Jessica Simpson offends again with lesbian comment?

examiner ^ | 08.25.09 | Michael Essany

[Perdogg]

It's been a rough summer for Jessica Simpson.

Gone are the days when Simpson's biggest slip of the tongue came as she confused tuna with chicken.

As of late, her verbal gaffes have generated much more controversy.

Last month, the 29-year-old offended some in the Native American community by using what is widely considered a "racial slur."

When TMZ asked Simpson if she would retrieve the pricey boat she bought for former boyfriend Tony Romo, her response was not politically correct.

[Perdogg]

she also put a curse on Romo.

[CrazyJoeDivola]

Sooooooo not guilty

[Kansas58]

Isn’t the term “Indian Giver” a slam against the White Man, for promises not kept, to Native Americans?

[Tax-chick]

Good for her! Offending the pathologically sensitive and cursing the ex-bf are worthwhile achievements.

[ConservativeMan55]

bttt

[tumblindice]

“she also put a curse on Romo.”

But only one of the twins weighs as much as a duck, so
she’s not made of wood, hence, she is not a witch.

[evets]

[PennsylvaniaMom]

There is no group as perpetually ‘outraged’ as Gays...or specifically, Gay bloggers. No doubt Perez has himself in foammy, florally scented lather over this ‘slight.’ He probably has his white squiggly line drawer thing in meltdown mode...

[Tijeras_Slim]

offended some in the Native American community by using what is widely considered a "racial slur."

Not good, especially considering her career is about a half step from the Indian casino circuit.

[the_devils_advocate_666]

There is something to like about her two “puppies”.

[La Lydia]

Who. Cares?

[freedomlover]

I also LOL'd at the URL of this pic.

[GeorgiaDawg32]

but she can turn you into a newt..

[Centurion2000]

hey ... the URL has truth in advertising

[italianquaker]

not guilty

[tumblindice]

I’m good with that, if I ride between the twins.

[envisio]

Simpson should just tell the gay/lesbian/transtesticle/whatever freaks to f*** off.
Why are people so scared of these groups that are chronically offended by everything? Tell them to SHOOVE IT.

“oh I'm offended”

Yeah, so?

[petercooper]

[GeorgiaDawg32]

Tell them to SHOOVE IT.

they’d probably like that..

[envisio]

“””No doubt Perez has himself in foammy, florally scented lather over this”””

Let the freak fume all he wants.

I would ask him “you’re offended? And? What the hell are you gonna do about it?”

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

I wish her straps would break.....

[y6162]

“Isn’t the term “Indian Giver” a slam against the White Man, for promises not kept, to Native Americans?”

Exaclty right. I think the offense is using the term “Indian”.

[tom h]

Too attractive. Innocent on all counts.

[ArrogantBustard]

A more honest and accurate image:

[marron]

The permanently outraged can be safely ignored because their outrage is a constant. If its a constant it has nothing to do with you, which means its just noise. Tune it out.

[Phlap]

Nice.

[webschooner]

Someone plese buy Jessica one of these t-shirts:

[Ro_Thunder]

I can trace my family back to the Mayflower.

I’m as ‘Native American’ as anyone else on this continent, and I sign that on any ‘ethnic group’ I come across.

Prove it ain’t true!

[cpdiii]

Polymer chemistry at its best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Zeppo]

LGBTs are offended.

Yawn.

When are they not?

[BenLurkin]

No.

It's origin is rooted in the Native American’s cultural inability to understand the concept of property.

[dangus]

>> Isn’t the term “Indian Giver” a slam against the White Man, for promises not kept, to Native Americans? <<

Actually, no. I think it comes from much earlier, when settlers would buy land from the Indians, only to find the Indians still using it. As the legend goes (if true), the Indians thought white men were paying for peaceable access to the land; they did not understand that white men intended to own the land, outright.

On the other hand, Wiki says this:

It is unclear exactly how this expression came to be, but the consensus is that it is based on Native Americans having a distinctly different sense of property ownership as opposed to those of European ancestry. One theory holds that early European settlers in North America misinterpreted aid and goods they received from Native Americans as “gifts,” when in fact they were intended to be offered in trade, as many tribes operated economically by some form of barter system, or a gift economy where reciprocal giving was practiced.[6] It is also theorized that this stereotype may have been coined or exaggerated by the conquering European groups to denigrate the native people as dishonest and thereby justify their conquest.[6] A popular myth started by Europeans tells of early settlers trading firearms to a group of Native Americans for maize, who then promptly turned the guns on the Europeans and reclaimed their crop.

Either way, the term means to call the Indians the ones who took gifts back.

[Moltke]

Also, there’s the etymology of “Indian summer” meaning “false summer.”

[TexasNative2000]

No. They’re real.....and spectacular.

[normanpubbie]

The term "Indian giver" is almost unique in the English language in that it has two opposite meanings. Nobody disputes the definition: To give something away and then take it back.

The Wikipedia article basically says that the term refers to Indians giving something away and later taking it back. But that is just one of the two meanings. I've always believed that the other meaning is the real one: Giving something to Indians and then later taking it away.

Here's why I make this claim:

The original treaties between the government and American Indians promised lands to the Indians "for as long as the Sun shall shine and the grass shall grow." The Sun is still shining and the grass is still growing, but the Indians don't own the land anymore because it was taken away from them (without compensation).

The only other word in English that I know with two contrary meanings is "cleavage," which can mean either joining together or separating.

And the term "cleavage" certainly applies to Miss Simpson.

[tired1]

I sanction your conclusion.

[normanpubbie]

Outstanding! “Sanction” also has two contrary meanings! One is to give approval and the other is to impose restrictions.

[Moleman]

I’ll need to confirm if hey are real or not - who cares actually, not me, I love the onders of technology.

[dangus]

The discussion is etymology, not definition. The word “Indian giver” predates any treaty between the United States and the Indians by 100 years. So there’s no two etymologies; there’s the true one, and your false one.

OTOH, you’re probably right about “to cleave.” Two etymologies brought forth two entirely definitions which are almost exactly opposite. Along opposite lines, flammable and inflammable are two words which appear to be opposite in meaning.

[BlueNgold]

Your first mistake is using Wikipedia as a source...

[dangus]

I’m not sure if sanction really has opposite meanings. In both cases, what’s really happening is that a ruling is made. In some contexts, that means to approve of something; in others, it means to condemn it. But I wonder if that amounts to a single denotation with two opposite connotations. Nonetheless, very clever!

[dangus]

Wikipedia is overly maligned. Every encyclopedia contains the presumptions and biases of its authors; wikipedia is exceptional in that any important entry reflects hammering out of many divergent opinions into something which at least acknowledges such diversity. Then, you can read the discussions that went into such a synthesis, trace the presence of any dissent, and instantly follow links for substantiation.

The final article may not be directly on target, but you’ll know exactly how far from the target it is, and in which direction the target lies, if you really need to know the precise truth.

[allmendream]

Yeppers. Actual origin of the usage aside, I think of your usage when I hear the term.

Wasn't Oklahoma supposed to be Indian territory? I guess it was.... until we wanted it back! ;)

[BlueNgold]

Exactly - it is at best a discussion - not a source.

IMLTHO - it is not overly maligned - it is overly respected as something it is not. If anything - it is underly maligned. I think of it more like an amplified search engine - follow the links to get the source.

Maybe some day it will be as respectable as saying “guess what I heard on twitter”.

;-)

[dangus]

It is the discussion, plus the products of the discussion, which makes it infinitely more useful than an ordinary encyclopedia or any single print source.

[Allegra]

These "special interest groups" really need to grow thicker skin.

[BlueNgold]

I’m glad you think so.

But it’s still not a referenceable source in and of itself.

[BlueNgold]

And speaking of always relying on at least two good sources...

From this article:
Jessica Simpson: Real of Fake

[normanpubbie]

In the 1830's, the "Five Civilized Tribes" (Creek, Choctaw, Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Seminole), were forcibly removed from Alabama and Georgia by the Feds and marched to eastern Oklahoma where each tribe was assigned to a reservation. The area was collectively known as Indian Territory.

In the 1880's, some of this reservation land was again seized by the federal government to create Oklahoma Territory, designated for white settlement. Quarter-sections of land were given to anyone who staked it out, registered it, cleared the land, and grew crops on it for three successive years.

The Indian tribes were paid for their lands but the federal government held on to the money and parceled it out to the tribes at regular intervals. And apparently the Bureau of Indian Affairs cannot account for billions of dollars that are supposed to be in tribal and individual accounts.

I don't have a drop of Indian blood in me, but I know unfairness when I see it.

So, in Oklahoma at least, my definition of "Indian giver" is more accurate than Wikipedia's.