• Blog Entries

    • By TK in ES Coverage
         0
      The Bill Callahan era began here at the Hard Rock Stadium in Miami. For the first quarter it was really,really bad football being played by both teams. 
      The Redskins were determined to establish the Run game. The First Quarter all they established was that they still couldn’t run. Or pass. Or do much of anything. 
       
      It wasn’t until the 2nd Quarter that Peterson was able to start ripping the worst Run D in the League for chunks of 18 & 24 yards. The Skins managed to score a TD with a 25 yard pass to Scary Terry McLaurin. 
       
      The Dolphins would open the Second Half only managing five plays before the Redskins would get the ball punted back to them. They would run a balanced run/pass attack of six plays for 70 yards in 1:25 ending in McLaurin’s second touchdown of the day. The Defense would then get a turnover allowing the Offense to get to Field Goal range and add another 3 points to make the score 17-3. 
       
      To open the Fourth Quarter, Hopkins would miss a 55 yard Field Goal, leaving the score at 17-3.  After being sacked five times, the Dolphins would pull their own switcharoo at QB and go to Ryan “Neckbeard” Fitzpatrick which resulted in a touchdown drive for them, making it 17-10. They went for & recovered the Onside Kick. They also managed to not score any points after that. The Dolphins would find theirselves with ball at the 2:00 Warning. Fitzpatrick would take them on a 9 play 75 yard touchdown drive with six seconds remaining on the clock. Miami went for the win with the 2 Point Conversion and failed. The Redskins would recover the onside kick by Miami and Keenum took a knee to get the Redskins their first win of the season. 
Alaskins

The Official ES Redskins Name Change Thread---All Things Related to Changing the Team's Name Go Here

Recommended Posts

If you walk up to somebody in the streets and say, "what about them Redskins." the football team will be talked about more often than not.

As for the issue at hand, we all know that it's media driven. Why wasn't this issue THIS big back in the 90s? Why is it so big now?

 

 

 

Not sure that means anything.  It was even less of an issue in the 1960s, and even less of an issue than that in the 1930s.

 

But so was calling people "coloreds."   Times change.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is,imho,right now in 2014 the meaning of the word is debatable,hence this thread and why the team is arguing back and forth with folks,and many other such examples around the web and such. *Tailgate anecdotal evidence warning ahead.* Hell I'm looking at a beautiful,hand made Redskins medallion hanging on my wall made by a 100 percent member of the local branch of the Washoe tribe. She gave it to me because I'm fellow,huge Redskins fan. Most of her family and many other members of the tribe are in fact,Redskins fans,(that or Niners fans. Go figure). So right now,to me,the meaning in 2014 is debatable. Dictionary meaning not withstanding.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoony will spend pages and pages stealing ideas from the Tipping Point on this very subject.

 

 

 

Cut "hush puppies," paste "Redskins."  Take credit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It existed in the 90s. Dan Steinberg pointed out that it got particularly heated in '71 and '72. Why issues or ideas suddenly go from underground or background noise to prominence is the subject of books. Zoony will spend pages and pages stealing ideas from the Tipping Point on this very subject.

 

It's probably easier today because of how fast an idea can spread on social media.

 

Generally speaking, the "Why do we care now?" argument is an extremely weak one. Why did we suddenly care about suffrage and saloons in the 1910s? Why did we suddenly care about littering in the 1970s? Why did we suddenly care about drunk driving in the '80s? Granted those are "big" issues and this is a "small" issue but the concept is the same. We care because something focusses us on it. Usually mass media.

I know it existed in the 90's. I said that it existed in the post. Problem is, it faded away. The examples you gave, when those problems started, it didn't fade. It kept getting bigger and bigger. And those problems weren't as minute as the name of a stupid football team. 

Just look at what you compared to the Redskins name debate: Drunk driving, littering, the women's right to vote. How are those things on the same level as the Redskins name debate.

 

 

Not sure that means anything.  It was even less of an issue in the 1960s, and even less of an issue than that in the 1930s.

 

But so was calling people "coloreds."   Times change.   

And that's my point. Again, the problem came and went. Then came, and went. Just like it's probably going to come and go again. 

 

You say that people were called colored? That is true. So should we ban the use of the word "colors" on a box of crayons?'

 

This problem would be much simpler if Native Americans, didn't represent the Redskins name as hard as they do. That poll they took back in 2000, showed that 90% did not care about the Redskins name. 

 

Yes, the word can be used as a slur. I get it. But so can any other word in the English language. 

 

Just look at the word ****(the b word). The first definition in the dictionary is the female dog. But when we hear the word ****(the b word), I can guarantee you we're not thinking about a female dog.

 

See, even the filters won't even let me say ****. lol 

Edited by MLSKINS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that defensive, dismissive attitude is why you are losing this war.   I know both sides of the issue as well or better than anyone here.   We have been discussing it for years.

 

I'm trying to explain to you that you are not going to change anyone's mind about this by arguing about whether it was "red war paint blah blah blah."   No one who isn't a Redskins fan already is going to give a crap about that.   

 

Susan Harjo is a turd, but this debate is not about Susan Harjo.  If David Duke made a big fuss wanting to keep the name, the debate would not be about David Duke either.  

 

 

I wish that were true.   I want that to be true.  

 

Sadly, if that were true this issue would have gone away a long time ago.

You're way off on pretty much all of this.

 

1) I'm not "losing a war" because I'm not fighting it (unless the "war" you are talking about is the debate in this thread...in which I guarantee you I'm not losing it lol). And as far as being "dismissive", what exactly would you call taking a stance of "I don't give a crap of what history or origins says"? That's being one billion percent dismissive of one side's viewpoint. Me saying that anyone who completely dismisses one side of a topic should see their viewpoint flushed down the toilet is no more dismissive than what you said.

 

2) You don't know both sides of the story better than me, I guarantee that.

 

3) I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. If I wanted to do that I wouldn't be talking on a message board lol. What I am doing, is adding some additional viewpoints, perspectives and facts that I believe don't get mentioned nearly enough in all this.

 

4) I've already talked about Harjo damn near admitting there's no evidence to her claims about the origins of the name "Redskin"...the fact that others have joined in the debate is irrelevant to that fact:

 

May 24th of this year, a news article claims the following:

 

Multiple sources, including Merriam-Webster, define the word as a racial slur that is "very offensive and should be avoided." It's origin is traced to the 17th century when it was used to refer to the skins and scalps of Indians brought in for bounty payment.

 

Here's one from June 11th...that's yesterday:

 

Tribal Chairman Marshall McKay on Wednesday compared the “R word” to the “N word,” and said the term “redskin” refers to the blood of thousands of American Indians who were beheaded or scalped for bounties in the 1850s and 1860s.

 

[...]“We’re trying to get people to understand the pain and anguish the word brings up in tribal people,” said McKay. “It was legal to kill American peoples, and there was a bounty put on them. That term came directly from the blood on their bodies.”

 

No matter WHO is saying it, it's still being said. And the fraudulent claim gained its popularity with Harjo. So, yes, Predicto, she is most definitely part of the current debate. Bringing light to her false claims is not "smearing".

 

5) The name "Redskin" in 2014 most definitely is associated with the football team far, far, FAR more than with anything else. In fact, the anti-Redskin side acknowledges that. That's one reason why they focused so intently on the origins of the name...their argument was basically "You don't realize it, but the name you associate with the football team has its roots in hateful, violent actions towards Native Americans." Which, of course, you say doesn't matter to you lol...

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguing that "redskins" and "Redskins" are two entirely different words is the kind of thing you argue before an appellate court.

Really?

Pointing out that words can be used in different ways, is somehow impossible? (Especially to the person who is trying to get me to play "let's pretend that this word was used in some other way than the one we're discussing"?

I'm not the one who's trying to change the context of the discussion. I'm refusing to allow other people to do so.

And that defensive, dismissive attitude is why you are losing this war.

I don't give a crap what the history and origins of the word are.

----------

 

If David Duke made a big fuss wanting to keep the name, the debate would not be about David Duke either.

 

 

1)  Yes it would.  And you know it.  :)

 

2)  So, you mean nobody has tried to bring up GPM's attitude towards blacks, or whether Deitz was actually Native, or whether some guy Danny hired to make a commercial was actually Native, into this discussion? 

I wish that were true.   I want that to be true.  

 

Sadly, if that were true this issue would have gone away a long time ago.

It is true.

What percentage of the time that the word "redskin" is used, do you figure it refers to the football team? 99%? 99.9%?

I've pointed out to numerous people that it isn't 100%. But we both know that it's really, really, close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2)  So, you mean nobody has tried to bring up GPM's attitude towards blacks, or whether Deitz was actually Native, or whether some guy Danny hired to make a commercial was actually Native, into this discussion? 

 

 

I think the attitudes of the person naming the team matters more than the character of the one of the people against the team name. The first goes to the specific intent of the name.

 

The thing with Danny's fake chief is just funny because Dan Snyder is terrible at PR despite being a billionaire because of a marketing company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also, regarding another post, I don't think we know for 100% sure that the word redskin was an invention of NA's. Sure, there are examples of some that say that. But there are examples of those that do not agree.

 

I prefer the opinions of an unbiased linguistic historian with the credentials enough to get picked up by the smithosian over an activist with no real historical or linguistic training.

It's historical fact that the earliest instance of the word being used in print was in 1815, indicating it as a quote from an Indian chief.

1769 was the earlier Smithsonian's man could trace the word in any fashion...and again, it was spoken by Native Americans as a reference to themselves.

The first recorded public use in English was in 1812 when multiple Chiefs used it to refer to the assembled group of native americans at a meeting with James Maison.

The first instance quoted by critics suggested it occured in 1699; however it wasn't written until the 1900's. Additionally, early drafts of the letter in question indicate a far plainer and less stylized language from the writer's "father" that used "indian" not "red skins". Between the presence of an initial draft using ENTIRELY different language, and the questionable sentence sentax as it relates to the time it was supposedly said, there is significant reason to doubt the legitimacy that Evertson's Smith's father actually used the term "Redskin" in 1699.

Forgive me, but when decerning facts I'm apt to take the words of individuals actually trained and educated in these things, with hard evidence backing them, over the words of an untrained activist and an extremely questionable 3rd party source recounting something supposedly "quoted" 200 years after it was originally said (but was quoted in two entirely different ways in different drafts).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to remember why I stayed out of this discussion for so long.  

 

I know that one of the most effective things to do in debating is to make sure that "we are discussing the things that I find compelling and want to talk about rather than the things that my opponents find compelling and want to talk about."   

 

I'm just trying to tell you that it is a lot easier to do this effective on the Washington Redskins message board than it is in the real world.  The people out there who are not Redskins fans are not going to ignore what the dictionaries tell them in favor of a historical discussion of red war paint vs. scalping vs. skin color.  Nor are they going to find it compelling to be told that the word redskin has no meaning other than the name of a football team.   

 

My honest concern is that by digging in our heels on defending the awkward name to the bitter end, we are going to lose everything.  The awesome logo, the Native American imagery, the song, all of it.   That is the inevitable result I see roaring down the road at us.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?

Pointing out that words can be used in different ways, is somehow impossible? (Especially to the person who is trying to get me to play "let's pretend that this word was used in some other way than the one we're discussing"?

 

 

No, it's possible. It's just requires time and, like, a powerpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another use of the historical "fact" that Harjo populated...this was June 10th:

 

Richard Ray Whittman said, “If they understood the real true meaning of the term ‘Redskin’ they would readily reject this.”

 

Whittman is a Native American artist who says the term is highly offensive.

 

Whittman said, “It’s not a reference to us having red skin. We’re brown skin people.”

 

He said, “The term ‘Redskin’ was the bounty, the evidence you had scalped or took the skin of man woman child, for a murdered Native American.”

 

Both men are hoping those who see the ad will understand why Native Americans find the mascot so offensive.

 

 

But by all means, let's not bring Harjo's name into any of this.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are people who state that it was first used by Natives, AND CAN BACK IT UP, BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE WRITTEN DOCUMENTS TO PROVE IT.

And there are people who disagree, AND HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIM.

 

To be fair, they have ONE thing to back up their claim.

A letter written in the 1900's, supposedly quoting a letter from 1699....however, early drafts show an entirely different set of words to say the same thing, throwing into question the validity of the "quote". It also has the senior linguist of the Smithsonian institute suggesting that the finalized language doesn't match up with the way language was spoken at the time the original letter was supposedly written.

So on one side you have MULTIPLE instances that have had no real counter or question put towards their validity other than "Ugg, typical white men excusing themselves!", which is just a non-sequiter. On the other side you have a SINGLE instance fill with GAPING questions around it.

But the ydo have at least one thing to TRY and back up their claim. It's just that it's as flimsy as tissue paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I prefer the opinions of an unbiased linguistic historian with the credentials enough to get picked up by the smithosian over an activist with no real historical or linguistic training.

It's historical fact that the earliest instance of the word being used in print was in 1815, indicating it as a quote from an Indian chief.

1769 was the earlier Smithsonian's man could trace the word in any fashion...and again, it was spoken by Native Americans as a reference to themselves.

The first recorded public use in English was in 1812 when multiple Chiefs used it to refer to the assembled group of native americans at a meeting with James Maison.

The first instance quoted by critics suggested it occured in 1699; however it wasn't written until the 1900's. Additionally, early drafts of the letter in question indicate a far plainer and less stylized language from the writer's "father" that used "indian" not "red skins". Between the presence of an initial draft using ENTIRELY different language, and the questionable sentence sentax as it relates to the time it was supposedly said, there is significant reason to doubt the legitimacy that Evertson's Smith's father actually used the term "Redskin" in 1699.

Forgive me, but when decerning facts I'm apt to take the words of individuals actually trained and educated in these things, with hard evidence backing them, over the words of an untrained activist and an extremely questionable 3rd party source recounting something supposedly "quoted" 200 years after it was originally said (but was quoted in two entirely different ways in different drafts).

 

 

And all I am saying is these facts may be real, but they are entirely academic.  They aren't going to have any significance to the majority of non-Redskins fans.  I live outside of Redskins country, and talking to people who are fans of other teams (or not fans at all), that kind of discussions doesn't persuade them at all.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)  I don't give a crap what the history and origins of the word are.   I care what it is understood to mean in 2014.   Check the dictionaries.

 

 

 

To borrow the line of arguing in "would you call an NA a redskin to his face?" I'll go ahead and ask, would you go to Red Mesa, Wipinit, or Kingston HS, which are majority NA and use Redskins as their school team, and show them that the dictionary says they are using a slur and tell them they should change their name?

 

I'm betting not. And if your line of reasoning for not doing so is that they are NA and can use it as they see fit, I'll point to our team's origin in using the name with Dietz as our HC and with several Native American players on the team and that our logo was designed by an NA and is used by several NA high schools as well. Does that origin not count? Does the logo on the helmet not count? Does the team always have to have a token NA on the roster to serve as a visual endorsement?

 

Or, could one simply say that the majority of NAs not caring or liking that we use the name serves as sufficient endorsement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1)  I don't give a crap what the history and origins of the word are.   I care what it is understood to mean in 2014.   Check the dictionaries.

Dictionaries, to be frank, or not the end all be all for uses or meanings of a word. Case in point, no where in the dictionary definition of "yankee" is there "New York Baseball team". Yet clearly, if I say "Hey, I'm going to go watch the Yankee's play" the natural assumption is that I'm going to go watch the New York baseball team called the "Yankees" play, NOT that I'm going to go watch some natives or inhabitents of New England play.

Also, I don't give a crap if you give a crap about the history of a word. It ABSOLUTELY is a factor when people are claiming that two words are "equivilent".

Since you like dictionaries, "equivilent" means something having the same value, force, or effect as another. Pointing out the HISTORICAL DIFFERENCES betwene two words is a valid, and important, method of highlighting how a claim of "equivilence" is factually incorrect.

And your basis for this RIDICULOUS argument as to why people shouldn't put forward LEGITIMATE counters to spurious and laughable claims?

That it won't change anyones mind.

One, I reject that notion in the first place. To suggest there's no one that such information will impact is ridiculous.

Two, the goal in and of itself isn't so much an effort to "change anyones mind". It's an effort to COUNTER the efforts of others attempting to change peoples minds using erronious and incorrect information.

Three, the fact of the matter is that AT THIS MOMENT...it's not the "keep the name" side that needs people to change their mind. Rather, they simply need people to remain the status quo. Which goes back to point two.

2) I also don't care that Susan Harjo is an idiot and a fraud.  Smearing her doesn't change the underlying message.  If someone showed that one of the leading proponents of KEEPING the name was a white supremacist, it wouldn't change the underlying merits of the pro-Redskin side either.  (and you guys don't want to go down that road anyway, given that the guy who founded and named the team was a huge racist )

Smearing someone doesn't change hteir underlying message...but it DOES bring up the credability of that message when the validity of that message is founded on nothing BUT that persons credability.

Harjo making claims concerning the term Redskin coming about due to bounties is an unverified claim on her part, backed up by nothing but her credability. As another poster already showed; these unverified claims from a fraudulent source are then being repeated by others. Highlighting the questionable credentials of the person making the claim is a legitimate means of countering and painting doubt on the claims.

Pointing at someone and going "That guys a white supremacist" when he makes an argument that the "First recorded instance of the word in print came in the 1800's and was attributed to a native american based on historical research performed by the Smithosians senior linguist" wouldn't change his underlying message or his merits and wouldn't be a counter to his claim because his claim isn't his OPINION....he's restating fact.

Pointing at Harjo and going "That woman's a fraud who routinely states false information" when she makes an argument that the use of Redskins came from its use in bounties on native americans, when her source for this information is basically herself without any additional evidence, is a legitimate means of countering something because her claim is only as valuable as her word is...which is practically worthless.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

been busy at work, but, predicto, pretty much what califan is saying.

 

harjo and her false claims have been at the center of this lunacy for years. she is very relevant. 

 

not only that, her bull**** claims have NEVER been challenged by any major media that i have ever seen. 

 

and if posting her insane, racist ramblings on a message board is "smearing", then i am guilty as charged.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And all I am saying is these facts may be real, but they are entirely academic.

It makes them no less facts.

 

They aren't going to have any significance to the majority of non-Redskins fans.

I disagree. I think the boiled down notion..."Redskins was a term native americans first used as a means of describing themselves...is one that would give people pause from changing their mind when hearing someone else claim "Redskin is equivilent to the N-Word!".

Because the reality is we don't need to "Change peoples minds". The vast majority is on the side of KEEPING the name. What really is in play here is keeping people from changing their minds. And I do think the fact that, unlike the N-Word, this was a word native americans used and embraced as a means of referring to themselves is something that will help keep some people from changing their minds when being told "It's exactly the same as the N-Word!"

Call it the political scientist in me still holding on from my college days....you don't make an effort to "Change" the minds of those who are unlikely to change. You attempt to reach those who are HONESTLY on the fense and you try and sure up and maximize your side.

We're not going to change the mind of the vast majority of those who currently think "The name needs to change". And that's fine, we don't have to. They're in the significant minority. What we need to do is keep them from significantly reducing the number of folks on our side, and continue to pull rather evenly with them when it comes to those who are honestly on the fence.

Edited by ZRagone
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to remember why I stayed out of this discussion for so long.  

 

I know that one of the most effective things to do in debating is to make sure that "we are discussing the things that I find compelling and want to talk about rather than the things that my opponents find compelling and want to talk about."   

 

I'm just trying to tell you that it is a lot easier to do this effective on the Washington Redskins message board than it is in the real world.  The people out there who are not Redskins fans are not going to ignore what the dictionaries tell them in favor of a historical discussion of red war paint vs. scalping vs. skin color.  Nor are they going to find it compelling to be told that the word redskin has no meaning other than the name of a football team.   

 

My honest concern is that by digging in our heels on defending the awkward name to the bitter end, we are going to lose everything.  The awesome logo, the Native American imagery, the song, all of it.   That is the inevitable result I see roaring down the road at us.    

 

The majority of people out there who are not Redskins fans don't think we should change the name. The most common argument I see is that it's been around for over 80 years, why all of a sudden is it a big deal. Now, the argument has been going on for longer, but like you said, that doesn't matter to them, they only care about what they know. 

 

If we change the name we're likely going to lose all of it anyway because the name change will likely require approval from those wanting it changed and many of them want all NA imagery removed from all sports. Like Califan said, we're just the first domino and it's because we're the easiest one to get white people on board with since by PC perspective the name appears offensive and, like you said, many people will ignore new evidence in order to favor their predetermined opinion.

 

Also, I'll point out that several dictionaries use dated OR offensive. As a descriptive term, Redskins is IMO dated, same with its use as a pejorative. Redskins IMO, and I've pointed this oit in here, is a lot like Celtic. It is a descriptor for an ethnicity, but it is dated and no longer in common use save for with sports teams. This is why you have NA high schools using it as well even though they may not use the name as an actual descriptor any longer.

Edited by elkabong82
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pointing at someone and going "That guys a white supremacist" when he makes an argument that the "First recorded instance of the word in print came in the 1800's and was attributed to a native american based on historical research performed by the Smithosians senior linguist" wouldn't change his underlying message or his merits and wouldn't be a counter to his claim because his claim isn't his OPINION....he's restating fact.

Pointing at Harjo and going "That woman's a fraud who routinely states false information" when she makes an argument that the use of Redskins came from its use in bounties on native americans, when her source for this information is basically herself without any additional evidence, is a legitimate means of countering something because her claim is only as valuable as her word is...which is practically worthless.

 

1. I am honeslty not that familiar with Harjo. I thought the person we were supposed to hate is the Casino dude from Connecticut.

 

2. Who is being called a white supremacist? (Aside from George P. Marshall who was, in a fact, a white supremacist).

Edited by Lombardi's_kid_brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the attitudes of the person naming the team matters more than the character of the one of the people against the team name. The first goes to the specific intent of the name.

Only if one is so monumentally stupid as to believe that somebody would name their football team after something insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if one is so monumentally stupid as to believe that somebody would name their football team after something insulting.

 

I don't think any of the massive appropriation of Native American culture is meant to be insulting towards Native Americans. In the early part of the 20th Century, the racism expressed towards Native Americans was patronizing rather than hate-filled. Also, it was trendy in football to have Indians on the team - which is kind of a mind-boggling thing to consider in today's day and age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

----------

And all I am saying is these facts may be real, but they are entirely academic.  They aren't going to have any significance to the majority of non-Redskins fans.  I live outside of Redskins country, and talking to people who are fans of other teams (or not fans at all), that kind of discussions doesn't persuade them at all.

I agree with you.

To me, what matters is whether it IS offensive.

IMO, all of the rest of this debate is arguing over whether people think it should be offensive. Which might be an effective way of changing people's minds. But until said minds change, it doesn't really matter.

I don't think any of the massive appropriation of Native American culture is meant to be insulting towards Native Americans. In the early part of the 20th Century, the racism expressed towards Native Americans was patronizing rather than hate-filled. Also, it was trendy in football to have Indians on the team - which is kind of a mind-boggling thing to consider in today's day and age.

I think that, decades ago, Natives were classified in many minds as "Noble Opponents". (A status which, I observe, enemies only achieve after they've been defeated so thoroughly that people aren't scared of them any more.)

Speaking well of enemies you've defeated being considered gracious and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

----------

To me, what matters is whether it IS offensive.

 

 

I actually believe that is your goal - to solve this great mystery that no one else really cares about. But that is just going to cause you to go deep down a rabbit hole that really has no end. No word is really offensive in and of itself. I'm not even sure intent or context ultimately matters here. (I'm guessing there are many a white guy with many black friends who decided one day to give the N-word a shot and found themselves on the receiving end of a lot of blank stares. Intent or context simply does not matter with that word).

 

Sometimes, it is intent. Sometimes, it is context. Sometimes, it is the person saying it. Sometimes, it is just the word itself.

 

The problem with Redskins - ultimately - may be that it is just a bridge too far in terms of cultural appropriation. Like, "You couldn't have just stuck with "Braves" and left well enough alone?"

Edited by Lombardi's_kid_brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And lastly, I guess I'll let Harjo "smear" herself for a change lol...

 

Her own words:

 

There are some who claim that the "scalp evidence" has nothing to do with Indian or bloody skin, because they cannot find the words "skin" or "red" in bounty documents. They do not allow that scalp is skin, and that the skin of the head, with or without hair, is insufficient evidence of gender or age. (They also claim that native people introduced themselves as "Red Skin", because that's how Europeans translated to English what native men said in their tribal languages, when they likely said they were a Red, Blood, or Related Person or Man.)

 

 

I hope you all caught what she said there lol...She basically said "No, there is no evidence showing the term "redskin" is connected to the act of scalping Natives for money....but scalps are made of skin, and blood is red. Do the math, people."

 

She also dismisses the claim that Native Americans back then referred to themselves as "red man" and "red skin" as being nothing more than misinterpretations by "Europeans" (ie: whites) who obviously didn't really know what was being said. But SHE does, even though she wasn't there and apparently hasn't even seen any of the recorded texts being interpreted.

 

So ignore what was actually written down and recorded as history, because Harjo doesn't believe it actually happened that way. Instead, believe as fact something that has no historical record whatsoever, because Harjo does believe it to be true.

 

Harjo apparently doesn't need evidence to make her claims...she merely needs to believe them to be true. Her assumptions are spoken as fact, and then regurgitated as fact by whoever is handed the baton.

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.