8

The phrase "Indian giver" means someone who gives a person a gift and then wants it back later. It's occasionally a useful concept, but the dictionary says it's offensive and I also think so. Is there a non-racist way to say this?

  • 1
    There doesn't seem to be a word that really covers this exact act. There's disavow, repossess, repudiate, and so on - but none of those really mean the same thing as indian giver. Since indian giver is offensive and racist, I'd suggest 'ungifting'. – Jason M Jun 26 '15 at 22:22
  • 1
    I'd also suggest that this is a polite or un-offensive term rather than a politically correct one. Political correctness means speech that is correct according to liberal/progressive goodthink, this is simply trying not to be an insensitive jerk. – Jason M Jun 26 '15 at 22:25
  • 2
    I'm BrE, where an Indian is more likely to be something you go for after the pub (to eat, in an Indian curry house). I doubt we have enough thin-skinned native Amerinds that anyone would think to avoid that one. I think of it as on a par with Dutch auction (I don't care if that offends the Dutch! :). On the other hand, although I've known Welsh people to use welsh on a deal = renege, I've no doubt there are some who take exception. It's all a matter of opinion, and whether you want to play safe or not. – FumbleFingers Jun 26 '15 at 22:25
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers Usually spelled Welch in a betting sense, but I note the OED accepts Welsh as well. 2008 G. Buckley Stormy Weather 140 ‘A bet's a bet,’ Paddy said. ‘Y'aint thinking of welching on me, are ya?’..‘Me, welch?’ Remy said and chuckled again. Where have you been, by the way - taking French leave? – WS2 Jun 26 '15 at 22:54
  • 2
    @FumbleFingers As long as I offend everyone equally, it's not discrimination. I'm an American; it's the national pastime. – Parthian Shot Jun 26 '15 at 23:13
4

In law, the standard verbs for undoing a gift, contract, or other undertaking previously entered into are rescind, revoke, abrogate, and annul. Their relevant definitions, per Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary, are as follows (in alphabetical order):

abrogate vt 1 : to abolish by authoritative action : ANNUL 2 : to treat as nonexistent {abrogating their responsibilities} [no noun form listed for "one who abrogates"]

annul vt 3 : to declare or make legally invalid or void {wants the marriage annulled} [no noun form listed for "one who annuls"]

rescind vt 2 a : TAKE BACK, CANCEL {refused to rescind the order} b : to abrogate (a contract) and restore the parties to the positions they would have occupied had there been no contract ... — rescinder n

revoke vt 1 : to annul by recalling or taking back : RESCIND {revoke a will} ... — revoker n

Unfortunately, the only two usable noun forms for these four verbs are rescinder and revoker, neither of which is at all common in everyday English.

An even more relevant verb might be renege, understood in the following sense:

renege vi 3 : to go back on a promise or commitment — reneger n

But reneger, while objectively a good fit for your context, is rarely used and puts you at risk of being misunderstood and upsetting people in a different (but no less deeply felt) way.

Since there isn't a truly satisfactory way to express what you mean in a simple word or phrase ("taker-back" doesn't work either, in my opinion), you're probably best off to describe the situation in as much detail as you need—and then say something like "that's what I call a 'gift ungiver' [or a 'gift reclaimer' or whatever wording strikes your fancy]."

  • 2
    Well then, how would the term "aboriginal abrogater" go over? – user98990 Jun 27 '15 at 0:31
  • 1
    @LittleEva: I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get away with it for long, but it has a nice bit of elevated alliteration going for it. – Sven Yargs Jun 27 '15 at 1:57
  • Let's keep it between us, then. – user98990 Jun 27 '15 at 1:58
  • So you agree that there is no politically correct synonym. – user66974 Jun 27 '15 at 5:59
  • 2
    @Josh61: I can't think of one that's in widespread use. Depending on the situation, you might try to convey the meaning with a term like "yo-yo giver," which suggests the action of casting something toward someone else (as if to give it to them) only to yank it back into your own hand by the still-attached string. But that term isn't altogether clear, and it is not in common use as far as I know. – Sven Yargs Jun 27 '15 at 6:55
1

The saying appears to originate from a misconception. I don't think there is a politically correct synonym , probably the best way is to express the concept with its common definition without any reference to any race:

  • a person who asks for the return of a present he has given.

Indian giver: (US and Canadian)

  • (usage): This term, though not commonly used, is usually perceived as insulting. It arose from a misconception about the customs of Native Americans.

(The Free Dictionary)

  • I'm told people who take offence at to welsh on a deal are also labouring under a misconception, but that doesn't automatically make them not be offended once they've had this explained to them. So I don't really see this as a suitable answer for OP's problem. – FumbleFingers Jun 26 '15 at 23:08
  • 1
    My answer is that there is no "politically correct" synonym to Indian giver and that its common definition without reference to any race is a possible alternative. – user66974 Jun 26 '15 at 23:19
1

How about de-gifter, like in Seinfeld?

http://seinfeld.wikia.com/wiki/De-Gifting

  • Can you add some relevant quotes from the page that you linked to? That page might not be there or might read differently when someone reads this answer in the future. – jejorda2 Jan 19 '16 at 19:36
0

It might be better to describe the action. Like "He took the gift back," or "Oh--I didn't realize this was a loan and not a gift."

Suggestions:

  • Be polite
  • Assume good intentions
  • Express disappointment politely
  • If reasonable, willingly give the gift back
  • If appropriate, consider this a teaching opportunity (e.g. for your child, explain it's not OK to give things away and take them back).
  • Call it a loan. Because that's how the giver is treating it. This implies the correct term for the future.

I would avoid using a personality label, or labeling the person. Labeling the gift is ok if it's not charged with blame or malintent (e.g. "mistaken gift" or "temporary gift") but if you use intention-packed adjectives, it transfers personality judgment to the person and becomes an indirect label, and you are probably assuming intent without giving yourself time to think through it. Still, "de-gifter" is probably better than "fake gift" or "trick-gift" or "phony gift" or "false gift" because they assume no good intention from the start.

If you decide it's best to make them feel a little awkward, (not sure if this is rude) perhaps ask them "What do you call it when someone gives a gift and then later asks for it back?" -- but avoid "what do you call someone who..."

0

"Political correctness means speech that is correct according to liberal/progressive goodthink" - that's the /pol/ definition from trolling nerds...who don't like being considered just trolls or nerds; hypocrisy is universal.

"Ungifting" is a good choice, though.

  • 1
    Where did you get that quote "Political correctness means speech that is correct … goodthink" from? It makes no sense in your answer. If you can please edit and find a reference online that confirms "ungifting" is used it's +1 from me. – Mari-Lou A Apr 6 '18 at 20:11
  • It's all referenced from comments here...which are posted above answers... Anyway, I have to get familiar the unique formatting of the site. Feel free to delete, move. downvote as you see fit. Have a nice day! – Soulo_Guero Apr 7 '18 at 21:09
  • What has that quote got to do with the question? And, no it's not taken from any comments on this page. I checked before commenting myself. – Mari-Lou A Apr 7 '18 at 22:53
-2

Try "Swindler". It's really the most sensible given the actuality of the time frame where the term came from as well as the practices used by colonial European powers to get Native American lands. If I were to reduce the idea to once sentence for all of it, the word "swindle" fits the best. swin·dle ˈswindl/ verb verb: swindle; 3rd person present: swindles; past tense: swindled; past participle: swindled; gerund or present participle: swindling

1.
use deception to deprive (someone) of money or possessions.
"a businessman swindled investors out of millions of dollars"
    obtain (money) fraudulently.
    "he was said to have swindled $62.5 million from the pension fund"
    synonyms:   defraud, cheat, trick, dupe, deceive, fool, hoax, hoodwink, bamboozle; More
    informalfleece, con, bilk, sting, hose, diddle, rip off, take for a ride, pull a fast one on, put one over on, take to the cleaners, gull, stiff, euchre, hornswoggle;
    literarycozen
    "I was swindled out of money"

noun noun: swindle; plural noun: swindles

1.
a fraudulent scheme or action.
"he is mixed up in a $10 million insurance swindle"
synonyms:   fraud, trick, deception, deceit, cheat, sham, artifice, ruse, dodge, racket, wile; More

It's just a matter of the proper application within the sentence. - Colonial Europe was great at swindling Native Americans out of their land. - Trades of cheap items and alcohol in exchange for land was clearly a swindle on the part of the colonial powers.

  • That's not what Indian giver means at all. – Peter Shor Aug 4 '17 at 5:10
-4

How about "Native American giver", "First Peoples giver", or "Aboriginal giver"?

(While arguably none of those are politically correct, they do have the advantages of at least using the politically correct demonyms, and they're humorous. A lot of things become politically correct when the tone is clearly non-malicious.)

  • 1
    @Parthian: That sounds like saying it can't hurt when Dutch national TV airs blasphemous cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad. It wasn't done to be funny, it was done to stir the shit (which I've no doubt will in the fullness of time hit the fan! :) – FumbleFingers Jun 26 '15 at 23:04
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers First, I would like to point out your masterful use of parenthetical closing emoticon, and commend you for it. Second, it depends on your audience. If your audience is known for killing people over cartoons, then (a) that audience needs to take it down about 9,000 notches, and (b) maybe don't run those cartoons as often. If your audience isn't, eh, run 'em. – Parthian Shot Jun 26 '15 at 23:10
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers Asking for the time of day can get people unnecessarily killed if it's done badly enough. By the wrong person, to the wrong person, at the wrong time, in the wrong place. But, pivotally, it's not the asking that gets people killed. It's the person doing the killing being a psycho that gets people killed. Perpetuating the perspective that peaceful, ordinary people should restrict their use of language simply to appease the violent simply lends credence to the view that it is okay to behave violently in response to something spoken or written. – Parthian Shot Jun 26 '15 at 23:23
  • 2
    @FumbleFingers Wait, London doesn't already have that? You have failed us, Banksy. You have failed us all. – Parthian Shot Jun 26 '15 at 23:40
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers - the fullness of time is NOW. – user98990 Jun 27 '15 at 0:35

protected by Mari-Lou A Apr 6 '18 at 20:06

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.