History is messy. It’s rarely as clean-cut as a textbook makes it out to be, and the origin of the term redskin is probably one of the best examples of how a single word can morph from a literal descriptor into a heavy, jagged piece of cultural shrapnel.
You’ve probably heard the conflicting stories. Some people say it’s a slur born from the bloody bounties of the colonial era. Others argue it was a neutral, even respectful, term used by Native Americans themselves to distinguish between different groups of people. Honestly? Both of those things can be true at the same time, depending on which century you’re looking at.
The Surprising Linguistic Roots
Most people assume the word was invented by white settlers as a way to dehumanize Indigenous people. But if you look at the actual linguistic records, the story starts somewhere else entirely. Ives Goddard, a senior linguist at the Smithsonian Institution, spent years digging into this. He’s basically the guy when it comes to the history of this specific word.
Goddard found that the earliest recorded uses of "redskin" actually seem to come from Native American speakers. In the late 18th century, tribal leaders were trying to find a way to categorize people in a world that was rapidly changing. They saw themselves as "red," Europeans as "white," and Africans as "black."
It wasn't necessarily a racial slur back then. It was a distinction.
Take, for instance, a 1769 negotiation. Several documents suggest that Piankashaw and Illinois chiefs used the term when speaking to British officials. They were trying to navigate a complex political landscape and used "red" to signify their own sovereignty. In this context, it was almost a term of self-identification. They weren't using it as a pejorative; they were using it as a label for their side of the table.
But words don't stay in one place. They travel. They get hijacked.
🔗 Read more: Baba au Rhum Recipe: Why Most Home Bakers Fail at This French Classic
When the Tone Shifted
By the mid-19th century, the vibe changed. Hard. As the United States pushed westward, the relationship between the government and Indigenous tribes turned increasingly violent and extractive. The origin of the term redskin began to drift away from the diplomatic halls and into the world of frontier violence.
If you look at newspapers from the 1800s, the word starts appearing in a much darker context. It wasn't just a descriptor anymore. It was a way to categorize someone as an "other" or an "enemy." This is where the bounty hunters come in.
While the "bounty" theory—the idea that the word refers specifically to the bloody scalps of Native Americans—is debated by some linguists who focus on the literal etymology, the cultural reality is undeniable. Colonial governments did, in fact, offer bounties for the "red skins" of Native people. Proclamations from the 1700s, like the one issued by Phips in Massachusetts, offered money for scalps.
Even if the word "redskin" didn't start as a reference to a scalp, it became inextricably linked to the practice of hunting human beings for profit. That’s a heavy weight for any word to carry. You can't just scrub that kind of history off a syllable.
The Pop Culture Explosion
By the time we got to the early 20th century, the word had moved into the realm of fiction and sports. It became a caricature. This is where the "warrior" trope really took off.
Enter the Washington Redskins.
💡 You might also like: Aussie Oi Oi Oi: How One Chant Became Australia's Unofficial National Anthem
The team wasn't always called that. They started as the Boston Braves in 1932. When they moved to Fenway Park, the owner, George Preston Marshall, changed the name to the Redskins. Some people claim he did it to honor the coach at the time, William "Lone Star" Dietz, who claimed to be Sioux.
There's a lot of drama around Dietz, by the way. Records later suggested he might have been a white man posing as Native American to avoid the draft or gain status. It’s a whole rabbit hole of its own. But the point is, the name wasn't chosen by Native people. It was chosen by a white businessman who was savvy about branding.
He wanted something that sounded tough. He wanted something that fit the "wild west" imagery that was popular in movies at the time. To him, it was a marketing tool. To the people being referenced, it was becoming an increasingly painful reminder of a history they were still trying to survive.
The Legal and Social Battleground
For decades, the term was just accepted in the mainstream. Most people didn't think twice about it. But in the 1960s and 70s, during the American Indian Movement (AIM), things started to boil over.
Activists like Suzan Shown Harjo began a relentless campaign to challenge the use of the word. They weren't just being "sensitive." They were pointing out that the origin of the term redskin was tied to a period of genocide. They argued that using it as a mascot was a form of psychological violence.
The legal battle lasted for years. In 1992, Harjo and several other Native American plaintiffs filed a petition to cancel the trademark registrations for the Washington Redskins. They won, then lost on appeal, then won again in a different case (Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc.), and then everything got messy with Supreme Court rulings on the First Amendment.
📖 Related: Ariana Grande Blue Cloud Perfume: What Most People Get Wrong
It wasn't until 2020—amidst a massive wave of social justice protests and pressure from corporate sponsors like FedEx—that the team finally dropped the name.
Why the Disagreement Persists
You’ll still find people today who swear the word isn't offensive. They point to the Goddard study. They say, "Look, the Indians invented it!"
But that’s a bit like saying a word used in 1750 means the exact same thing in 2024. Language is a living thing. It picks up baggage. It evolves based on who has the power in the conversation. If a group of people tells you that a word is being used to hurt them, the dictionary definition from 200 years ago doesn't really matter as much as the current impact.
There’s also the "honor" argument. People say they use the term to honor the strength and bravery of Native Americans. But if you're "honoring" someone with a name they’ve asked you to stop using, are you really honoring them? Or are you just honoring your own version of them?
What We Know for Sure
The origin of the term redskin isn't a straight line. It’s a circle that includes:
- Early diplomatic usage by tribes to identify themselves in opposition to white settlers.
- Adoption by white settlers as a slang term for "Indian."
- Use in government proclamations regarding bounties for Native American scalps.
- Integration into American pop culture and sports as a "tough" warrior brand.
- Decades of protest by Native American groups who viewed it as a slur.
It’s a word that reflects the entire history of the United States—the initial meetings, the subsequent violence, and the long, slow process of reckoning with the past.
Actionable Takeaways for Navigating This History
If you're trying to wrap your head around why this matters or how to discuss it, here are some things to keep in mind:
- Context is King: Understand that a word used in a 1760 treaty doesn't have the same social weight as a word used in an 1860 bounty poster or a 1950s comic book. The shift from "descriptor" to "derogatory" happened because of the power dynamics of the time.
- Acknowledge the Complexity: You can acknowledge that the word has Native American linguistic roots while also acknowledging that it became a slur. These two facts don't cancel each other out.
- Listen to the Source: When it comes to labels for specific groups, the most reliable "experts" are the members of that group. The vast majority of Native American organizations, including the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), have been on record for decades stating the term is offensive.
- Check the Records: If you're interested in the deep dive, look up the work of Ives Goddard or the legal filings from the Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc. case. They provide the most detailed historical and legal breakdown of the word's trajectory.
- Look Beyond the Mascot: The mascot debate was just the tip of the iceberg. The real conversation is about how language shapes our perception of history and who gets to tell the story.
Ultimately, the word is a relic. It’s a piece of the past that tells us a lot more about the people who used it than the people it was meant to describe. By understanding where it came from, we can better understand why it finally had to go.