Proceedings, Debates of the U.S. Congress
October 12, 2013
113th Congress, 1st Session
Issue: Vol. 159, No. 143 — Daily Edition
Entire Issue (PDF)
Sections in This Issue:
MEANING OF THE TERM ``REDSKIN''
(House of Representatives - October 12, 2013)
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages H6559-H6560] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] MEANING OF THE TERM ``REDSKIN'' (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, not only is the word ``redskin'' inappropriate, but just plain offensive. It is a derogatory term towards the American Indians. I want to share with my colleagues and the 181 million football fans all over America how the word ``redskin'' came about. In 1749, it was a standard procedure among the colonial settlers who lived in what is now Maine and Nova Scotia to kill and scalp as many of the Indians who were members of the Micmac Tribe. The same policy was also implemented in 1755 by settlers who lived in what is now known as the State of Massachusetts. Their objective was to kill and scalp members of the Penobscot Indian Nation. Mr. Speaker, the colonial policy was that you get paid for killing and scalping Native American Indians. If you kill an Indian boy, you get paid 50 pounds. If you get a scalp, that is an additional 40 pounds. Not only is it for the men, but also for the women and children that are scalped and killed. And you get paid for it. Mr. Speaker, I submit that these scalps were called ``redskins.'' [[Page H6560]] Native Americans are human beings, Mr. Speaker. They are not animals. ____________________