Rob knows best about Redskin?

In "Redskins" All Over the Continent? another lamebrain defended Redskin magazine. Unlike the previous coward, at least this fellow had the guts to sign his name. Here's what Jonathan Garlow said:Rob Schmidt is better than the editor of Redskin Magazine. He just knows.I don't just magically "know," bright boy. I report what many Natives have said.

I'm amazed that some people are too dense to understand the difference between my opinion and Native opinion. Or perhaps they're intentionally misstating the facts to deceive people. Which is it, Garlow: Are you too stupid or too dishonest to state my position accurately?

In any case, I guess you haven't read the many postings in which I've answered charges like this. Here are a few of them:

Rob shouldn't judge Natives?
Rob the presumptuous white man?
Wrong to point out stereotypes?1. Why does Rob Schmidt care? What is the motive of this "white, anglo-saxon" columnist (colonist)?Why write about Native Americans?

As if one has to have a reason for combating racism and stereotyping. The question should be why more people aren't doing it, not why I'm doing it.

Meanwhile, why is Garlow ducking the issue of the magazine with an ethnic slur as its title? Could it be he has nothing to say on the issue and is trying to change the subject? And is hoping you won't notice his failure to address the issue?

Rob jealous of Redskin?!"But for popular Native culture, you don’t need a magazine, since Newspaper Rock has it all" .. oh wait a second, maybe he is feeling threatened by the very "native subjects" he writes about.Yeah, that's why I work at PECHANGA.net disseminating Native news. Why I write for Indian Country Today and other publications. Because I'm jealous of Native publications and want to keep their readers for myself.

How stupid and illogical can you get? Pretty damn stupid and illogical, if you're Jonathan Garlow.He's gotta make a living somehow, besides we can't have self-published native's writing about themselves can we?!I'm making money from my work promoting Natives at PECHANGA.net, Indian Country Today, and elsewhere. And not from Newspaper Rock. You have it exactly backward, dumbass.He also wrote "How many young, urban Natives have enough disposable income to spend on this luxury item?”. Ouch. Coming from a white man this one is a low blow, I'm surprised no one caught this. Luxuries such as magazines aren't for us folk, we heard about magazines but can’t afford them. Hey thanks for helping us though.Great sarcasm, mouth. Good job disguising the fact that you have no answer to my question. Which was only a question and not an assertion, in case you're too dumb to know the difference.

You gotta love how these people keep asserting how wonderful and popular Redskin magazine is, but no one will tell us how well it's selling. Strong sales would be excellent evidence that Natives don't mind the title "Redskin." Yet we haven't heard one word about sales figures. Why not?

Let's banish terms?2. Who are these "Natives" everyone keeps talking about? ... By far, Native American Indian should be the most offensive term because it implies we are Americans and not an independent nation."American Indian" vs. "Native American"
"Indian" vs. "Native American"While we’re at it let’s take the color red out of the Anishnabe medicine wheel because it’s racist!!Apparently you're no more aware of the difference between "red" and "redskin" than Anonymous is. Read my answer to him and alleviate your ignorance.3. Self-determination. We affirm the right to define ourselves and I support Redskin in their decision to identify with this English label.And I support all the Indians who have deemed the word "redskins" an ethnic slur. That is, I support their right to self-determination--to determine for themselves that "redskin" is an insult.All English naming conventions are false anyway, why argue over which ones are more false than others.Ask your fellow Natives why many of them consider "redskin" an ethnic slur. They're the ones who made this determination. I'm simply repeating what they said.First Nations, Native American, Indian, Redman, are all non-indigenous terms.Not "Redman," according to your fellow "redskin" defender. But I think he's wrong about that.

In any case, no kidding. Tell us something we don't know.

Too lame to think of better title?It would then seem that you the naysayer would prefer if his magazine targeted a vague ‘minority’; perhaps they should have named the magazine ‘Non-whiteskin” instead of Redskin, or perhaps you simply wish they didn’t start a magazine at all.If Redskin's staff can't think of another name, they have no business being in a creative field. There must be dozens of possible names to choose from.

You obviously missed the point that they chose "Redskin" intentionally to be provocative and "hip." It's like blacks naming a magazine "Nigger" to prove their street cred. The offense is calculated so young readers will think, "Wow, this magazine dares to insult its own people. It must be out there on the edge. Therefore, I'd better read it. I wanna prove my coolness by insulting my elders too."

Meanwhile, spare us the straw-man arguments such as "perhaps you simply wish they didn’t start a magazine at all." Nobody has said Natives shouldn't publish magazines.Either way you cannot tell another flesh and blood being how they should define themselves without being hypocritical especially when the naming is done in a foreign language.Ask your fellow Natives why many of them consider "redskin" an ethnic slur. They're the ones who made this determination. I'm simply repeating what they said.Thanks for being offended on my behalf but it’s really not necessary.Ask your fellow Natives why many of them consider "redskin" an ethnic slur. They're the ones who made this determination. I'm simply repeating what they said.

In short, there's no hypocrisy here. Only your stupidity or dishonesty about what my position is.

Another idiot responds

After Jonathan Garlow posted his comments, someone named Arty Martin concurred. I'm guessing he's the anonymous poster who started this debate. Here's what Martin said:So, Redskin really grinds schmidtys' gears, right? Why? .. is schmidty some kind of righteous spirit of words here to reflect the madness and evils of specific his-stories? .. Why does this whole thing matter at all to schmidty?Why write about Native Americans?Maybe our schmidty had his life traumatically flipped upside down and inside out by the word RedskinYeah, that's why I've done my Stereotype of the Month contest for a decade. Why I've posted several hundred entries--only a couple of which are about "redskins." Because I was upset by one word.

In other words, thanks for demonstrating your profound ignorance of my work, Arty. Too bad you revealed your ignorance publicly so I could ridicule it.Maybe he's an idiot with idiot friends who together roam the earth doing mindless idiot things causing chaos and confusion where ever he goes - like a Super-IdiotYeah, I feel horrible hobnobbing with the likes of Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Kevin Gover, and Adam Beach...making money while taking trips...basking in the praise of thousands of readers...etc. It's a tough life, but someone's got to do it.

Below:  Another "redskin" asserts his ethnic pride. Hee-haw!