[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

.......and then you have things like this .



Update: Yes, A 'Redskin' Does, In Fact, Mean the Scalped Head of a Native American, Sold, Like a Pelt, for Cash

Yes, another article titled that "redskins" has to do with scalps or skins, when the actual historical document cited doesn't refer to the name "redskins" in that way at all. I think you posted another article a while back that also claimed redskins referred to scalps, when the actual historical document cited in the same article did not. Lol.

Thank you, giantone, for providing yet another example of just how stupid the anti-"redskin" people are.

I mean, what is the deal with these people? How do you take a phrase "The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.", and think that it refers to scalps rather than Indians?

Just in case you didn't get it, giantone, here's an example of reading comprehension. Which phrase makes the most sense to you?

"$200 for every scalp sent to purgatory"

or

"$200 for every Indian sent to purgatory"

I hope to heaven you realized how the word "redskin"was used, giantone. I would think any middle-schooler could do so. I mean, I'm not catholic, but I think people get sent to purgatory, not just their hair.

As to the writers of the article, their error has been posted in the comments below on that webpage. And at the point where one side of a debate has to lie and twist words around so much, isn't it fair to say the anti-redskin side has lost the debate conclusively? At least as far as history and logic go.

Thanks again for another example of anti-redskin people failing reading comprehension, giantone.