DISTORTIONS OF REDSKINS pt 1
Tragically communities and its citizens have been thrust into the heart of Politics and all the deceit that follows. It is not the desire of honest hardworking everyday American’s to be thrust into the position of judge, jury, and executioner concerning the word Redskins, but that is the task many are being ordered to perform and if you decide wrong “You are a Racist”. Those driving this effort have little to no regard for truth as truth is their biggest obstacle. As these nonIndians elitists proudly proclaim they are looking out for the best interest of the American Indians, they reject the vast majority of American Indians as ignorant and too dumb to know what’s good for them or fake Indians if they even acknowledge they exist. Distortion and lies are at the foundation of this movement.
Recent conversations with American Indians from all areas of the U.S. have expressed concern over the false claim of Bounties on Redskin Scalps and the reference material that is being circulated throughout their community. We will attempt to set the record straight on this issue with “the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” through Facts and not colorized theory or fiction. First: the term or definition of Redskin, Red Men, or Red People originates from voices of American Indian leaders dating back before the birth of the United States itself. It was not then nor now a derogatory word but the only distinction of skin tone between Europeans “White Skin” or Africans “Black Skin” words which are found throughout the translation of thousands of historical American Indian speeches and are officially documented.
Redskins itself was defined as “North American Indian” for hundreds of years and nothing more. Only in recent years has an asterisk been added that “Some consider Derogatory” but the word itself actually originates with the American Indian who did not look upon their Race then or our race now as “Derogatory or Inferior” but as a proud people.
Many American Indians are offended when referring to us as “Indigenous” people or “Aboriginal” people but you do not see any asterisk accompanying those definitions. Why are non-Indians given the power to speak over the American Indian and determine what is proper and what is not?
Second: the reference pointed to which has been circulated not just to your community but around the nation is meant to divide and conquer. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue but a new “Progressive Party” tactic meant solely to create division and hate. Referring to the 1863 Republican Daily Unions publication, they steer clear of Saint Cloud Democrat newspaper where at the same time it was calling for the extermination of all Dakota Sioux. Just as today, these are Political Talking Points and nothing more. You will not find either Party publication declared any “Redskin Scalp” qualified for receiving a bounty payment as if that were the determining facture. Both Parties used the newly conceived term “Never let a crisis go to waste” philosophy in political campaigning where truth is twisted to the breaking point.
So just what is the truth? We at NAGA do not condone or wish to justify but merely wish to put context to these distorted and false claims.
Beginning on August 17th 1862 war broke out between the Great Sioux Nation and the US Government that war would last till December of 1890 at Wounded Knee. All political Parties regardless of Party affiliation began publishing articles stating “Un-provoked” hostilities. It was a falsehood stoked by political aspirations and by members of both parties as well as media of the time (just as today) exploiting it.
The fact is from mid-August 1862 till the end of September 1862 between 500 and 1000 whites were killed mainly by Dakota Sioux (some were military and other homesteaders). From 1863 till 1866 a bounty on hostile Dakota Sioux did exist in Minnesota, but due to public pressure, it had to be modified numerous times from its unholy and illegal inception. But again, it was a Bounty of Hostile Dakota Sioux and only within a certain limited region of Minnesota.
From the beginning only authorized individuals (militias) were allowed to participate or receive bounties and only for Hostiles found within that boundary. Here again, we must clarify for truthful accuracy that the original proclamation lasting just a couple of weeks only, it did state scalps, but that came about as Minnesota was without a leader at the Governorship. Through official records, it appears only around 20 bounty payments were made the latest in 1865. From the beginning it (although scalp is stated), the proof was needed of who the bounty payment was for and it had to be proven it was from a hostile Dakota Sioux within that small region. At the time there were Winnebago, Chippewa, and other tribal Indians living in Minnesota (even friendly Dakota Sioux) living within that very boundaries that did not participate in the hostilities and were never harmed. Just using common sense, one realizes any black-haired scalp could include non-Indians as well. As many American Indians did not have jet black hair with some having light brown hair and even blond hair, how would you distinguish who it belonged too?