[Skinzman]

The problem that I see with the whole bloody scalp being the origin of the name, and evidence such as that proclamation. The scalp would never be red when it was traded in. When blood dries, its not red. When skin is separated from a body and therefore has nothing keeping it alive, it does not stay bloody red.

There is no way to tell an Indian male from an Indian female based on a scalp if they both had long hair (or short hair for that matter). There is no way to tell a white person with black hair from an Indian by hair either. In fact, every scalp will be black when traded in and hair would be the only identifiable trait left (and even then, only if they are practiced at scalping. Maybe its easier than I think). Its not like they had refrigerators on the backs of their horses to keep them medically fresh.

Europeans themselves were not much into scalping. Most references of scalping by Europeans came in the 9th and 10th century, and even then, was not a continent wide practice. Once we started getting into the colonial times, they preferred decapitation, as it was the face that was looked at as evidence that the dead person was who you were saying it was. They did not rely on a scalp that looks like everyone elses, except possibly the hair, when handing out reward money for someones death. Its possible that they thought Indians were different enough in hair to tell them apart so were willing to accept scalps, but that still doesnt answer the male/female question.

None of this even touches that some lady from Mesa Arizona is claiming to be a bunch of different kind of Indians and claiming it true without providing even the single shred of evidence. Her "proof" is 'this is the interwebz and lying is not allowed'.. If there is proof of this, I would love to see it, but have never seen anything offered as proof other than someone said it, so it must be true.

Also about the proclamation if it is true (Im not claiming it to be either true or false, I honestly have no idea). One thing that is thrown about in the fight against the name Redskins is that Europeans used Redskin when talking about Indians. I saw no mention of anything but Indian in the proclamation. Doesnt mean it wasnt used, but by whats being said, it was used regularly in place of Indian. I see nothing to evidence that here, they appear to be a calling them Indians.