Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name

Please read this thread.

Case in point: What you just said about me was a lie. I never said the other side didn't exist. I said the other side didn't have any points, other than current personal belief and already refuted arguments.

Another example of you not reading or maybe just not understanding the thread: Do you understand that the origination of the name is documented to be different than what Redskin opponents have said? Revisionist history about the name "Redskins" has been debunked here, even though you don't realize it as you just said here:



Care to actually quote any points made in that latest link you posted, or is this just more of the same garbage already refuted here?


refuted, how?

interesting....


MASCOTS - Redskins origin of the term (http://www.aics.org/mascot/redskins.html)

refuted, how?By providing documentation of examples earlier than those cited by "Redskins" opponents, and proving those opponents wrong.

Did you really not read Post #86 in this thread, giantone? (Link from that post (http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf))

Please read this thread, giantone.

By providing documentation of examples earlier than those cited by "Redskins" opponents, and proving those opponents wrong.

Did you really not read Post #86 in this thread, giantone? (Link from that post (http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf))

Please read this thread, giantone.


I have read the thread ,you have not.One man's opinion and that is your proof?

Here is another opinion,

MASCOTS - Redskins origin of the term




The Term Redskin
Dear Editor; It was brought to my attention that some were asking if the term "redskin" was really offensive to Indians and that they would like to hear from us on this subject. Well, here you are...I am Blackfoot, Cherokee and Choctaw...and yes, the term is extremely offensive to me. Let me explain why. Back not so long ago, when there was a bounty on the heads of the Indian people...the trappers would bring in Indian scalps along with the other skins that they had managed to trap or shoot. These scalps brought varying prices as did the skins of the animals. The trappers would tell the trading post owner or whoever it was that he was dealing with, that he had 2 bearskins, a couple of beaver skins...and a few scalps. Well, the term "scalp" offended the good Christian women of the community and they asked that another term be found to describe these things. So, the trappers and hunters began using the term "redskin"...they would tell the owner that they had bearskin, deer skins....and "redskins." The term came from the bloody mess that one saw when looking at the scalp...thus the term "red"...skin because it was the "skin" of an "animal" just like the others that they had...so, it became "redskins". So, you see when we see or hear that term...we don't see a football team...we don't see a game being played...we don't see any "honor"...we see the bloody pieces of scalps that were hacked off of our men, women and even our children...we hear the screams as our people were killed...and "skinned" just like animals. So, yes, Mr./Ms. Editor...you can safely say that the term is considered extremely offensive.In Struggle,
Tina Holder
Mesa, Az.

<B>

Proclamation issued in 1755



Given at the Council Chamber in Boston this third day of November 1755 in the twenty-ninth year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Second by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Iceland, King Defender of the Faith.By His Honour's command
J. Willard, Secry.
God Save the King

Whereas the tribe of Penobscot Indians have repeatedly in a perfidious manner acted contrary to their solemn submission unto his Majesty long since made and frequently renewed.
I have therefore, at the desire of the House of Representatives ... thought fit to issue this Proclamation and to declare the Penobscot Tribe of Indians to be enimies, rebels, and traitors to his Majesty. And I do hereby require his Majesty's subjects of the Province to embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing, and destroy all and every one of the aforesaid Indians.
And wereas the General Court of this Province have voted that a bounty.... be granted and allowed to be paid out of the Province Treasury.... The premiums of bounty following viz:
For every scalp of a male Indian brought in as evidence of their being killed as aforesaid, forty pounds.For every scalp of such female Indian or male Indian under the age of twelve years that shall be killed and brought in as evidence of their being killed as aforesaid, twenty pounds.
</B>

I have read the thread ,you have not.One man's opinion and that is your proof?

Here is another opinion,

MASCOTS - Redskins origin of the term




The Term Redskin
Dear Editor; It was brought to my attention that some were asking if the term "redskin" was really offensive to Indians and that they would like to hear from us on this subject. Well, here you are...I am Blackfoot, Cherokee and Choctaw...and yes, the term is extremely offensive to me. Let me explain why. Back not so long ago, when there was a bounty on the heads of the Indian people...the trappers would bring in Indian scalps along with the other skins that they had managed to trap or shoot. These scalps brought varying prices as did the skins of the animals. The trappers would tell the trading post owner or whoever it was that he was dealing with, that he had 2 bearskins, a couple of beaver skins...and a few scalps. Well, the term "scalp" offended the good Christian women of the community and they asked that another term be found to describe these things. So, the trappers and hunters began using the term "redskin"...they would tell the owner that they had bearskin, deer skins....and "redskins." The term came from the bloody mess that one saw when looking at the scalp...thus the term "red"...skin because it was the "skin" of an "animal" just like the others that they had...so, it became "redskins". So, you see when we see or hear that term...we don't see a football team...we don't see a game being played...we don't see any "honor"...we see the bloody pieces of scalps that were hacked off of our men, women and even our children...we hear the screams as our people were killed...and "skinned" just like animals. So, yes, Mr./Ms. Editor...you can safely say that the term is considered extremely offensive.In Struggle,
Tina Holder
Mesa, Az.

<B>

Proclamation issued in 1755



Given at the Council Chamber in Boston this third day of November 1755 in the twenty-ninth year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Second by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Iceland, King Defender of the Faith.By His Honour's command
J. Willard, Secry.
God Save the King

Whereas the tribe of Penobscot Indians have repeatedly in a perfidious manner acted contrary to their solemn submission unto his Majesty long since made and frequently renewed.
I have therefore, at the desire of the House of Representatives ... thought fit to issue this Proclamation and to declare the Penobscot Tribe of Indians to be enimies, rebels, and traitors to his Majesty. And I do hereby require his Majesty's subjects of the Province to embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing, and destroy all and every one of the aforesaid Indians.
And wereas the General Court of this Province have voted that a bounty.... be granted and allowed to be paid out of the Province Treasury.... The premiums of bounty following viz:
For every scalp of a male Indian brought in as evidence of their being killed as aforesaid, forty pounds.For every scalp of such female Indian or male Indian under the age of twelve years that shall be killed and brought in as evidence of their being killed as aforesaid, twenty pounds.
</B>LMAO! And the historical document you quoted from 1755 (assuming it's true, where's any authority that this wasn't made up?) doesn't even include the name "Redskin". Just in the reader comment attached. And this compares to the anthropology article cited in this thread... how? :lol:

Obviously you haven't actually read anything all the way through, giantone. And you're still lying about it.

By your standard though, since the word "Indian" is included in your post, does that mean that the word "Indian" can be considered offensive? Therefore "Redskin" is the more acceptable term?

Oh, and even though there's no proof in your post of "redskins" and scalping being synonymous, when talking about name origins, you might want to read the article I cited. One significant date for you: 1769. When there actually is strong evidence the term was used. And not as an slur at all.

At least try to read the stuff already posted in this thread, giantone..... At least try to stick to the truth on the name "redskin"..... stuff said this thread...... what I said before in this thread........ maybe?

It's interesting that one opinion in reader mail is good enough for you, but not a curator that at least bookmarks sources.

LMAO! And the historical document you quoted from 1755 (assuming it's true, where's any authority that this wasn't made up?) doesn't even include the name "Redskin". Just in the reader comment attached. And this compares to the anthropology article cited in this thread... how? :lol:

Obviously you haven't actually read anything all the way through, giantone. And you're still lying about it.

By your standard though, since the word "Indian" is included in your post, does that mean that the word "Indian" can be considered offensive? Therefore "Redskin" is the more acceptable term?

Oh, and even though there's no proof in your post of "redskins" and scalping being synonymous, when talking about name origins, you might want to read the article I cited. One significant date for you: 1769. When there actually is strong evidence the term was used. And not as an slur at all.

At least try to read the stuff already posted in this thread, giantone..... At least try to stick to the truth on the name "redskin"..... stuff said this thread...... what I said before in this thread........ maybe?

It's interesting that one opinion in reader mail is good enough for you, but not a curator that at least bookmarks sources.


This has run it's course,you believe nothing yet show no proof that anything that has been linked here is not true,you don't believe so it can't be true.All I wanted to do is show that the otherside does exist and while I don't agree with it,has a point.

The problem that I see with the whole bloody scalp being the origin of the name, and evidence such as that proclamation. The scalp would never be red when it was traded in. When blood dries, its not red. When skin is separated from a body and therefore has nothing keeping it alive, it does not stay bloody red.

There is no way to tell an Indian male from an Indian female based on a scalp if they both had long hair (or short hair for that matter). There is no way to tell a white person with black hair from an Indian by hair either. In fact, every scalp will be black when traded in and hair would be the only identifiable trait left (and even then, only if they are practiced at scalping. Maybe its easier than I think). Its not like they had refrigerators on the backs of their horses to keep them medically fresh.

Europeans themselves were not much into scalping. Most references of scalping by Europeans came in the 9th and 10th century, and even then, was not a continent wide practice. Once we started getting into the colonial times, they preferred decapitation, as it was the face that was looked at as evidence that the dead person was who you were saying it was. They did not rely on a scalp that looks like everyone elses, except possibly the hair, when handing out reward money for someones death. Its possible that they thought Indians were different enough in hair to tell them apart so were willing to accept scalps, but that still doesnt answer the male/female question.

None of this even touches that some lady from Mesa Arizona is claiming to be a bunch of different kind of Indians and claiming it true without providing even the single shred of evidence. Her "proof" is 'this is the interwebz and lying is not allowed'.. If there is proof of this, I would love to see it, but have never seen anything offered as proof other than someone said it, so it must be true.

Also about the proclamation if it is true (Im not claiming it to be either true or false, I honestly have no idea). One thing that is thrown about in the fight against the name Redskins is that Europeans used Redskin when talking about Indians. I saw no mention of anything but Indian in the proclamation. Doesnt mean it wasnt used, but by whats being said, it was used regularly in place of Indian. I see nothing to evidence that here, they appear to be a calling them Indians.

This has run it's course,you believe nothing yet show no proof that anything that has been linked here is not true,you don't believe so it can't be true.All I wanted to do is show that the otherside does exist and while I don't agree with it,has a point.Please stop lying about me, giantone.

There was nothing to believe in your argument, unless you think one reader letter trumps historical record and current usage. The historical document you quoted, to "show the other side has a point", doesn't even appear to contain the name Redskins at all. :doh:

The article I referred to you does have references to the name, and refutes the idea the origin of "Redskin" was racist. You've provided nothing to argue against this.

Again, I never said the other side doesn't exist. I pointed out they can only go on what they currently believe regardless of fact (they're like creationists in this way, IMO), and already disproven arguments.

Our discussion has run it's course. Because the arguments you've parroted here basically amount to sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nu-uh". That the name Redskins is racist because, well just because. While you ignored points made in this thread you claimed to have read. Nevermind the 90,000+ in the stadium and all the Redskin fans around the world singing HTTR.

So yeah, the "other side" doesn't have a point, and neither have you on this issue. Goodnight.

This is like saying Christmas Tree offends people. There's always going to be some that are going to get upset and or feel offended because that's they way they think/feel about everything.

I mean look at how some African-Americans feel "black sheep" is a shot at them because the bad sheep is black. This can go on for any race, type of person, etc.

I'm more surprised the Buffalo Bills don't offend the Natives too. I mean that actually has some backing to it. Everything I've read about the Redskins name being racist holds no weight.

Please stop lying about me, giantone.

.

You don't like my opinion fine,but I don't lie.Let it go .