Talk:Indian giver

Sources

Agreed: Please remove any and all subjective material without reference and accepted source. Further, there is no such thing as a "common American"; "fairly sure" is not adequate; everything on this page is subjective. Please remove comments unless you are able to list your source, your name, date and time stamp as well as your relation and belief in the source of your information. In short: who are you and do you have an agenda other than the truth?; accountability, and responsibility to our future generations of humans; please list encyclopedic and other verifiable sources. Teresa Bevin.

Everything on this page below the first paragraph definition should be deleted in short order unless someone plans on providing sources. If there are sources then there is no excuse for this unsourced speculation; if not, the material ought to be removed because the subject is somewhat sensitive. User:zeerover —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

A gift economy is one in which services or goods are given without an agreement as to a suitable payment or trade to be made in return. Instead of monetary gain, gift economies often rely on intangible rewards like a sense of contribution, community, honor or prestige.

Clarification

The article is unclear on the meaning of the term. In one section it says that if a trade was made, the Indians could "undo" the trade and each party would have to return they traded, and this is where the term arose. Another part of the article says it arose because the Indians gave items to the White man, expecting items in return i.e. a trade, and when the white man didn't give the Indians anything in exchange, the Indians took their items back, thus the term. Could you someone please clean up the article, and clarify what the term means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.173.56 (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverted comment on article page

Can someone comment on pot-latching as it relates to Indian giving.. It seems to me that the Indians gave things to the settlers because they thought everyone believed in pot-latching which is an Indian ritual where they give something valuable to someone in their village expecting something valuable back. When the settlers did not reciprocate the Indian took things back because they did not understand that everyone didn';t beliueve in pot-latching. The US and Canadian governments eventually made pot-latching illegal for Indians.Mtwatson (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

true

I think this is not true!!! Indians would never do this.

"Another myth tells that a group of early pilgrims traded guns and other supplies to local Native Americans for corn. The latter group promptly opened fire on the Europeans with their new weapons, killing or incapacitating the entire group of pilgrims, and then proceeded to reclaim their corn."

Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 00:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth

My great grandfather was part Cherokee, my wife is part Cherokee, and I have heard a lot of what I guess you could call Indian folklore. As I have had it explained to me, the term "Indian giver" arose from meetings between Indians and white settlers. It was customary among Indians on meeting to exchange gifts of equal value as a show of good faith. Whites thought that these gifts were just that, gift in white culture meaning no strings attached, and would offer nothing in return. The Indians would be offended and take their gifts back. The whites would misinterpret what this meant. I have heard this explanation; my wife has not. Naaman Brown (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this a racist remark

After hearing about the Jessica Simpson debacle with this phrase , I searched for this this phrace. The wiki entry didn't mention anything about racist element. So is this offensive to Native Americans? RavenMaster7 (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Using the term is considered a poor choice of words these days, though perhaps not outright racist. At the very lest it's very dated, like exclaiming "By our lady!" in the UK. But the general offensiveness is based on the listener's interpretation of what it means. If the listener thinks it means that Native American's took back things they gave (not that it's true, just that the term means this) it can be seen as a racist term. Much like "dutch courage" (meaning bravery by being so drunk you don't care). If the listener believes it means how the US used to cheat Native Americans all the time out of treaties, it is not racist per se, but rather an unpleasant subject. Much like making a joke about Japanese Internment Camps.Legitimus (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see! It is only offensive when it disparages the actions of Indians, but it is quite acceptable when it is meant to disparage the actions of whites. I'm glad you cleared that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.108.140 (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it could be said that the ambiguity of such statements carries some level of offense, since so many expressions of prejudice hide behind double meanings and insinuation -- an assumption that the subject of prejudice is too stupid to get it, or that the target is not worth even the slightest courtesy. I'll admit that, reflecting my educated left background, I assumed from childhood that the phrase alluded to white treachery. We can't say that _most people_ or whatnot would consider it offensive or assume the racist/ethnic slur meaning, but would the phrase if spoken on broadcast television or by a public official not spark anger? I suppose proof is still necessary... someone "buy" Don Imus a car or something. PotatoSamurai (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought Indians came from India! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.150.105 (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah...you can blame that little issue on Christopher Columbus.Legitimus (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I Always Thought This Was a Slam on Whites

The history of Native American interaction with Europeans is more exemplified by Whitey "giving" and then taking away. Just thinking about all the treaties we made with various tribes only to go back on our word and steal the very land we signed over.209.99.206.167 (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I always assumed that, too. Since it was clearly the "whites" who broke every deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.249.235.44 (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Jay Leno

LOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.141.77 (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Will someone please explain why Jay Leno is being added to the See also section? Otherwise it's going to be continually removed. —Soap— 15:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Jay Leno is being added because he gave Conan O'brien the Tonight Show, then took it back from Conan several months later when Jay Leno's new show did poorly in the ratings.Noahsachs (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ... that basically qualifies as vandalism in my opinion. Fortunately the page has been semi-protected for now. —Soap— 17:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Property Rights

I belive the indian giver term arises in part from conflicting notions of property rights. European migrants had a strong notion of personal property, to the point that in european culture one could trace the ownership of any object or parcel of land, and ownership rights were enforced by contracts and rule of law. In many North American Aboriginal cultures, ownership was more weakly defined, especially in terms of land. Communities, and semi-nomadic groups in particular, would occupy the land they needed, and abandon the land they did not. Thus, a "gift" of land from Aboriginals to European migrants would be seen by the Europeans as an aquisition of property, but would be seen by Aboriginals as an implicit lack of conflict ("go ahead and use it, i'm not doing anything with it"). Some time later, should the Europeans have moved on and not be actively using the land, the Aboriginals would naturally assume it was available, and choose to re-occupy it. The Europeans would have interpreted this action as an attempt to take back a previous gift or trade and would defend what they saw as their property, leading to conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.82.50 (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that in hindsight, this is a form of psychological projection by the invading Europeans, as can be seen by answering the following question:

Who has taken back more from the other, the Invading Europeans or the Native Americans? (Hint: think "broken treaties".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.104.76 (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"ersatzgiver"?

Judging by the sources given, this neologism seems to be restricted to a very specific context ("The Freecycle Network") and ununderstandable without that context, because it is derived from another word ersatzfriend that isn't in use elsewhere. Ersatz in English means a cheap, unsatisfying surrogate for something (ersatz coffee), not a trade-in. The google hits I checked refer to TFN or this article. Unless this term has been adopted outside the TFN context, I don't think it is notable. Wikipedia shouldn't be a vehicle to introduce new words.--88.73.51.132 (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle to *introduce* a new word, it is a vehicle for communicating new words that were introduced elsewhere. The use of ersatzgiver has spread outside of the freecycling world (which by itself is a few million people) to a number of references that you can find via Google.74.121.22.10 (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You're going to need to substantiate ersatzgiver a little more to satisfy notability requirements. The few sources I find on Google pretty strongly indicate to me this isn't notable. If there's proof to the contrary, I'll happily consider it. --50.131.152.251 (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't say I have every heard of the word or used the word, or indeed would use the word as it's too much of a mouthful. Personally I would rather say the word "cheap". A new word is great to the English language if it actually stands for anything new. I can never see it becoming a phrase that the masses will take to and it shouldn't be to "coin a phrase" to something that already has many good words. It seems that TFN are more interested in coining new phrases lately so they can set seal to them in years to come.--Stitchywitchypedia (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Caution: 'Indian' means something entirely different to non-Americans

One of the unfathomable aspects of history as seen today is not why Columbus mistook America for India but why we continue to use the wrong name for America before the Europeans arrived, and for the natives of the place. India is not only half a world away but an ancient land now being talked of having an 8000-year civilisation through submerged townships discovered off its west coast (references exist). Indians are from that land nestled between the Arabian Sea and the Indian ocean and by the shadow of the Himalayan mountains. Indians don't even notice that native Americans are called 'Indians' by white Americans and when those that don't know hear that, they are bemused - as they should be. In the classical Indian culture gifts have a divinity about them and there is no thought/question/expectation of return let alone taking them back. Indian mythology is replete with boons given as gifts by the gods and the sages. These concepts don't enter the discourse of giving in the American context. So, for the sake of better understanding, let us stop referring to older/native inhabitants of America as Indians. Indians come from India and not from America.

S Bhowmick (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by S Bhowmick (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

What does this have to do with improving this article? The article discusses the expression "indian giver". It does not refer to native Americans as Indians. Meters (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Synthesis

I removed a significant amount of text from the intro because the sources given did not relate to the phrase "Indian giver"; as per the Wikipedia policy on synthesis of published material. For material to appear on a Wikipedia page, there must be sources relating it to the topic of that page. TSP (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian giver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081019173856/http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2007/05/whos-indian-giver.html to http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2007/05/whos-indian-giver.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Cultural misunderstandings

The term has a way of working here, but also has a way of being overused and overstated. It leaves out the possibility that some of these "Indian givings" were in fact tricks, and not merely misunderstandings, in the fashion of classic aristocrat on commoner style tricks or scams. -SPCooney

Regarding the origin of the term, I find it rather disingenuous and revisionist to chalk it up to a mere "cultural misunderstanding". It's almost as if Natives could never do any wrong according to the modern day narrative, and this is a good example of that kind of thinking. Particularly before the whites became more populous and powerful, the earliest dealings with the Natives doesn't fit with the idea that the Natives were altogether peaceful and the whites altogether bloodthirsty - it was often the other way around.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C56:7900:5433:9BE:1B7B:D27D:E818 (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)