Hail To The Redskins Name.

[Bob 0119]

I was just thinking (I know it hurt) and I came up with a term that is racist: "Native American." Yes, that term has been right in front of our faces all along. Think about it, before Amerigo Vespucci and the Declaration of Independence, Indians were not Native Americans. They were the Sioux, Cherokee, Seminoles, etc. etc.. The term Native American, by its very own nature, has racist overtones, because the origination of that term comes from Europe aka the White Man.

I bet you never thought of that one before!

I actually had, since by definition, anyone born here could be defined as a "native american"

I guess it's too much to say "the surviving relatives of the indigenous people of what is now called North America"

Maybe they should acronym it and call them SRIPNAs

[Bob 0119]

I just posted one there to some guy named J-Dogg. Enjoy

I read that and found it to be awesome!

Way to bring the smackdown!

[Bob 0119]

I seem to have evoked similar responses here

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3794 ... asy-target

I published an article on this topic and it got picked up by a site called indianz.com so now I'm being swamped by that sites members comments and could certainly use some support.

It would appear that about 40 people joined the site just to disagree with me!

I've got your side of the argument, under an alias of course, but you'll know it was me from the context of the language. Some people have to take up any cause they can find, whether legitimate or not.

I appreciate that. Is it a bit of self-promotion? Yeah, maybe.

But I prefer to look at it as calling in the cavalry!

[GSPODS]

I appreciate that. Is it a bit of self-promotion? Yeah, maybe.

But I prefer to look at it as calling in the cavalry!

Nearly as shameless in the self-promotion department as a certain Sippy Cup, but not quite. Straw-wagging still wins the shameless self-promotion contest.

To the point, everyone who has a problem with the term "Redskins" doesn't have the first clue about the history behind the term itself, or how it came to be associated with the NFL franchise.

As for Suzan Shown Harjo, I think her actual name is Suzan Show'n Herass, because that's the substance of her argument. As though she somehow chose to be "red-skinned" or had options. No more than she had the option of choosing intelligence, a gift she clearly did not receive from any of the peyote Gods she apparently prays to.

[Bob 0119]

I agree with you on that, GSPODS.

When I saw that she had been the producer of a "Native American" radio show called "Seeing Red" the hypocrisy became very apparent.

Some accused me of not knowing my history, but nobody really knows the history of the word for a fact.

Tina Holder, one of the plaintiffs from the second lawsuit had her graphically descriptive version. Tina Holder's version of the history is:

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," says Holder, whose arguments were included in a recent court filing in support of Harjo's claim. "Trappers and hunters began using the term ‘redskin’ ...they would tell the owner that they had bearskin, deerskins...and ‘redskins.’ The term came from the bloody mess that one saw when looking at the scalp ...thus the term ‘red’...skin... 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, ...you can safely say that the term is considered extremely offensive.

But Ives Goddard, the curator and senior linguist in the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution says it's origins were far tamer.

The quotation "I am a Red-Skin" in the title is from a speech made by the Santee chief French Crow in a formal council with President James Madison in the President's House in Washington on August 22, 1812, as interpreted by John A. Cameron and officially recorded. French Crow's speech and one given just before it on the same occasion by the Osage chief No Ears contain the first known public uses of redskin in English. The same expression was used by the Potawatomi chiefs Topinabee and Metea at a treaty conference in Chicago in August, 1821, as interpreted by Whitmore Knaggs and recorded by Henry Rowe Schoolcraft.

Now if I'm going to pick whom I believe, I'm going to follow the guy who has the specifics. I'm going to listen to the guy who has dedicated his life to studying linguistic anthropolgy versus the woman with a vested self-interest.[/i]

[GSPODS]

I agree with you on that, GSPODS.

When I saw that she had been the producer of a "Native American" radio show called "Seeing Red" the hypocrisy became very apparent.

Some accused me of not knowing my history, but nobody really knows the history of the word for a fact.

Tina Holder, one of the plaintiffs from the second lawsuit had her graphically descriptive version. Tina Holder's version of the history is:

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," says Holder, whose arguments were included in a recent court filing in support of Harjo's claim. "Trappers and hunters began using the term ‘redskin’ ...they would tell the owner that they had bearskin, deerskins...and ‘redskins.’ The term came from the bloody mess that one saw when looking at the scalp ...thus the term ‘red’...skin... 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, ...you can safely say that the term is considered extremely offensive.

But Ives Goddard, the curator and senior linguist in the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution says it's origins were far tamer.

The quotation "I am a Red-Skin" in the title is from a speech made by the Santee chief French Crow in a formal council with President James Madison in the President's House in Washington on August 22, 1812, as interpreted by John A. Cameron and officially recorded. French Crow's speech and one given just before it on the same occasion by the Osage chief No Ears contain the first known public uses of redskin in English. The same expression was used by the Potawatomi chiefs Topinabee and Metea at a treaty conference in Chicago in August, 1821, as interpreted by Whitmore Knaggs and recorded by Henry Rowe Schoolcraft.

Now if I'm going to pick whom I believe, I'm going to follow the guy who has the specifics. I'm going to listen to the guy who has dedicated his life to studying linguistic anthropolgy versus the woman with a vested self-interest.[/i]

Their (the Native Americans) argument is backwards. Why would English trappers scalp Indians when they could just shoot them? Who was doing the scalping? Their logic holds no water, and neither do their scalps because it was the "white man's" (nice racist term first used toward John Smith of Pocahontas fame, which nobody seems to be complaining about) scalps being traded.

[Bob 0119]

Their (the Native Americans) argument is backwards. Why would English trappers scalp Indians when they could just shoot them? Who was doing the scalping? Their logic holds no water, and neither do their scalps because it was the "white man's" (nice racist term first used toward John Smith of Pocahontas fame, which nobody seems to be complaining about) scalps being traded.

That's what I was taught in school, but even that has room for dispute as I believe I recall seeing something on the history channel the claimed that the scalping very well could have started by the settlers.

It made sense that if there was a bounty on Indians, the collectee would need to prove that he had actually killed them. Short of dragging a rotting corpse through the woods, a scalp would certainly suggest that if he wasn't dead, he certainly wasn't happy.

Whereas no real suggestion has been given (other than the potential for bragging rights) as to why the Indians would do something so barbaric, unless it was in retaliation.

Yeah, yeah, I know, you shouldn't believe everything you see on TV, but it made sense.

[GSPODS]

Their (the Native Americans) argument is backwards. Why would English trappers scalp Indians when they could just shoot them? Who was doing the scalping? Their logic holds no water, and neither do their scalps because it was the "white man's" (nice racist term first used toward John Smith of Pocahontas fame, which nobody seems to be complaining about) scalps being traded.

That's what I was taught in school, but even that has room for dispute as I believe I recall seeing something on the history channel the claimed that the scalping very well could have started by the settlers.

It made sense that if there was a bounty on Indians, the collectee would need to prove that he had actually killed them. Short of dragging a rotting corpse through the woods, a scalp would certainly suggest that if he wasn't dead, he certainly wasn't happy.

Whereas no real suggestion has been given (other than the potential for bragging rights) as to why the Indians would do something so barbaric, unless it was in retaliation.

Yeah, yeah, I know, you shouldn't believe everything you see on TV, but it made sense.

More or less a case of "He Said / He Said" dating back to 1620 or earlier.
Any way we dissect this, it will always equate to a hung jury.
100% of the People will never agree on "Redskins", logic be damned.

[Bob 0119]

Their (the Native Americans) argument is backwards. Why would English trappers scalp Indians when they could just shoot them? Who was doing the scalping? Their logic holds no water, and neither do their scalps because it was the "white man's" (nice racist term first used toward John Smith of Pocahontas fame, which nobody seems to be complaining about) scalps being traded.

That's what I was taught in school, but even that has room for dispute as I believe I recall seeing something on the history channel the claimed that the scalping very well could have started by the settlers.

It made sense that if there was a bounty on Indians, the collectee would need to prove that he had actually killed them. Short of dragging a rotting corpse through the woods, a scalp would certainly suggest that if he wasn't dead, he certainly wasn't happy.

Whereas no real suggestion has been given (other than the potential for bragging rights) as to why the Indians would do something so barbaric, unless it was in retaliation.

Yeah, yeah, I know, you shouldn't believe everything you see on TV, but it made sense.

More or less a case of "He Said / He Said" dating back to 1620 or earlier.
Any way we dissect this, it will always equate to a hung jury.
100% of the People will never agree on "Redskins", logic be damned.

Amen to that.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Amen to that

It's a typical political issue. Focus on inane arguments to avoid dealing with real issues. Both parties do it. The libs with things like this, the Reps with things like gay marriage. Dealing with real issues is hard. Convincing people freedom is superior to handouts is work. So you pump stupid, minor issues like "Redskins," ANWAR and Gay marriage as epic battles between good and evil to avoid dealing with anything real.

[HEROHAMO]

I am no legal expert , but is this happening in the Supreme Court? If so that means that there is a chance that the judge could rule in favor of this lady. If they rule in favor of her then the Redskin name would have to be changed I assume?

I wonder if they are trying to get any money out of this?

[GSPODS]

I am no legal expert , but is this happening in the Supreme Court? If so that means that there is a chance that the judge could rule in favor of this lady. If they rule in favor of her then the Redskin name would have to be changed I assume?

I wonder if they are trying to get any money out of this?

As of now, the lawsuits have been in Federal District Court.
There will come a time when the Supreme Court will have to grant certiorari to the overall question of "offensive names" but they haven't yet. Anthony Kennedy would have the swing vote, as usual, under this court. I'm guessing he'd side with the liberals here.

What they, meaning that useless twit Suzan Shown Harjo is trying to get is the trademark to the term "redskins" for herself. Any attempts to claim otherwise just make no sense. She's trying to make both publicity and money from use of the term. Like "Seeing Red" couldn't be termed equally offensive. It could. Are you talking about skin or blood? I have no idea, Suzan, but I'm offended and you have no history or commonality of usage to back your interests. The Redskins name has plenty of both.