First, let me be blunt and up front with you so you can possibly save your time (assuming you bother to read it). I will not continue wasn't my time past this post as you've obviously demonstrated you have no desire to engage in any kind of legitimate and honest debate as you have not bothered to actually bother to read what I write or the sources I linked to, as I'm going to CLEARLY show. I'm not going to waste any further breath after this post with a biased and prejudiced agenda driven hack on this issue who doesn't even take the time to even bother to read what the other side is ACTUALLY SAYING and instead responds by attacking strawmen and stereotypes.
It's questionable whether the Indians actually called themselves redskins or were simply repeating what the English called them. Does the Redskins website mention that the name took on a derogatory racist overtone in the mid to late 1800s?
Really? You base this statement on what
FACT Moot? Do you have
ANY FACTUAL FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS of "The English" calling them "Redskins"? If so, provide it.
If you had bothered to read my source, which was not the "Redskins Facts" website but rather a Washington Post article detailing the research of the Smithsonian Institute's senior linguist. Had you actually bothered to be honest and objective and actually read what I took the time to link you would've seen that instead of insultingly making assumptions based on your prejudices.
So nice going with your strawman, but I won't my time chasing your pathetic attempts to divert from what I by erecting false premises. A simple check of my history on this issue shows that I've never suggested that the term CAN'T be used as a slur or hasn't been used as a slur before. You can look
HERE or
HERE or
HERE or
HERE or
HERE for proof of that. I didn't bring it up in this thread because it wasn't relevant to what I was stating. Whether or not it later was used in some fashion as a slur doesn't have ANYTHING TO DO with it's origins.
Origins that I've provided FACTUAL EVIDENCE to back up and you've provided
ZERO countering other than an ignorant statement that Native Americans only refer to themselves by their tribal designation. Attempting to suggest I'm wrong that its original use was by native americans in a non-slurring way by pointing out that in the future it turned into a slur is an illogical mess of an argument.
I cited one example because that's all Snyder cited and you didn't seem to have a problem swallowing that as representing all Indians.
What the **** are you even talking about?
Please provide me what evidence you have to suggest
ANYTHING that I've said is based off what Snyder stated, because not a single source of mine to this point has been Dan Snyder or anything supplied by him. So what the **** are you talking about here other than another non-sequitur in an attempt to distract from the fact your arguments have been riddled with logical inconsistencies, abject falsehoods, and anecdotal evidenced attempted to be presented as fact? You once again highlight that you've not bothered to actually check the sources I've provided.
I cite a scientifically conducted poll for my purposes. I site Robert Green, Chief of the Patawomek Tribe, who doesn't care and claims that 98% of his tribe are fans and don't care that they're called redskins. Or Kevin Brown, Chief of the Pamunkey, who claims similar. Or Anne Richardson, chief of the Rappahanock Tribe, who has no issue with it.
(1). I site Mark Onewolf, who helps run a Facebook page dedicated to native american redskin fans
(2). Or this twitter user whose 100% indian member of the Tsimshian Nation
(3). I site Chris Cooley and his research from traveling to various tribes and interviewing members, much of which he did separate from any Redskin sanctioned activities, and his testimony that the majority response ranged from non-caring to support for the name
(4).
Unlike you, I do not point to these things to claim that almost all native americans MUST think this way, like you attempted to do by suggesting that almost all native americans who support the name are phony. I point them out simply to counter the flawed, unbacked up, illogical assertion you put forward.
"This idea that the fight against the mascotting...
Blah blah blah. Another strawman and diversionary tactic of you because you don't have any desire for ACTUAL discussion and simply wish to propagandize, which is why you can't actually back up anything you say and simply attempt to side step all the counters I made to your weak points.
If I was stating that this was a new issue your pathetic strawman may have a point, but that's not been my claim. There's no reason to link this in response to my comment OTHER than to distract.
The Bureau of the Census counts anyone an Indian who declares himself or herself to be an Indian. As of 2010, the Census Bureau estimates there were more than 2.9 million American Indians and Alaska Natives living in the United States.
AGAIN you prove that you didn't bother to actually look at my source and are ignorantly and laughably debating based off stereotypes and strawmen you're creating.
Link #3 from my article
WAS THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS. Notice the address written out:
https://[B]www.census.gov[/B]/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/cb11-ff22.html
Notice at the top where it says "United States Bureau of the Census"
And notice where it says this:
Population
5.2 million
As of the 2010 Census, the nation's population of American Indians and Alaska Natives, including those of more than one race. They made up 1.7 percent of the total population. Of this total, 2.9 million were American Indian and Alaska Native only, and 2.3 million were American Indian and Alaska Native in combination with one or more other races."
As I said, the Census recognizes that 5.2 million people in this nation are Native Americans.
I actually link THE CENSUS BUREAU and you link "Fact Monster", and somehow you think your link was the accurate depiction of what the Census Bureau claims is the population of Native Americans in this country. Wonders never cease.
How dare I? How dare you resort to such fallacious tactics.
Yes, absolutely how dare you. You have no right, nor have you put forward
ANY legitimate argument, as to why you or anyone else has the authority to declare someone who is ethnically native american that they're not a "real indian" because they're not full blooded.
Tribal membership is
NOT REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY ONESELF AS NATIVE AMERICAN. Simply because you and some activists dislike that fact doesn't make it so.