The big tent liberals are so focused on finding something-anything that they can blame on whitey that now, either through ignorance or design have concocted what should be a non-issue into yet another national discussion on race. This time though, it may be their own racists roots they are fighting.
After Bob Costas soiled the airwaves once again with yet another leftist rant, I checked myself and decided to see if Costas was on to something for once. He advocated for a name change for the National Football League’s Washington Redskins, citing the term “redskin” as a disparagement against native American indians. I knew the term referred to indians, but other than that had no idea as to the origins of the name. I decided to look it up. According to Oxford Dictionaries online, one of most trusted dictionaries on the globe, I got my answer.
Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. In time, however, through a process that in linguistics is called pejoration, by which a neutral term acquires an unfavorable connotation or denotation, redskin lost its neutral, accurate descriptive sense and became a term of disparagement.
Neutral, accurate description In other words, the original term had no racial aspect to it whatsoever. How then, did it become a derogatory term over time?
It’s just my speculation, but if the term redskin became derogatory over time we can look at that time, from Andrew trail of tears Jackson to Jim Crow. Jackson’s followers formed what is now the Democrat Party, and we know who supported Jim Crow: those same Democrats. Just speculating.
Now we have outrage over a term that was never meant to be disparaging. From my childhood I never saw it that way. From Sonny Jurgesen to John Riggins to the hogs, Redskins to me meant top tier in the NFL. Even if the term were a reference to skin color, I don’t make the leap to something disparaging. Apparently, Bob Costas thinks that we should. Maybe he fails to see that an NFL franchise was so impressed and so revered Indian warriors that they wanted the name to identify themselves as having the same qualities. Sounds horrible Bob.
Where does it end Bob? You seem to have no problem with the fightin’ Irish of Notre Dame. Yeah a drunken, brawling Irishman. How about the Buccaneers and the Raiders. Named after criminals! Do you have a problem with that Bob? If he does have a problem with those names, he’s yet to rant about it. So far, just another condescending pat on the head under the big tent.
So the next time you hear the term “redskin,” are you going to take it as it was meant to be or what some low-lifes throughout history tried to make it? I’ll stick with the original meaning.