#antiindian

The term derives from the extremely horrific and racist act of selling Native scalps, ‘skins’, to the United States government. Here is an actual advertisement from The Daily Republican newspaper in Sept. 24, 1863:

Look, non-Indigenous can run around claiming it is non-offensive and it is somewhat common to find Natives who aren’t particularly perturbed by this, mostly because in the hierarchy of needs, the NFL falls way under land rights, clean drinking water, food deserts, etc. I have family members who used to proudly wear ‘Red***n’ apparel, because they were excited it ‘had a Native’ on it. Any representation is better than none, to some people.

With that said, finding one Native who approves of something, who you can then trot out as a spokesperson, is a racist act in its own right. You are essentially telling us that our identity is singular and represented by your designated colonizer.

I don’t care if the term was supposedly created by a Native Person or deemed okay by an Indigenous person. That is like saying that Stella Kübler was the expert spokesperson for all things Jewish or that Ben Carson speaks for the entire Black American community. The term is extremely offensive. There should not even be an argument about this. Instead it should be an education. Indigenous people are not mascots or pets that people can selectively choose to highlight when it is beneficial or supports whatever myth they are trying to sell.