The Insider.com

Kris Jenner does not like "Indian givers"! While being interviewed on Good Morning America to promote her book All Things Kardashian, Kris Jenner was asked if her daughter Kim Kardashian is going to give back the 20.5-carat Lorraine Schwartz diamond engagement ring (estimated at $2 million) Kris Humphries gave his once-bride. Her oh-so-PC response: "I hate an Indian giver. It's a gift. Keep your gift." On two different fronts that statement is ridiculous.

• November 04, 2011Hollywood's Shortest Marriages
• November 04, 2011Vinny Guadagnino Addresses Bullying
• November 04, 2011Justin Bieber never met Mariah Yeater
• November 03, 2011Celebrities Who Have Posed for Playboy
• November 03, 2011Double Take! Celebrity Look-Alikes
• November 03, 2011Murray's Defense: Jackson at Fault for Own Death

Point 1: Indian giver???? Did you really just say "Indian giver"? Oh lord, why don't you just call Asian people the taboo term "Orientals"? Or mentally handicapped people the universally banished "Mongoloids"? All of those antiquated terms (and others that I can’t even possibly print) are outdated for a reason; they are ignorant, false and offensive.

History lesson: According to Wikipedia, the term "Indian gift" was first noted by Thomas Hutchinson in 1765, and "Indian giver" was first cited in John Russell Bartlett's Dictionary of Americanisms (1860) as, "Indian giver. When an Indian gives any thing, he expects to receive an equivalent, or to have his gift returned." The disparaging term most likely came about because settlers wrongly interpreted Native Americans' loans to them as gifts. The term then went on to denigrate Native Americans and was then used to describe a person who gives a gift and later wants it back, or wants something equivalent in return. It was used commonly, but in recent years the term has been thought as un-PC due to its being derogatory towards Native Americans. So, moral of the lesson: don’t use that phrase Kris, and don’t use it on national TV! Sheesh!

Point 2: Engagement rings aren't "gifts," Kris! Engagement rings are a symbol of commitment -- a commitment that lasted 72 days. If your husband leaves you, keep the ring (obvi). But if your husband gives you a $2 million ring and you decide to divorce him 72 days later and he still wants to work on things, it’s just tacky if you don’t give it back. This isn't a fondue set someone gave you and you don’t know if you should return it because you used it once – it’s an engagement ring. It is the symbol of a promise, the promise of a life together, a life that will never be. But really, who would want to keep that ring anyway? It’s got bad juju!

But lets be honest, Kim "Sugarmama" Kardashian probably bought the ring herself. And if so, then she should keep it. Keep that bauble that symbolizes 72 glorious days of wedded disappointment! You go, gurl!

Either way, I am hoping this whole Kim Kardashian divorce things blows over ASAP and the Kardashians (all of them) can just STOP TALKING about the divorce. Note to the Kardashians: if you want people to stop talking about the divorce shocker … stop talking about it everywhere and at every turn! But I’m aware that’s like asking tarted-up teen bride Courtney Stodden not to make overtly sexual poses like a deranged koi fish. Both requests are an impossibility.

UPDATE: The National Congress of American Indians condemned Kris' comments. They said in a statement: "The phrase 'Indian giving' is wrong and hurtful. The cultural values of Native Americans are based on giving unconditionally and empowering those around them. Instead this cultural value is forgotten when negative stereotyping of Native people occurs."

Do you think Kim should keep the ring? Are you offended by Kris Jenner's use of "Indian giver"?