1617 engraving of Ralph Hamer, secretary of the Virginia colony, and party meeting with Wahunsenacawh, father of Matoaka (a.k.a. Pocahontas) and leader of the Powhatan, an alliance of Algonquian-speaking peoples living in the Tidewater region of Virginia
15 February 2021
Indian-giver is a racist label for someone who gives a gift and then demands it be given back. Nowadays, its use is chiefly confined to children and the playground. The origin of the term is in the gift economy practiced by many North American indigenous peoples, who as a way of barter would engage in rituals of gift giving, expecting a gift of equivalent value to be given in return.
The term Indian gift is recorded in John Callender’s 1739 Historical Discourse on the Civil and Religious Affairs of the Colony of Rhode-Island. But even in this earliest use, there is a hint of disapproval by Europeans of the practice:
And in another Manuscript he [Roger Williams] tells us, the Indians were very shy and jealous of selling the Lands to any, and chose rather to make a Grant of them to such as they affected, but at the same Time, expected such Gratuities and Rewards as made an Indian Gift often times a very dear Bargain.
By the mid eighteenth century, Indian gift was an established expression referring to the Native American practice. Thomas Hutchinson, in his 1764 History of the Colony of Massachusets-Bay [sic], writes:
The principle or persuasion that all things ought to be in common might cause hospitality, where the like was expected in return, without any great degree of virtue.
To which he appends a note:
An Indian gift is a proverbial expression, signifying a present for which an equivalent return is expected.
But by the early nineteenth century, the recognition that the practice was a different type of economy was beginning to fade, and in the eyes of Europeans the practice took on the connotation of duplicity and untrustworthiness. This extended passage from Washington Irving’s 1837 Adventures of Captain Bonneville, while it acknowledges the cultural difference at first, places the term Indian giving in the context of supposed Native American duplicity:
So saying, he made a signal, and forthwith a beautiful young horse, of a brown colour, was led prancing and snorting, to the place. Captain Bonneville was suitably affected by this mark of friendship; but his experience in what is proverbially called “Indian giving," made him aware that a parting pledge was necessary on his own part, to prove that this friendship was reciprocated. He accordingly placed a handsome rifle in the hands of the venerable chief; whose benevolent heart was evidently touched and gratified by this outward and visible sign of amity.
The worthy captain having now, as he thought, balanced this little account of friendship, was about to shift his saddle to this noble gift-horse when the affectionate patriarch plucked him by the sleeve and introduced to him a whimpering whining, leathern-skinned old squaw, that might have passed for an Egyptian mummy, without drying. “This,” said he, “is my wife; she is a good wife—I love her very much.—She loves the horse—she loves him a great deal—she will cry very much at losing him.—I do not know how I shall comfort her—and that makes my heart very sore.”
What could the worthy captain do, to console the tender-hearted old squaw; and, peradventure, to save the venerable patriarch from a curtain lecture? He bethought himself of a pair of earbobs: it was true, the patriarch's better-half was of an age and appearance that seemed to put personal vanity out of the question: but when is personal vanity extinct? The moment he produced the glittering earbobs, the whimpering and whining of the sempiternal beldame was at an end. She eagerly placed the precious baubles in her ears, and, though as ugly as the Witch of Endor, went off with a sideling gait, and coquettish air, as though she had been a perfect Semiramis.
The captain had now saddled his newly acquired steed, and his foot was in the stirrup, when the affectionate patriarch again stepped forward, and presented to him a young Pierced-nose, who had a peculiarly sulky look.
“This," said the venerable chief, “is my son; he is very good; a great horseman—he always took care of this very fine horse—he brought him up from a colt, and made him what he is.—He is very fond of this fine horse—he loves him like a brother—his heart will be very heavy when this fine horse leaves the camp." What could the captain do, to reward the youthful hope of this venerable pair, and comfort him for the loss of his fosterbrother, the horse? He bethought him of a hatchet, which might be spared from his slender stores. No sooner did he place the implement in the hands of young hopeful, than his countenance brightened up, and he went off rejoicing in his hatchet, to the full as much as did his respectable mother in her earbobs.
The captain was now in the saddle, and about to start, when the affectionate old patriarch stepped forward for the third time, and, while he laid one hand gently on the mane of the horse, held up the rifle in the other.
“This rifle,” said he, “shall be my great medicine. I will hug it to my heart—I will always love it, for the sake of my good friend, the bald-headed chief.—But a rifle, by itself, is dumb—I cannot make it speak. If I had a little powder and ball, I would take it out with me, and would now and then shoot a deer: and when I brought the meat home to my hungry family, I would say—this was killed by the rifle of my friend, the bald-headed chief, to whom I gave that very fine horse."
There was no resisting this appeal: the captain, forthwith, furnished the coveted supply of powder and ball; but at the same time, put spurs to his very fine gift-horse, and the first trial of his speed was to get out of all further manifestation of friendship, on the part of the affectionate old patriarch and his insinuating family.
And just the next year, the New-York Mirror includes an article about children’s culture that uses Indian giver. But here, not only has the meaning shifted from an exchange to a demand for return, but it is being used as an insult. From the 23 June 1838 issue:
A schoolboy has a character to gain as well as a solider or a statesman. Among them are distinct species of crimes and virtues. I have seen the finger pointed at the Indian giver. (One who gives a present and demands it back again.) I have heard hiss follow the tell-tale. And what shouts of bitter scorn are raised against the “fellow” who “won’t fight” or the bully who backs out at the moment of danger.
So, in a little more than a century, Indian gift had gone from the disapproving label for a Native American cultural practice to the children’s slur Indian giver.
Sources:
Callender, John. An Historical Discourse on the Civil and Religious Affairs of the Colony of Rhode-Island. Boston: S. Kneeland and T. Green, 1739, 31–32. Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO).
“Children and their Concerns.” New-York Mirror, 15.52, 23 June 1838, 413. HathiTrust Digital Archive.
Green’s Dictionary of Slang, 2021, s.v. Indian, adj.
Hutchinson, Thomas. The History of the Colony of Massachusets-Bay [sic]. Boston: Thomas and John Fleet, 1764, 469. Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO).
Irving, Washington. Adventures of Captain Bonneville, or Scenes Beyond the Rocky Mountains of the Far West, vol. 2 of 3. London: Richard Bentley, 1837, 245–49. HathiTrust Digital Archive.
Oxford English Dictionary, third edition, September 2009, s.v. Indian, adj. and n.
Image credit: Georg Keller, 1617, University of Virginia Special Collections.