Posted on 08/26/2009 9:01:51 AM PDT by Perdogg
“””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?”
I wish her straps would break.....
“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”.
Too attractive. Innocent on all counts.
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.
Nice.
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!
Polymer chemistry at its best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yawn.
When are they not?
It's origin is rooted in the Native American’s cultural inability to understand the concept of property.
>> 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.
Also, there’s the etymology of “Indian summer” meaning “false summer.”
No. They’re real.....and spectacular.
I sanction your conclusion.
Outstanding! “Sanction” also has two contrary meanings! One is to give approval and the other is to impose restrictions.
I’ll need to confirm if hey are real or not - who cares actually, not me, I love the onders of technology.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.