history… march 26


1026 – Conrad II was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope John XIX.

1799 – Napoleon captured Jaffa Palestine.

1780 – The British Gazette and Sunday Monitor was published for the first time. It was the first Sunday newspaper in Britain.

1793 – The Holy Roman Emperor formally declared war on France.

1804 – The U.S. Congress ordered the removal of Indians east of the Mississippi to Louisiana.

1804 – The Louisiana Purchase was divided into the District of Louisiana and the Territory of Orleans.

1854 – Charles III, duke of Parma, was attacked by an assassin. He died the next day.

1871 – The Paris Commune was formally set up.

1878 – Hastings College of Law was founded.

1885 – Eastman Kodak (Eastman Dry Plate and Film Co.) produced the first commercial motion picture film in Rochester, NY.

1898 – In South Africa, the world’s first game reserve, the Sabi Game reserve, was designated.

1909 – Russian troops invaded Persia to support Muhammad Ali as shah in place of the constitutional government.

1910 – The U.S. Congress passed an amendment to the 1907 Immigration Act that barred criminals, paupers, anarchists and carriers of disease from settling in the U.S.

1913 – During the Balkan War, the Bulgarians took Adrianople.

1917 – At the start of the battle of Gaza, the British cavalry withdrew when 17,000 Turks blocked their advance.

1937 – Spinach growers in Crystal City, TX, erected a statue of Popeye.

1938 – Herman Goering warned all Jews to leave Austria.

1942 – The Germans began sending Jews to Auschwitz in Poland.

1945 – The battle of Iwo Jima ended.

1945 – In the Aleutians, the battle of Komandorski began when the Japanese attempted to reinforce a garrison at Kiska and were intercepted by a U.S. naval force.

1951 – The U.S. Air Force flag was approved. The flag included the coat of arms, 13 white stars and the Air Force seal on a blue background.

1953 – Dr. Jonas Salk announced a new vaccine that would prevent poliomyelitis.

1956 – Red Buttons made his debut as a television actor in “Studio One” on CBS television.

1958 – The U.S. Army launched America’s third successful satellite, Explorer III.

1962 – The U.S. Supreme Court supported the 1-man-1-vote apportionment of seats in the State Legislature.

1969 – The TV movie “Marcus Welby” was seen on ABC-TV. It was later turned into a series.

1971 – Sheikh Mujibur Rahman declared East Pakistan to be the independent republic of Bangladesh.

1971 – “Cannon” premiered on CBS-TV as a movie. It was turned into a series later in the year.

1972 – The Los Angeles Lakers broke a National Basketball Association (NBA) record by winning 69 of their 82 games.

1973 – Egyptian President Anwar Sadat took over the premiership and said “the stage of total confrontation (with Israel) has become inevitable.”

1973 – Women were allowed on the floor of the London Stock Exchange for the first time.

1979 – The Camp David treaty was signed by Israel and Egypt that ended the 31-year state of war between the countries.

1981 – In Great Britain, the Social Democratic Party (SDP) gained official recognition.

1982 – Ground breaking ceremonies were held in Washington, DC, for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

1983 – The U.S. performed a nuclear test at the Nevada Test Site.

1989 – The first free elections took place in the Soviet Union. Boris Yeltsin was elected.

1991 – The presidents of Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil and Uruguay signed an agreement that established the Southern Cone Common Market, a free-trade zone, by January 1, 1995.

1992 – In Indianapolis, heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson was found guilty of rape. He was sentenced to 6 years in prison. He only served three.

1995 – Seven of the 15 European Union states abolished border controls.

1996 – The International Monetary Fund approved a $10.2 billion loan for Russia to help the country transform its economy.

1997 – The 39 bodies of Heaven’s Gate members are found in a mansion in Rancho Santa Fe, CA. The group had committed suicide thinking that they would be picked up by a spaceship following behind the comet Hale-Bopp.

1998 – In the U.S., the Federal government endorses new HIV test that yields instant results.

1998 – Unisys Corp. and Lockheed Martin Corp. pay a $3.15 million fine for selling spare parts at inflated prices to the U.S. federal government.

1999 – The macro virus “Melissa” was reported for the first.

1999 – In Michigan, Dr. Jack Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder for giving a terminally ill man a lethal injection and putting it all on videotape on September 17, 1998 for “60 Minutes.”

2000 – The Seattle Kingdome was imploded to make room for a new football arena.

2000 – In Russia, acting President Vladimir Putin was elected president outright. He won a sufficient number of votes to avoid a runoff election.

2007 – The design for the “Forever Stamp” was unveiled by the U.S. Postal Service.

on-this-day.com

Thomas Jefferson’s Indian Removal Act of 1804


Map of Eastern Kansas - Page

Indian Removal Act of 1804

At the time of the Louisiana Purchase, President Thomas Jefferson believed that American Indians could be moved from the East to lands in the new territory. This would free up lands in demand by white settlers. The plan was voluntary and was considered a failure—some tribes participated, others refused. The plan also did not account for the fact that other tribes with nomadic lifestyles already occupied this land. Twenty years later, President Andrew Jackson decided to push for the Indian Removal Act. Passed in 1830, the act allowed the U.S. government to move Indian tribes in the East to lands west of the Mississippi.

Indian leaders were pressured to sign treaties that would give up ancestral lands in exchange for much smaller parcels in the West. The removal policy was eventually refined into the “reservation” system, with tribes being confined to specific areas of land. The area that became Kansas was considered prime space for these “emigrant” American Indians who were forced to move west. Between the years 1825 and 1850, treaties were made with more than 25 tribes to “remove” them to the region that ultimately became Kansas. These included the Chippewa, Delaware, Iowa, Kansa, Kaskaskia, Kickapoo, Miami, Ottawa, Peoria, Piankashaw, Potawatomi, Sac and Fox, Shawnee, Wea, and Wyandotte as well as several other tribes.

This map in Kansas Memory shows the location of most of the Indian Reservations for the tribes.[http://www.kansasmemory.org/item/213048]

The move to Kansas was not the first for many of the tribes. For example, the Delaware originally lived on the East Coast in the area of the state of Delaware. In 1829 the tribe signed a treaty for two million acres in Kansas with permission to hunt buffalo on the plains beyond the land. The Delaware people farmed their land in Kansas and adopted a constitution and a set of tribal laws. When Kansas Territory opened to white settlement, the Delawares were forced to move one more time to Indian Territory (Oklahoma).

Not all tribes moved as a unit. Indian Removal policy often led to divisions within tribes. In 1800 the Potawatomi claimed land in Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois. However, between 1836 and 1841, the tribe was forced to sell these lands and to be removed beyond the Mississippi River. A large number of those living in Indiana refused to move and eventually fled to Canada to avoid military conflict. Some of the tribe stayed in Michigan and Wisconsin and only a portion of the Potawatomis settled on a reservation in Kansas by 1846. In 1868 a number of the Potawatomi were removed to Indian Territory, and became known as the Citizen Band. Other portions of the tribe remained on a small reservation in Kansas, which still exists today, and is known as the Prairie Band.

No matter the experiences, the various tribes were all moved into environments different than their traditional tribal lands. The peoples from woodlands and Great Lakes regions had maintained lifestyles based on hunting or fishing. The resources they found in Kansas were foreign to them.

To deal with Indian Removal, the U. S. government created the Indian Office under the War Department. By 1824 it had become the Bureau of Indian Affairs with superintendents of Indian affairs for various regions. The Department of Indian Affairs with a commissioner, clerks, agents, and subagents was created in 1832. The Department of Interior was established in 1849 and the Bureau of Indian Affairs was transferred to it, though the War Department still had the responsibility of negotiating treaties with the tribes.

Portions from The Kansas Journey. (http://www.kshs.org/kansapedia/indian-removal-act/16714)

Resource: usslave.blogspot.com  Youtube.com

The Origin of Redskin ~ a repost


March 26, 2006

Posted by Bill Poser

The controversy over the Washington Redskins trademark has attracted considerable attention, here and elsewhere. We have had quite a few previous posts about this. It began with a petition by seven American Indian activists led by Suzan Harjo in 1992 to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the US Department of Commerce requesting cancellation of the trademark on the grounds that the word redskin

was and is a pejorative, derogatory, denigrating, offensive, scandalous, contemptuous, disreputable, disparaging and racist designation for a Native American person

In 1998 the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decided in favor of the petitioners and cancelled the trademark. Pro Football, Inc. appealed to the United States District Court, which in 2003 overturned the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and reinstated the trademark. It gave several grounds for its decision:

  • that there was an absence of evidence that the term redskin is disparaging in the particular context of the name of the sports team;
  • that the TTB did not sufficiently articulate its inferences and explain how it decided between competing pieces of evidence. In particular, the District Court was critical of the fact that the TTB ruled on the basis “of the entirety of the evidence” but did not review that evidence in any detail and made few findings of fact;
  • that the petitioners’ claim was barred by the doctrine of laches, which provides that a right or claim should not be enforced if the long delay in asserting it puts the respondent at an unreasonable disadvantage. In this case, the Court held that opposition to the mark should have been asserted when the mark was issued in 1967 or shortly thereafter and that the delay of twenty-five years was unreasonable.

The case was appealed to the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit. In its 2005 decision, the Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of laches did not in principle bar the suit of one of the petitioners, Mateo Romero, the youngest, because he was only one year old in 1967 when the trademark was registered. (In US federal law, the clock for laches starts when the petitioner reaches the age of 18.) It therefore returned the case to the District Court for further consideration of whether laches should bar the suit on the part of Mateo Romero.¹ The Court of Appeal did not address the question of whether there was sufficient evidence that redskin is disparaging in the context of the name of the sports team because there is no need to decide that question if the suit is barred by laches.²

Although the main topic I want to discuss is a linguistic one, I’ve reviewed the legal history because I think that much of the discussion of the case has been rather misleading. To a large extent the decisions of the courts have focussed on the “technicality” of laches, not on the question of whether redskin is disparaging. The District Court did not simply ignore overwhelming evidence as some commentators suggest. Indeed, even in its holdings on the disparagement issue, the District Court’s criticisms of the TTB were that it did not sufficiently address the question of whether redskin is disparaging in the context of the name and that the TTB did not make sufficient findings of fact. And in overturning the District Court, the Court of Appeal made no judgment whatever as to whether redskin is disparaging. Its decision dealt exclusively with laches. In short, the decisions of the courts have been concerned largely with technical questions, not with the linguistic issues.

I think that it is well established that redskin is taken by most people today to be disparaging. What is more interesting is whether it has always been so, as Harjo et al., as well as various others, claim. One interesting piece of evidence is the origin of the name Washington Redskins. In 1933, George Preston Marshall, the owner of the team, which was then located in Boston, renamed it the Boston Redskins in honor of the head coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, an American Indian.³ When the team moved to Washington in 1937 it was renamed the Washington Redskins. George Marshall clearly did not consider the name disparaging.

The term redskin of course goes much farther back than 1933. The details of this history have recently been explored by Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution, in a paper conveniently available on-line. Some of the evidence is available in greater detail on Goddard’s web site. You can read speeches by the Meskwaki chief Black Thunder and the Omaha chief Big Elk in which the expression redskin is used, and early nineteenth century examples of the Meskwaki usage of terms meaning redskin and whiteskin.

I won’t review the evidence in detail because Goddard’s paper is short enough and accessible enough that if you are interested you should read it yourself. I’ll just summarize it. Goddard shows that the term redskin is a translation from native American languages of a term used by native Americans for themselves. Harjo’s claim that it “had its origins in the practice of presenting bloody red skins and scalps as proof of Indian kill for bounty payments” is unsupported by any evidence.⁴ The term entered popular usage via the novels of James Fenimore Cooper. In the early- to mid-nineteenth century the term was neutral, not pejorative, and indeed was often used in contexts in which whites spoke of Indians in positive terms. Goddard concludes:

Cooper’s use of redskin as a Native American in-group term was entirely authentic, reflecting both the accurate perception of the Indian self-image and the evolving respect among whites for the Indians’ distinct cultural perspective, whatever its prospects. The descent of this word into obloquy is a phenomenon of more recent times.

The response to Goddard’s paper is disappointing. Other than reiterating the unsubstantiated and implausible theory that the term owes its origin to scalping, Harjo and others have merely waved their hands, asserting that as Indians they know differently without presenting any evidence whatsoever. A typical example is found in this Native Village article, which quotes Harjo as follows:

I’m very familiar with white men who uphold the judicious speech of white men. Europeans were not using high-minded language. [To them] we were only human when it came to territory, land cessions and whose side you were on.

The only point here that even resembles an argument is the bald assertion that Europeans never spoke of Indians other than disparagingly. This is not true. Evidence to the contrary is explicitly cited by Goddard. What is more disturbing is that Harjo’s primary response to Goddard is ad hominem: that as a white man what he says is not credible. Whether he is white, red, or green is of course utterly irrelevant, as thinking people have known since at least the Middle Ages. Goddard presents his evidence in detail, with citations to the original sources. You can evaluate it yourself, and you need not rely on his statements of fact but can, if you are willing to devote some time and effort, check out the sources yourself. Furthermore, without the slightest evidence Harjo imputes to Goddard not merely bias but racism, a charge which, based, as her own words reveal, entirely on racial stereotyping, merely reflects back on herself.

So, there you have it. On the one hand an utterly unsubstantiated and implausible theory advocated by Suzan Harjo, who exhibits no knowledge of the history of English usage of redskin, of American Indian languages, or of the early history of relations between Indians and Europeans. On the other hand a detailed account with numerous explicit citations to original documents by Ives Goddard, who has dedicated his entire life to the study of American Indian languages and the documentation thereof. It is always possible that some new evidence will be brought to bear, but for the present I don’t think that there can be any ambiguity as to which is the more credible account.

Notes:

¹ The District Court held that Romero’s suit was not barred by laches simply as a matter of the length of time that had elapsed since the cancellation petition was filed only seven years from the date of his majority, but might nonetheless be barred by laches if the delay of seven years put Pro Football at an unreasonable disadvantage. For this reason it is important to understand that laches is distinct from the doctrine of statute of limitations. A suit is barred by the statute of limitations if there is legislation setting such a time limit. In contrast, laches is an equitable doctrine and is based on the principle that too long a delay is unfair to the respondent, not on any particular time limit.

² Similarly, the District Court never addressed Pro Football’s arguments that section 2(a) of the Lanham act, under which Harjo et al. sued, is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment right of free speech and the Fifth Amendment right of due process because it overturned the TTB’s decision on other, non-constitutional, grounds.

³ Harjo et al. question this story of the origin of the name, but as the Circuit Court noted (p. 13, footnote 6), they provide no evidence whatever to the contrary and give no convincing reason to disbelieve the primary source, a newspaper article presenting the account by Marshall’s grand-daughter. Some authors have also claimed that Dietz was not an American Indian. The articles cited, however, do not cite their sources, so it is difficult to evaluate their claims. It is, however, undisputed that Dietz presented himself as an American Indian and that George Marshall publicly presented him as one. George Marshall surely thought that Dietz was an American Indian, which is really what counts here.

⁴ A point that has not, as far as I know, been mentioned in this context is that scalps or other body parts presented as evidence of kills would not, in general, have been red. As I can attest from personal experience with the processing of animals killed by hunters, mammalian blood is bright red when fresh but darkens quickly as it oxidizes. When dried it retains a dark red tinge if thin but in any thickness is black. Under most circumstances bounty hunters did not present their trophies for payment until days or weeks after the kill, by which time the blood would have been more black than red. The suggestion that such trophies would give a primary impression of red is due either to a false idea that they would usually have been presented when fresh or to a lack of familiarity with dried blood. A further difficulty with Harjo’s hypothesis is that, although whites did indeed collect Indian trophies as evidence of kills, the popular image of scalping was and is that it was an activity engaged in primarily by Indians who mutilated the corpses of their white victims. There was therefore no reason to associate bloody trophies, red or not, with Indians. If anything, the association would have been with the white victims of scalping.

Posted by Bill Poser at March 26, 2006 06:42 PM