Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Just read ,please.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

Giantone, why don't you please read this thread? What argument of the name "Redskin" being somehow racist today, in the wikipedia article you quote, hasn't been debunked in this thread?

It's not as if the Redskins organization is the NYPD, after all.* So why bash the Skins for imagined racism, when real racism exists elsewhere? Like NY and Pitt.


*
Racist NYPD Facebook Group

NYPD's Racist Arrests Create Class War in New York

[Mayor]

Oh, well, a WIKIPEDIA article. That's authoritative.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Giantone, why don't you please read this thread? What argument of the name "Redskin" being somehow racist today, in the wikipedia article you quote, hasn't been debunked in this thread?

It's not as if the Redskins organization is the NYPD, after all.* So why bash the Skins for imagined racism, when real racism exists elsewhere? Like NY and Pitt.


*
Racist NYPD Facebook Group

NYPD's Racist Arrests Create Class War in New York

I'm sure to some Native Americans.....it is real racism.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I'm sure to some Native Americans.....it is real racism.

So find them and cite them as a source instead of just being sure.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I'm sure to some Native Americans.....it is real racism.

Based on your posting history, your being "sure" is proof the name isn't racist.

OTOH, I'm sure all Redskins fans are "thrilled" to be labelled as racist. For using an honorific team name. Just like when the same kind of talking heads that decry the name, said that Redskins fans would be racist against RG3. LINK Any fanbase would "love" this. (That was sarcasm by the way since you might have missed it.)

And no, being lied about, like about the origin of the team name and the name itself, isn't reason to give in to said liars and ignorance. Just the opposite, IMO. Tell the truth instead.

HTTR

[NC_Skins]

Giants is an offensive term to people that suffer from gigantism. I think we should change their name.

Broncos is also a slur against horses. It implies they are unruly. I think the proper name should be Denver Equus ferus caballus.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

So find them and cite them as a source instead of just being sure.

post 210

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Giants is an offensive term to people that suffer from gigantism. I think we should change their name.

Broncos is also a slur against horses. It implies they are unruly. I think the proper name should be Denver Equus ferus caballus.

Don't get mad at me,I'm not the one you should be fighting with,go after the groups going after you.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Giantone, why don't you please read this thread? What argument of the name "Redskin" being somehow racist today, in the wikipedia article you quote, hasn't been debunked in this thread?

wow,nothing anywhere in these pages has anyone" debunked " a thing.Perception is reality and to some NOT TO ME,the name is offensive to those that think it is,a few of you say you know it's a lie,how?
Like me or not I don't care but I am on your side but to say the otherside does not exist is wrong.

Washington Redskins: A Racist Team Name That Some Journalists Are Refusing To Say

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

wow,nothing anywhere in these pages has anyone" debunked " a thing.Perception is reality and to some NOT TO ME,the name is offensive to those that think it is,a few of you say you know it's a lie,how?
Like me or not I don't care but I am on your side but to say the otherside does not exist is wrong.

Washington Redskins: A Racist Team Name That Some Journalists Are Refusing To Say

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:

Originally Posted by Giantone

wow,nothing anywhere in these pages has anyone" debunked " a thing.

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?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

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?

[Giantone]

interesting....


MASCOTS - Redskins origin of the term

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

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)

Please read this thread, giantone.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

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)

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>

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by 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>

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?

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.