Article states, "There are some who claim that the “scalp evidence” has nothing to do with Indian or bloody skin, because they cannot find the words skin or red in bounty documents. They do not allow that scalp is skin and that the skin of the head, with or without hair, is insufficient evidence of gender or age."...That's pretty much a 'slippery slope' argument. Although true, it still doesn't present anything evidence the technicality scalps were called 'redskins.' Merely presenting atrocities (no one argues happened) doesn't present evidence either that "red skins" was a widespread popular term referring to skinning or scalps.
Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 13:39