Although I wouldn’t trade our weather for the whether they’ve had in the North East, we have been cold here this week.
Indian giver is an American expression used to describe a person who gives a gift (literal or figurative) and later wants it back, or something equivalent in return.
As observed and documented by “Lewis and Clark” in their journal, trading with Native Americans had a very unusual aspect – any trade, once consummated, was considered a fair trade.
If on one day, they traded beads for a dog from a tribe, then days later, the trade could be reversed – upon surrendering the beads, the tribe expected the dog back.
The original idea of “giving” in this fashion connotes trade (“I’ll give you this, and you give me that”), and not presents or “gifts.”
The phrase originated, according to researcher David Wilton, in a cultural misunderstanding that arose when (Europeans) first encountered Native Americans on arriving in North America in the 15th century.
Europeans thought they were receiving gifts from Native Americans, while the Native Americans believed they were engaged in bartering; this resulted in the Native Americans finding European behaviour ungenerous and insulting.
The phrase was first used in print in 1765.
The phrase was first noted in 1765 by Thomas Hutchinson, who characterized an Indian gift as “a present for which an equivalent return is expected,” …
..which of course suggest that the phrase originally referred to a simple exchange of gifts.
In 1860, however, in John Russell Bartlett’s Dictionary of Americanisms, Bartlett said the phrase was being used by children in New York to mean “one who gives a present and then takes it back.”
As recently as 1979, the phrase was used in mainstream media publications, but in the 1997 book The Color of Words: An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Ethnic Bias in the United States, writer and editor “Philip Herbst” says that although the phrase is often used innocently by children, it may be interpreted as offensive, …
..and The Copyeditor’s Handbook (1999) describes it as objectionable.
For those of you who possess a quick wit, ..you’re correct!
Today’s forum is dominated by the folks who are displeased with my characterization of our current Commander in Chief and his signature legislation.
Accordingly, for the sake of (time and space), I have chosen one conservative comment and one liberal degradation…
Rebecca, (from Sunnybrook Farms). (All encompassing).
Your weekly chiding of our president is repugnant and if I thought you had the intelligence to understand I would tell you that you should be ashamed of yourself.
President Obama is the leader of our government and our government makes the laws, so it is totally absurd to think that a law our government would make could be illegal.
Barack Obama is a good man that has beat the odds against him as a black man because he has always gone the extra mile to help folks in need and you can’t do that without love and compassion in your heart. Rebecca
Dear Rebecca, before I get started I would like to apologize for the (of Sunnybrook Farms). It was a cheap shot, albeit I believe appropriate as the Rebecca in the story Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farms was naïve as well.
With that said, although I am fully aware that “anything and everything” I say to you will fall on (your) deaf ears.
What I write to you in reply to your (defaming) comment is as much for the world as it is for you…
As a publisher of arranged words, I do not depend on others advice or opinions. I spend a great deal of time researching what I write and sense I write a great deal about our current commander-in-chief, I spend a lot of time researching him.
As to your reference of “our” government’s capacity to enact an illegal law, beyond Chief Justice “John Roberts” (political) decision to legislate via his (station), and deem Obamacare to be a tax instead of a penalty, ..the first thing that comes to mind is when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve act of 1913 into law.
I didn’t simply reach up into thin air and come up with…
U.S. federal code, title 18-1035 is a legitimate bona fide piece of legislation and I even inserted the URL to take people like you to the actual website where I gleaned the information.
Nevertheless, I’m back here at my post every day offering education to those with the capacity to learn…
Russell from Arizona, (What makes the First Family first).
As a teacher in the public school system I am fascinated to read both the conscience and the satirical wit you provide in your blog. I wish you would have been a student in one of my classes.
I teach English art and literature. Russell
Hello Russell, thank you for your comments and your kind words.
I would like to begin with your “conclusion” that you would’ve enjoyed having me in one of your classes…
No you would not have, – as a youth I was the foundation for Merriam-Webster’s definition of the word difficult.
According to Merriam-Webster: “dif·fi·cult,” (in context) Hard to please, satisfy, or manage.
I could take your generous words and run-on for several pages about this that or something else, albeit for the sake of brevity I think everyone would enjoy it more if I simply thanked you for your opinion.
If you’ve been reading my blather for a while, then you have a pretty good idea as to who I am, …
..if you’re a recent recruit, ..I invite you to enjoy the “hopefully interesting” adventure ahead. Chuck.
Truth forges understanding, I’ll be back tomorrow