This notorious proclamation placed a bounty on Indians. So let’s ban the word “Indian.”


And for that matter, let’s ban the word “Penobscot.”

Ridiculous, you say?

No more so than using an 1863 bounty notice from the Dakota Wars in Minnesota as a rationale for banning the word “redskin.” Indeed, “redskin” is used in this bounty notice to describe the poor souls being hunted — but so, too, is “Indian.” You see, “redskin” was a synonym for “Indian,” a descriptive term for Native Americans. If “redskins” is to be banned because it was used in this notice, then by the same logic, “Indian” should be, too.

Meantime, the notorious Phips Proclamation of 1755, pictured above, which placed a bounty on Penobscot Indians, doesn’t mention “redskins” at all. “Indians” are the ones targeted. So to use the logic of the anti-Redskin people, the word “Indian,” infamously used in the Phips Proclamation, should be banned. And “Penobscot,” too.

Yet for some reason, Indian Country Today, one of the loudest voices for banning “redskins,” uses “Indian” in its title. Logic clearly doesn’t enter into their campaign.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s