term "redskin" isn't antiquated, or that there aren't at least some folks who find the term offensive. However, those who are passionate about wanting the team to change its name will have to come up with something more compelling than unsubstantiated revisionist history if they expect to convince anyone. They should also be careful with such historical claims, because in this case, my research of the historical record has actually pushed me - exactly the sort of dispassionate observer whom they should be trying to convince - further toward believing that this is another manufactured controversy. Regardless, I still wish that they'd just convert the Redskins' stadium into a hockey rink.