The term Redskins, however, was coined in the 19th century by Easterners who never bothered to understand that there is no Native American anywhere who is a "redskin": but are members of a tribe, and that is the identity they were proud of.
People who populated the west had a far different attitude. While they fought the warriors, hated what those warriors did in battle, and felt that they were an obstruction to be overcome, one feeling that was prevalant about the "redskin" from all the journals I ever read was that of respect for a proud people who fought for a way of life.
In the one book that had been written about the Buffalo Soldiers, the Native American warrior was called many things: strong, proud, tactically brilliant, fierce, courageous, cunning, innovative, etc. See any racist terms there?
General Crook and General Sheridan both called the warriors of the Plains tribes "... the finest light cavalry in the world...". See any racism there?
Technically, since there is no such person as a "redskin", the name is meaningless. The outrage is self-induced, totally motivated by the need of some for their "15 minutes of fame" and not even supported by the vast majority of full- and partial- Native Americans.The name has racist connotations...
Then why keep posting about it...and with different rationalizations each time?if I were a fan I wouldn't worry too much about it, and it would be frustrating when it's brought up time and after time..
[/QUOTE]It probably is about as tiring as the Ray Lewis debate that never seems to die for Ravens fans.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but this is not tiring, just infuriating - the Ray Lewis debate is swirling despite the fact that there is a publically-available transcript and other documentation about that tragedy. Yet, the haters ignore that and what he has done with his life since then. The fans jump down the haters' throats.
Can you say endless circle?