3 in custody after Liberty City shooting that killed 2, injured at least 8 | News - Home
The outrage. The silent, absent, nonexistent outrage.
Redskins: A derogatory and racist slur.
Native-Americans: Oh, shut the "h" up! People are always dividing Americans. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American. I'm offended.
Indians: How ignorant. in 1492 Columbus foolishly thought he's discovered a shortcut to India. We know better now. They're not Indians. Indians are from South Asia.
Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011
[QUOTE=Amadeus;1063444538]I don't tell people what should or shouldn't be offensive to them./QUOTE]
I think it was you but somebody posted the guys pic earlier which says it best. Fake cry me a fake river...
Yes, a single instance (actually, the only historical instance of it being used as such I've found in any bit of research) of the word being used in relation to a bounty? Exactly what is the point? Hopefully not the point of the article making the rounds suggesting that "Redskin means the scalped head of a native american" since:
1. The only bounty documented actually using the word is from 1863...DECADES after the words first recorded use in general, in English, or in Print
2. IF the bounty is actually referring to the "scalped head" with the use of "red-skin" there, then it's not actually using the term "redskin" (referring to native americans) but rather speaking in the literal notion of the "red" SKIN. As such, it would make this bounty NOT an instance of the term "redskin" being used as a slur to refer to native americans, but is an instance of a literal reference.
3. The article CLAIMS that does "in fact" mean scalped head of a native american...then proceed to give zero facts to it and actually atttempts to dismiss actual FACTS and research done by someone by simply stating opinion, anecdotal, and irrelevant information to the claim of what it actually MEANS.
4. Contrary to the ego of the individual writing the esquire article, and contrary to the very argument you TRIED to make in your first line (and likely contradict if your source was the esquire peace), Baxter Holmes does not speak for all native americans. And as such, when he tries to claim what it "means" to native americans, despite native americans saying the exact opposite of his claims, it is actually HE who is declaring what people should find offensive by wrongfully representing all of the native american population as agreeing with him.
So please....your point to the picture was what exactly? And it related to your statement how exaclty?
Last edited by Zyphlin; 06-24-14 at 01:40 PM.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.