It is about time -- Indian Mascots

[El_Gato]

...The worst Indian name is "Redskins," without a doubt. For those who don't know, the term has nothing to do with skin tone (which is bad enough), but is rather the nickname that was attached to Indians back in the wonderful days of our country when the government paid people to exterminate Indians. To prove a kill, they required that an Indian scalp be brought in for payment (whites invented scalping -- Indians only starting doing it in response to this early American tradition). The bloody scalps were called "Redskins." This term was later adapted to describe Indians that still had their scalps attached as well...

Gosh, you're right BAC, that really doesn't make it sound like you know everything there is to know about the term redskin.

I think the "For those who don't know" part is a dead giveaway. Doesn't that pretty much send the message that YOU do know? And you then proceed to tell us something AS FACT that, it turns out, IS NOT FACT.

Quit trying to cover your tracks (do you know the origin of that phrase?); it's pretty obvious to me that you take these kinds of liberties sometimes and then, when challenged, you IMMEDIATELY launch into a bunch of hyperbole in an effort to disguise or lessen your lack of direct support. I'm sure you're usually just banking on the fact that no one will call you on your comments because you come across in such an authoritative way.

It's OK to NOT know everything about everything, BAC.


(Hope you're getting off on this, rebecca!)

[SonomaCat]

As for the specifics of this topic, again I ask someone to show me the area of the Constitution (or any U.S/Indian Treaty) where people are guaranteed the right to never be offended.

Getting back on topic, and at the expense of contradicting your interpretation of this issue, I am not sure that there are any Constitutional or treaty-related issues at stake here since we are talking about the NCAA (a private organization) and general discussions about why some people may find certain mascots offensive. The Constitution doesn't have any bearing on those topics, so I am not sure that your argument is very compelling on this particular point.

Hmmm. Does this call into question every Constitution-related reference you have ever made?

[SonomaCat]

...The worst Indian name is "Redskins," without a doubt. For those who don't know, the term has nothing to do with skin tone (which is bad enough), but is rather the nickname that was attached to Indians back in the wonderful days of our country when the government paid people to exterminate Indians. To prove a kill, they required that an Indian scalp be brought in for payment (whites invented scalping -- Indians only starting doing it in response to this early American tradition). The bloody scalps were called "Redskins." This term was later adapted to describe Indians that still had their scalps attached as well...

Gosh, you're right BAC, that really doesn't make it sound like you know everything there is to know about the term redskin.

I think the "For those who don't know" part is a dead giveaway. Doesn't that pretty much send the message that YOU do know? And you then proceed to tell us something AS FACT that, it turns out, IS NOT FACT.

Quit trying to cover your tracks (do you know the origin of that phrase?); it's pretty obvious to me that you take these kinds of liberties sometimes and then, when challenged, you IMMEDIATELY launch into a bunch of hyperbole in an effort to disguise or lessen your lack of direct support. I'm sure you're usually just banking on the fact that no one will call you on your comments because you come across in such an authoritative way.

It's OK to NOT know everything about everything, BAC.


(Hope you're getting off on this, rebecca!)

Good lord, EG, I know you have a chip on your shoulder about me, but this is kind of a silly point you are hammering away at. I don't know everything about everything, but I don't make things up, either, as you are suggesting. When I post something about a topic, I generally know what I'm talking about. If I don't I generally qualify it as such.

The point I made was factual. One part of it (a paranthetical part that has nothing to do with the main point) has been contested by some historians (as Grizbeer noted and I agreed). I do know a lot about that topic. I have read books on the topic. I shared what I knew. If you know something on a topic, I would expect you to do the same. Instead, you're spending your time trying to suggest something nefarious about me. Good luck with that.

By the way, did you already know the origin of the term "Redskin?" And if so, was it from a previous post of mine, or was it from another source?

[El_Gato]

The point I'm making, BAC, is that people can choose to be offended by something every day of their life, regardless of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual preference, hair color, weight, etc etc ad infinitum...

Do you TRULY believe that white people are walking around America today mistreating Indians or thinking less of them because of the Washington Redskins?

Please.

And if some Indians are offended by that mascot, I'm sorry for them but I don't really care because I'm CERTAIN that it has NO BEARING on their day-to-day existence.

[briannell]

(Hope you're getting off on this, rebecca!) -el gato

yeah, i'm enjoying you boys spat

But, what really "gets me off", well that ain't PG rated

And BAC better keep his mouth shut, because PM's are just that

Just kidding, that didn't involve Brad, but he may want to try it with his girlfriend


-rebecca

[SonomaCat]

The point I'm making, BAC, is that people can choose to be offended by something every day of their life, regardless of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual preference, hair color, weight, etc etc ad infinitum...

Do you TRULY believe that white people are walking around America today mistreating Indians or thinking less of them because of the Washington Redskins?

Please.

And if some Indians are offended by that mascot, I'm sorry for them but I don't really care because I'm CERTAIN that it has NO BEARING on their day-to-day existence.

I am not going to disagree with any of your logic -- I don't know if these mascots have a tangible impact on the way Indians are treated.

I also don't think that we need to go to incredible lengths to avoid offending people -- some people will get offended by nearly anything. We shouldn't have to give up our freedoms or incur additional social costs to placate a minority over something where their civil liberties aren't being abused (and here is a point where I could amend my earlier post and retroactively agree that your constitutional reference is appropriate for this future part of the discussion).

However, I do not see the point of maintaining a mascot (whose continued existence adds nothing to society and would cost us our society zero to get rid of) whose very definition is, if not racially offensive, then just really creepy and gory.

I don't see this as limiting our freedoms in any way, unless one feels that the Washington Redskins tattoo would be cheapened if the franchise changed its name.

[SonomaCat]

El Gato wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:
...(whites invented scalping -- Indians only starting doing it in response to this early American tradition)...


I'm sorry that you think this is inconsequetial but I don't.

Bay Area Cat wrote:
...I exprapolated the genesis of the act from the fact that Europeans used the practice even before the Western migration.


Your comment is CLEARLY blaming whites for introducing the act of "scalping" to North America and when challenged on that assertion of fact, YOU ADMIT IT'S UNTRUE. I have suspected that you do this type of thing frequently and I guess the reason I'm making a point of it here is that I'm tired of it. So you claim to have read a number of books, yada yada yada, (no way to truly prove or disprove that claim) but the INSTANT someone calls BS, you recant and admit that you are drawing your own conclusion on this subject. grizbeer pointed out that you are wrong and you essentially (although not directly; that's just not your style) agree with him.

Only you know whether my comments are accurate, BAC, but I know I will be a bit more skeptical of undocumented claims you make here...

[El_Gato]

...However, I do not see the point of maintaining a mascot (whose continued existence adds nothing to society and would cost us our society zero to get rid of) whose very definition is, if not racially offensive, then just really creepy and gory...

Once again, BAC, those are your OPINIONS and apparently are NOT shared by enough people to make the 'Skins change their name. Thank God minorities (and I mean that term in regard to %'s, not ethnicity) can't just automatically make things the way they want them just by bitching; we would be living in anarchy if that mindset became too pervasive...

Also, BAC, I deleted a post regarding my "suspicions" about your "factual claims"; if you saw it, feel free to respond; if not, don't sweat it.

[El_Gato]

I guess your only option is to do some reading on the topics yourself and come to your own conclusion.

Yeah, and when I do that, I won't openly state as facts things that AREN'T TRUE just to try to convince people that I'm right.

[SonomaCat]

I guess your only option is to do some reading on the topics yourself and come to your own conclusion.

Yeah, and when I do that, I won't openly state as facts things that AREN'T TRUE.

Okay, here's a site that backs up what I had read and posted. Are you happy now?

http://college.hmco.com/history/readers ... andsca.htm

You also confused me when you deleted that post -- I was sweating bullets fearing that I had accidentally done it, so I tried to restore it above.

One more time, I posted what I thought was true based on what I had read in a book (whose titled I referenced). I still don't think it's a major point as to whether or not the term "Redskins" is offensive, and I certainly didn't present it as anything that contributed to the thesis of my post. However, when grizbeer provided me better info, I was more than happy to accept it. I'm confused as to what was wrong with any of that, outside of the fact that you are looking for a "gotcha."

[El_Gato]

No, I'm sorry; you admitted that you DIDN'T HAVE A TRUE FACTUAL BASIS for the claim of "whites inventing scalping" when you stated that you "extrapolated" that fact from others. Plus you admit that your extrapolation was, in fact, WRONG.

Then you go frantically searching for something that will help you cover your arse retroactively.

Weak debating skills, BAC. Weak.

[SonomaCat]

No, I'm sorry; you admitted that you DIDN'T HAVE A TRUE FACTUAL BASIS for the claim of "whites inventing scalping" when you stated that you "extrapolated" that fact from others. Plus you admit that your extrapolation was, in fact, WRONG.

Then you go frantically searching for something that will help you cover your arse retroactively.

Weak debating skills, BAC. Weak.

Hmmm. Okay, El Gato, I guess you are right and I am wrong. I must have lied when I said that I had read a book (a history book, with footnotes and everything ... the kind of thing that people often rely upon when obtaining factual references) that made that assertion (even lying about its title and contents on the fly, that I will bet, if you read it, would magically line up with what I lied about it saying). And in the amazing coincidence of the cosmos, it turns out that this line of historical thought was held by many others, as evidenced by my link that I googled. I guess I was just a friggin' psychic to have had the mental powers to come up with that idea all by myself, independent of any outside research.

I extrapolated that line of thinking (as I read it in the book) to be true based upon learning that the Europeans had used scalping long before the legendary days of the Western Indians. That's what I meant when I used that term. I wasn't creating the thought out of thin air. Based on the knowledge I knew to be true (whites doing scalping early on), and having read that assertion in the past, it seemed plausible based on what I knew, so I took it to be true. Now, based upon the comment that grizbeer made, I have researched what he said, and found it to be true. Therefore, I gave him credit for that and agreed with him.

All of this, and what exactly have you tried to prove? Did you know what the term "Redskin" came from before you read my post? If not, now you do, and that's a good thing (you might have read about it before from one of my earlier posts on the topic as well). Does the sidebar info about the origin of scalping impact that info in any way? Of course not. Was my point about Redskins accurate and relevant to the discussion? I thought so. Did I repeat an assertion that I had read that was contradicted? Yes. Did I argue agree with the new info after I read a bit more about it? Yes.

So much discussion over such a non-issue ... maybe Greta will be assigned to cover this 24/7 next week.

[SonomaCat]

Weak debating skills, BAC. Weak.

You're hurting my feelings, man. In time, I hope that I can glean a little wisdom from your words, and make the world a better place for everybody.

[El_Gato]

Here is my FINAL point on my beef:

I have always felt that you play a little "fast & loose" with facts, BAC, in an effort to prove your point or prove someone else wrong (and THAT really goes back to your desire to prove yourself intellectually superior but I think we've beaten that horse to death 10 times). What transpired earlier in this post proved that, at least to me.

The fact is that even now you admit that you DIDN'T read anywhere SPECIFICALLY that whites introduced scalping to the Indians. Yes, you had SOME facts on that despicable activity and you came up with an INCORRECT assumption/conclusion. If you had simply stated "I think whites introduced scalping to the Indians, I'd have absolutely no beef even after grizbeer corrected you. BUT, you stated it AS A FACT; and you were wrong. How many other times have you done something like this & not been "called on it?".

I'm done. Peace out.

[SonomaCat]

Here is my FINAL point on my beef:

I have always felt that you play a little "fast & loose" with facts, BAC, in an effort to prove your point or prove someone else wrong (and THAT really goes back to your desire to prove yourself intellectually superior but I think we've beaten that horse to death 10 times). What transpired earlier in this post proved that, at least to me.

The fact is that even now you admit that you DIDN'T read anywhere SPECIFICALLY that whites introduced scalping to the Indians. Yes, you had SOME facts on that despicable activity and you came up with an INCORRECT assumption/conclusion. If you had simply stated "I think whites introduced scalping to the Indians, I'd have absolutely no beef even after grizbeer corrected you. BUT, you stated it AS A FACT; and you were wrong. How many other times have you done something like this & not been "called on it?".

I'm done. Peace out.

Good. If you're done posting, maybe you will finally read what I am writing.

I DID READ SPECIFICALLY THAT WHITES INTRODUCED SCALPING TO THE INDIANS. THAT'S WHAT MY LAST SEVERAL POSTS HAVE BEEN EXPLAINING TO YOU.

I now realize that the author made a mistake on that point, as evidenced by the information that grizbeer passed along.

Now please read that all caps paragraph over and over until it sinks in. Then, if you need more explanation, go back and read my previous several posts that all say the same thing, but with more background info.

Again, the name of the book I read was "Lies my Teachers Told Me." If you want to go out and read it in the hopes that I'm lying, please feel free (I'll buy it on Amazon and have it sent to you, if you want to accept my dare). You might enjoy the book in the meantime, as I did.

And if you think my facts are ever in question, feel free to challenge them whenever you want -- I encourage it. If I'm ever wrong, I want to know. With google, it takes about ten second to disprove stuff that's not right, so if you really believe that my facts are ever wrong, just look it up and prove me wrong.

The other option is to just cast aspersions as to my honesty and integrity in general. This option is much easier.

[briannell]

The other option is to just cast aspersions as to my honesty and integrity in general. This option is much easier

-BAC

I can say I think BAC (Brad) has good integrity, he keeps PM's Private, and there's some good black mail material there, so el gato, don't be so hard on him, please keep the spats fun, or you may run him off the board.

-rebecca

[El_Gato]

sorry to burst your bubble, rebecca, but he DID post one of my PM's to him on the regular boards without my permission. He removed it once I demanded that he do so.

FYI.

[briannell]

sorry to burst your bubble, rebecca, but he DID post one of my PM's to him on the regular boards without my permission. He removed it once I demanded that he do so.

-el gato


good to know and well if Brad ever does post what we've discussed, i'll let 'dozer' bend him over

I think i'm safe, at least for now. I'm sweet, have a halo, so unless he wants to turn me into a wench, he'll keep it to himself. besides, the other individual we tend to discuss from time to time would crush him

who knows when we're down home in Oct., we my possibly double with brad and his girlfriend, if we do i may even get enough dirt on him, he'd never try and mess with me. or have my brothers firm there in SF slap him with a liable suit

really, i think Brad is alright guy.

-rebecca

[gtapp]

Minneapolis Star Tribune poll regarding Indian Mascots:

3600 votes: 82% think it is a dumb idea and no ban of any kind should be enforced. I guess the Minnesota people are smarter than I thought.

[SonomaCat]

sorry to burst your bubble, rebecca, but he DID post one of my PM's to him on the regular boards without my permission. He removed it once I demanded that he do so.

-el gato


good to know and well if Brad ever does post what we've discussed, i'll let 'dozer' bend him over

I think i'm safe, at least for now. I'm sweet, have a halo, so unless he wants to turn me into a wench, he'll keep it to himself. besides, the other individual we tend to discuss from time to time would crush him

who knows when we're down home in Oct., we my possibly double with brad and his girlfriend, if we do i may even get enough dirt on him, he'd never try and mess with me. or have my brothers firm there in SF slap him with a liable suit

really, i think Brad is alright guy.

-rebecca

Yeah, Rebecca, it was kind of ironic that you used that example. I did post one of EG's pm's. He read my book and went to the effort of writing me a pm telling me how much he hated it, so I thought it belonged on the thread where I was asking for feedback on the book. I was willing to take the good with the bad, so I didn't think it was that big of a deal. Well, EG got really upset and demanded that I take it off of the public board, which I did as soon as he asked.

It goes without saying that anything personal and private that people tell me in pm's and in emails in taken in the strictest confidence and never released. I hold that kind of communication to be personal and priviledged, and I appreciate talking to real people on a real basis one on one, and I would never violate that trust.

However, when people like EG use the pm's to just yell at me, put me down, or write really unintentionally funny scathing book reviews, then I don't really place that kind of communication in the "personal and private" category, especially when they don't even disclose their real name to me. That kind of communication is just the same as a post on the board, except without the courage to look like a jerk in front of everyone else and instead just acting like a jerk in "private" to me.