Smithsonian Museum - yet another thread on team name

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

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 And the historical document you quoted from 1755 (assuming it's true, where's any authority that this wasn't made up?)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.

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.

[Skinzman]

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.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

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.

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.

[InsaneBoost]

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.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Please stop lying about me, giantone.

.

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

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Giantone

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

Yes, you do. You lied in the gun control thread. You're a liar, you need to work harder to substantiate any point you make because of it.