Re: George
Posted by ESC on April 03, 2002 In Reply to: Re:
"Indians" posted by TheFallen on April 03, 2002
: : : : :
: : : I think it is the political correct answer, did you notice "genocidal practice".
If you look up scalping, you will see several sites trying to make the argument
it was Europe that originated the practice and the tribes just innocently got
caught up into the action. Here is a good site that dispels that, http://thecowshed.tripod.com/native/cutting.htm
"Finally, the words that are used to describe "scalp" and "scalping" had no set
vocabulary and no universal translation in European languages, but Indians of
different backgrounds and languages had nouns and verbs to refer to the specific
use of the terminology."
: : : : : : : : I can't help but think red=blood and
because it is a negative English word for American Indians, I think it might have
something to do with Indians taking scalps, because it would be a bloody mess,
leaving them with redskinds.
: : : : : : : But did you come to this forum to
get information about the origin of "redskin" or to promote a hypothesis about
it? The reference books that the regulars here rely on say the word came from
a supposed reddish hue to Indians' skin. They say nothing about blood or scalping.
The origin of a word isn't established just by finding that one or another idea
is intuitively appealing. You need historical support, too; and we presume that
the compilers of the reference books have researched the phrases they explain.
As an example, look at "the Whole nine yards" as tossed around in the archives
on this site. Many people have "decided" what the "true" origin of that phrase
is--but they have proposed DIFFERENT origins.
: : : : : RED INDIAN - "An offensive
name for Native Americans, but a historical term applied by the British to North
American Indians, apparently because of 'their copper-colored skin' and to distinguish
them semantically from the Indians of India. From 'Red Indian' came the derogatory
word redskin." From "Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins" by Robert Hendrickson
(Facts on File, New York, 1997).
: : : : : LOS INDIOS, INDIAN, SAVAGE, NOBLE
SAVAGE -- "Since the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere neither called
themselves by a single term nor understood themselves as a collectivity, the idea
and image of the Indian must be a White concept..The term 'Indian' as a general
designation for the inhabitants of North and South America in addition to some
Asians stems from the erroneous geography of Christopher Columbus. Under the impression
he had landed among the islands off Asia, he called the peoples he met 'los Indios.'
Although he quite self-consciously gave new names to islands upon his first voyage,
his application of the term 'Indios' seems to have been almost casual."
: :
: : : I skimmed this book and didn't see a reference to "redskin," the subject
of the original inquiry.
: : : : : But Mr. Berkhofter does include an early
description contained in Amerigo Vespucci's "Mundus Novus," published around 1504-1505:
"They have indeed large square-built bodies, well formed and proportioned, and
in color verging on reddish. This I think has come to them, because, going around
naked, they are colored by the sun."
: : : : : "Seventeenth-century Frenchmen,
Italians, and Englishmen generally employed a variant of the Latin 'silvaticus,'
meaning a forest inhabitant or man of the woods, for the Indian as the earlier
spellings of 'saulvage,' 'salvaticho,' and 'salvage' show so well in each of the
respective languages. English usage switched from 'savage' to 'Indian' as the
general term for Native Americans in the seventeenth century, but the French continued
to use 'sauvage' as the preferred word into the nineteenth century. The original
image behind this terminology probably derives from the ancient one associated
with the 'wild man,' or 'wilder Mann' in Germany."
: : : : : ".What Englishmen
called Native Americans and how they understood them after a few decades of settlement
was summarized by Roger Williams in a brief analysis of nomenclature in 'A Key
Into the Language of America; Or, An Help to the Language of the Natives in That
Part of America Called New England' (1643). Under the heading: 'By what names
are they distinguished,' he divided terminology into two sorts: 'First, those
of the English giving: as Natives, Salvages, Indians, Wild-men, (so the Dutch
call them 'Wilden'), Abergeny Men, Pagans, Barbarians, Heathen. Second, their
Names, which they give themselves.'"
: : : : : From "The Idea of the Indian:
Invention and Perpetuation," from "The White Man's Indian: Images of the American
Indian from Columbus to the Present" by Robert F. Berkhofer Jr. (First Vintage
Books Edition, 1979; originally published by Alfred A. Knoft Inc., 1978).
:
: : : : "As information about the inhabitants of the New World became better known
in the Old, Native Americans entered the literary and imaginative works of European
writers, particularly the French. In this way the American Indian became part
of the 'bon sauvage' or Noble Savage tradition so long an accompaniment of the
Golden Age or paradisaical mythology of Western civilization.Only after French
and English explorations and settlement proceeded in the seventeenth century,
however, could the European imagination be stimulated by accounts other than Spanish
in origin, and the noble Huron and Iroquois and other tribesmen north of Mexico
join their literary colleagues, the wise princes of the Inca and Aztec realms
and the good Indians of Brazil and the Antilles."
: : : : : From "European
Primitivism, the Noble Savage, and the American Indian," also a chapter in "The
White Man's Indian: Images of the American Indian from Columbus to the Present."
: : : : : REDSKIN -- "redskin, 1699; red man, 1725; red devil, 1834." From
"I Hear America Talking" by Stuart Berg Flexner (Von Nostrand Reinhold Co., New
York, 1976).
: : : : : RED MEN - "The Improved Order of Red Men was originally
organized by those who admired Indian character and who adopted as their 'patron'
Chief Tammany. It is now an organization that does charitable and benevolent acts.
The first idea was started in Philadelphia around 1772 when a society met called
'The Sons of Tammany.' They met at the home of Mr. James Byran." This reference
does not include an entry for "redskin." From the "Dictionary of the American
Indian: An A-to-Z Guide to Indian History, Legend and Lore" by John Stoutenburgh
Jr. (Wing Books, Avenel, New Jersey, 1960)
: : : : : NATIVE AMERICAN -- "adj,
n (1956) (a member) of the indigenous peoples of North America. A term not in
wide use until the 1970s, when the political incorrectness of referring to such
people as 'Indians' began to be more keenly felt. Before long, it too succumbed,
the offending component being 'native.' 1956 Aldous Huxley: Thank you for your
most interesting letter about the Native American churchmen." From "20th Century
Words: The Story of New Words in English Over the Last 100 Years" by John Ayto
(Oxford University Press, New York, 1999)
: : : : A number of years ago my husband
and kids and I visited Salt Lake City. A young white woman smilingly took our
little tour group through some hallowed grounds belonging to the Church of Latter-Day
Saints while she related key background information about the Mormon faith. Her
story about Jesus appearing after his death to Indians in South America caught
my husband's attention. "Which tribe?" he asked her. She stopped smiling and looked
puzzled for a moment, then brightened. "I think all of them," she said.
: :
: George Carlin is a comedian, not a philologist, and I haven't checked his facts,
but he does have a great sensitivity to language, and this is what he says about
"Indian":
: : : "There's nothing wrong with the word Indian. First of all, it's
important to know that the word Indian does not derive from Columbus mistakenly
believing he had reached 'India.' India was not even called by that name in 1492;
it was known as Hindustan. More likely, the word 'Indian' comes from Columbus's
description of the people he found here. He was an Italian, and did not speak
or write very good Spanish, so in his written accounts he called the Indians,
'Una gente in Dios.' A people in God. In God. In Dios. Indians." [George Carlin,
"Brain Dropppings," Hyperion Press, 1997, p. 165]
: : I think George was an
English major. It would be interesting to know the source of his information.
: This I find confusing. I don't doubt Mr. Carlin's sincerity for an instant,
and I'm happily prepared to believe that India was called Hindustan at that time.
However, a little research in my shamefully truncated edition of the OED and on
the Web shows that the people originally from the region of the valley of the
river Indus had been referred to as Indian in both Middle English, Latin (indicus),
Ancient Greek (indikos) and Persian (hind - hence Hindustan, Hindi etc). My OED,
under its Usage notes for the adjective "Indian", repeats the tale of Columbus'
mistakenly believing that he had found the East Indies, and hence deciding that
the natives were therefore Indians, and given the frequent progression of words
from Ancient Greek to Latin and then to other Romance languages, I'd guess that
it was fairly likely that the adjective in use in the Spain of 1492 to refer to
the region of modern-day India was indeed Indian or "indio", if that's the Spanish
equivalent.
: This is all supposition of course, but I think the weight of evidence
is on the side of Columbus' error.
: The following link has some information
on the origins of the words India and Hindu.
: http://www.apsara.clara.co.uk/troyoga/mh/mh.htm
From
the George Carlin timeline: 1953 - Drops out of school after nine gruelling years.
So I guess George Carlin wasn't an English major. I suppose I got that idea
because a lot of his early work sounded like the linguistics I was (supposed)
to be studying in college. Only he made it sound way more interesting. What some
brave soul could do is ask him where he got his information -- http://www.georgecarlin.com/georgecarlin/home/home.html
He scares me.
- Re: India/Hindustan R. Berg
04/03/02 (0)
|