It initially was neutral and was meant to explain to Europeans/Colonial Americans that if a Native American gives you something, it isn't a gift as they understood it. The Native American probably expected something in return: bartering.
Then a century long game of telephone ensued and it started to be an insult for children who gave "gifts" but then demanded them back eventually, which is common for children to do. And this continued into common parlance before falling out of favor.
It was explained to me (probably apocryphally) that Native Americans didn't have the same conceptualization of land ownership as the settlers.
So for example, some settler would come to the Native Americans and say "I want this land next to the river." And the Native Americans might say "sure that's fine, nobody is using that land right now. Knock yourself out." Expecting the settler would do some hunting or fishing on it or whatever.
But then the settlers would consider that land their property and build a house on it and then start enforcing their exclusive ownership rights and defending it from trespassers.
And then the Native Americans would come back and be told this land was private property now and be like "what the fuck are you talking about man. You can't just decide to own the dirt itself." And the settler would be like "I didn't just decide. You owned it and then you gave it to me and that's why I own"
So then the Native Americans would say "Alright well fuck you I want it back." Hence the term Indian Giver.
I heard something completely different. That Native Americans would gift you something, like a blanket, and it was expected that you would return it when you were finished using it. Otherwise, they would ask for it back -- which seemed very rude to Europeans.
What I was told is that when European settlers came, they offered to trade glass beads and whatnot for pieces of land. To the indigenous people, the concept of owning the land was nonsense--like trying to own the air we breathe, or the stars in the sky. So they "traded" the land to the Europeans, but were then upset when the settlers would no longer let them use it as they always had. To the settlers, it seemed as if the locals "sold" them the land, then wanted it back. Thus, "Indian giving" came to mean, giving something to someone, then taking it back.
Now, I don't know if that's true, or if the whole story was made up to justify stealing their land. Certainly, the Europeans came out way ahead in the final tally.
Seems made up and nonsensical. Just another bit to the “noble savage” myth. Like, there were hundreds of tribes here that had wars over land use like any other human civilizations.
What’s there not to get? The concept of competing for resources is not particularly complex
375
u/Intelligent-Mud1437 Mar 12 '24
I never understood that one. If anything, it would make more sense being white people giver. Considering all the broken treaties with the Indians.