There are actually no citations to support this, and prior usages make it seem unlikely that is the derivation.

That isn't to say it's not offensive -- but I don't think promotion of inflammatory false information is constructive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10...

I agree with the general tenor of this comment, but the idea that you need a "citation" is misplaced. The common practise of "scalping" was widespread (although not uniformly) and this is documented in various places. The speculation on the origin of what is essentially a slang word is speculative regarless of what side of the debate you want to argue--thus citation is irrelevant. Conversely, there was certainly an origin of the term, and lack of citation doesn't support the term never had an origin (correctly understood or otherwise).

A variation of "Red-skin" also appears in the French Language (something there is no data to support Native Americans would have objected to, presumably). Again, this is neither here nor there in that french speaking canadiens would have been in contact with all manner of native americans, including those among which 'scalping' took place (in terms of geographic an time period overlap etc).

editL

Just a cut-n-paste but might be helpful for some folks to baseline:

Redskin...had not emerged first in English or any European language. The English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called black, white, and so on.

But the language into which those terms for Indians were first translated <was French>. The tribes among whom the proto forms of redskin first appeared lived in the area of the upper Mississippi River called Illinois country. Their extensive contact with French-speaking colonists, before the French pulled out of North America, led to these phrases being translated, in the 1760s, more or less literally as peau-rouge and only then into English as redskin. It bears mentioning that many such translators were mixed-blood Indians.

So the original term in the west was "peau-rouge" and this can be see in various french-language citations if needed--including news reports. How and why this was used as slang in English is another question all together, and how or why it ended up as a mascot (like braves, warriors, spartans etc) another question again.

Complete and utter bullshit. Look at the etymology of the word "Oklahoma," for instance. It was self-applied: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Chronicles/v014/v014p156.... .

I've seen this brought up a few times for weeks now. If this movement wanting a football team name change doesn't approach Oklahoma about changing their racist name then I'll be really disappointed. They could at least request the University of Oklahoma to make the change.

I don't think a significant portion of Native Americans find "Oklahoma" to be racist. (based on a guess, not based on any studies)

The point of the ruling was a significant portions of Native Americans found "redskins" to be derogatory at the time the team chose the name all the way to today. I think people arguing today that "redskins" is offensive is based on the fact that a significant portion of Native Americans do think it is offensive today and not based on etymology alone.

I would have to say that's what the term meant in California during the mid-1800s as the person describes. The term could have easily meant something different to different people in a different section of the country. It could have been a negative description, a positive description, or just simply a description. Whether it be an accurate description or not.

Thanks for this, I didn't realize the origin came from bloody skin. If that's the case, it seems like it's time to change the name of the team.

The image really is pretty bad.