April 19, 2007

FAITA video on Fox

First Americans in the Arts Awards Saturday was a big night in the American Indian acting community. The First Americans in the Arts awards took place in Beverly Hills. Amy Murphy brings us the story.Comment:  Mark Reed misstated the statistics on Native actors once again. If he's going to keep doing this, I'm going to keep correcting him.

In fact, I informed him by e-mail that his numbers were wrong. His insistence that there were no Native actors on prime-time TV in the 2005-2006 season is annoying, to say the least.


writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
But - but - but -
writerfella was told by Rob that Mark Reed can do no wrong! That he is a force for truth, justice, and the Native American way! Horrors! What next? Harry Potter goes naked and starts blinding horses?
All Best
Russ Bates

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
POSTSCRIPTUM: by the bye, Rob, what was in those FAITAS? Chicken or beef?
All Best
Russ Bates

Rob said...

I didn't say anything of the sort about Reed. What I said was that you were tarring Reed with the same brush you used on Skyhawk, even though your charges applied only to Skyhawk. Meanwhile, I've criticized Reed's numbers before and I'll criticize them again, if necessary.

We journalists didn't get to eat at the event, so I don't know what they served. And don't give up your day job to write puns.

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
You were there, writerfella was not. So, you know more than you are telling. If Mark Reed told you the time, check your watch. If Mark Reed said it was raining, look out a window. No one such as he can be taken at face value, if only because he has so many other faces you yet have not seen...
All Best
Russ Bates

Rob said...

I'm not sure I even saw Reed at the event. I think he was sitting next to Skyhawk, whom I did see. Everything else I know about Reed at the event comes from the Fox video.

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
POSTSCRIPTUM: and now writerfella will add an anecdote that is related to this part of the blog, if somewhat "out of date." Last week marked the 25th anniversary of the release of the 20th Century Fox film, PORKY'S. At almost the same moment, the film's director, Bob Clark and his oldest son, were killed in a head-on collision with a drunken driver in Pacific Palisades, CA. This was the man who personally cast writerfella into the film, PORKY'S 2: THE NEXT DAY, if only because he wanted Will Sampson for the part but had to settle for writerfella, who only superficially resembled Will Sampson. For the entire thirteen week shoot, Bob Clark called writerfella "Will" and writerfella was canny enough to answer to the name without question. Uh, maybe also because it paid writerfella $1895 a week plus $250 night-shooting bonus plus $350 for allowing his hair to be cut to shoulder-length. In Bob Clark's filmography were such diverse entries as the original BLACK CHRISTMAS, TRIBUTE, MURDER BY DECREE, TURK 182, and A CHRISTMAS STORY. PORKY'S 2 included parts for five major Native roles (Seminoles ca. 1954) and then for over 300 Native extras near the end of the film. As a result of Bob Clark's semi-autobiographical presentation, writerfella has many favorable memories of the making of the film. Clark's inclusion of Seminoles in his second PORKY'S film was far and away from the usual portrayal of Natives on film. He made them a part of his own adolescent story, rather than being mere objects in an imagined Old West context. He was a good man, a more than competent film director, and he has left a small but cogent filmography for movie aficionadoes to enjoy. writerfella mourns him, and writerfella honors him, and writerfella acknowledges that Bob Clark also was a good man. Now, THAT is an epitaph few people deserve...
All Best
Russ Bates

Mark Reed said...

Rob and Writerfella, the numbers being quoted come directly from the networks. These numbers have been used on network news four times. Have any of you seen or heard a rebuttal from the networks? The only rebuttal is coming from you along with self promotion. Even if I accepted your number of six roles, are you saying this is acceptable? When over 10,000 roles have been cast on prime time. My statements will remain consistant and can be supported. Your comments are insulting, destructive and self promoting.

Best, Mark Reed

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
Ah, the missing factor speaks! First of all, the word is 'consistent', not 'consistant'. Second, 'self-promotion' and 'self-promoting' possess hyphens. Third, both 'Sonny Skyhawk' (read: Robideaux) and Mark Reed immediately jumped into place when the Screen Actors Guild was founding its supposed Native American Committee, one that purportedly will look into why Native stereotypes continue and why Native roles are underrepresented in the TV/film industry. The history of these two individuals simply mean that the foxes have takend charge of the henhouse and the inmates have been allowed to run the asylum.
Once, there was a program at the Writers Guild of America, west, that reputedly was founded to increase the number of minority writers in their ranks. writerfella joined the program, and became the first non-white to join the WGAw because of that program, and then the WGAw attempted to subvert their own program by saying writerfella could not work in the industry because he was an 'apprentice' and there was no language in the Minimum Basic Agreeent contracts that addressed 'apprentices'. Universal Studios and The Jelsie Company opposed that decision and then threatened to take their case to the L.A. Times, DAILY VARIETY, and THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER. Overnight, the Guild's ruling body met, passed new regulations about 'apprentices', and writerfella then went to work on THE NAME OF THE GAME as a full-fledged writer for same.
Where in 'Sonny Skyhawk' and Mark Reed's resumes are any kind of similar achievements? Nowhere, as their chief occupation heretofore was luring unsuspecting Natives into workshops and training sessions at exorbitant fees and then hiring themselves out to safeguard Native-themed film scripts to remain exactly as they were written, a la HENRY Geiogomah. And then Mark Reed has the interminable gall to say that any detractors of his somehow are engaged in 'self-promotion'. Nice work if you can get it, and you do...
All Best
Russ Bates

Rob said...

"The numbers have been used on the networks" by who, Mark...you? Or by network representatives who were quoting you?

How many times have the networks stated the numbers independently of reading them in your annual report card? Why don't you list when and where these representatives have spoken so we can judge them for ourselves?

There's nobody who speaks for all the networks, is monitoring the claims made by activists, and has the means and the opportunity to rebut them. The notion that the lack of a rebuttal justifies your misstatements is flatly ridiculous.

No, I'm not saying half a dozen roles is satisfactory. I'm betting I've argued for Natives in film at least as much as you have. What I'm saying is that claims of zero roles in 2005-2006 are false.

Your statements can't be "supported" when you claim there were zero roles and I list the roles that prove you wrong. Yes or no, Mark: Did the following occur in the time span in question?

In December 2005 (ICI #146), Graham Greene guest-starred in Numb3rs, an episode so stereotypical that it was December's Stereotype of the Month loser. In March 2006 (ICI #137), Gil Birmingham played Leonard Lobo on Veronica Mars, a role that recurred at least once. Also in March 2006, several Indians appeared on Law & Order: Criminal Intent.

Is this number of roles zero or greater than zero? Given this evidence, are the networks' statistics accurate or inaccurate? Don't dodge the ball like Russ does, Mark. Answer the questions or admit you can't.

Your position is an opinion: that the networks supplied you with accurate data even though you didn't check it yourself. My position is a fact, since I've listed the roles that prove your opinion wrong. Deal with it or don't, but don't equate your blind faith in the networks with my recitation of hard facts.

You're implicitly calling me a liar when you misstate the facts publicly. Therefore, you can be sure I'll rebut your misstatements whenever I can. If you want to challenge my command of the facts, be my guest. I can pretty much guarantee you'll lose, but go for it.

If you want to be "consistent" in misstating the facts after I've told you they're wrong, I'm going to be "consistent" in calling you a prevaricator. My site ranks fairly high in Google, so when people search for "Mark Reed" or "American Indians in Film and Television," they'll come across my charges. Is that really what you want?

To reiterate, I'm stating the facts while you're misstating them. In light of that, your accusation of self-promotion is laughable. I'm not selling anything other than old comics at the moment...how about you?

Fact is, you're minimizing the number of Native actors employed while promoting your access to Native actors. Has anyone noted your apparent conflict of interest? If not, let us be the first.

In short, "self-promotion" isn't much of a charge coming from you, Mark. Pot calls kettle black...film at 11.

Mark Reed said...

Rob and Writerfella,

Once again your personalities have not failed you.

Rob, are you dense or just do not understand what I have said. I do not work for the networks. By the way you stand up for them you should apply for a job. I report the numbers they report to me. It would benifit them to be correct. If they made a mistake I am sure they would have called and made the correction. My statements are supported by the reports the networks supply me from their legal departments. It is not my responsibility to correct them, it is just to report them to the community. I was at the awards show, you should have introduced yourself to me.

Now Writerfella,

Thank you for the grammar and spelling corrections. I can only speak for myself and not Sonny Skyhawk. As for the SAG committee I did not swoop in like you have claimed. The fact is I have been the only one fighting for a committee for the last six years. I have never recieved money for or conducted workshops or training sessions. I have never hired myself out as a consultant to any film or TV production. I have never recieved a penny of compensation for the work I do. The real fact is I have spent countless hours and money of my own. You do not even know me but, you speak with arrogance when you attack me and make false statements. I will not lower myself to your level and list my resume as you do constantly.

Both of your comments are still insulting, destructive and "self-promoting'.

Best, Mark Reed

Mark Reed said...


Talked to Gil, the show "Veronica Mars" aired on channel 13. My report covers network primetime only. Network channels include 2-4-7-11.

Best, Mark Reed

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
Okay, the bar will close in fifteen minutes.
Rob, writerfella's appreciation of your writing ability has been raised 49% by those posts. Mark Reed's writing ability has fallen almost the same distance because he suddenly lost his original statement about 'self-promotion'. Where did it go, he had it there a minute ago? All that he said was he ostensibly did not participate in 'Sonny Skyhawk's' extracurricular activities, but what he didn't say is most interesting, in that he failed to claim that he did not benefit from that person's avocation. And he certainly did not say that he knew nothing of such matters. By such failures, he states the matter as do almost all modern Americans about what happened to the Native Americans: 'Hey, I had nothing to do with that!' Does he really believe that becoming a part of SAG's Native American Committee represents nothing toward his own 'self-promotion'? Fortunately for writerfella, he has maintained relationships with fellow journalists who work for industry media and all it would take is a few e-mails and fewer phone calls to set things in motion to determine the actuality of realities concerning 'Sonny Skyhawk' and Mark Reed. That Mark Reed reacted as he did exactly is what writerfella was seeking. For you must see, as writerfella already has posted innumerable times on this blog, what someone writes reveals more about them than they ever could have intended. Hopefully, he will appear here again and put himself on record, and then we have him by the short ones. Respond again, Mark Reed, PLEASE!
All Best
Russ Bates

Mark Reed said...


Breakdown of your last post; butt-kiss; insult; question; allegation; allegation; insult; insult; 'self-promotion'; threat; challenge.

Can you write with truth and substance?

Your comments are still insulting, destructive and 'self-promoting'.

Best, Mark Reed

Rob said...

In case you don't know it, Mark, there are five major TV networks today. In 2005-2006, there were six major networks: CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, WB, and UPN. If you're reporting "network" figures, they should include all these networks.

If you meant to say your report covered only four of the six major networks, you should have said so up front. Otherwise, you were misstating the facts again.

It's funny that you had to ask Gil Birmingham what network his show was on. Are you another Russ Bates type who can't look up a fact himself? How hard is it to Google "Veronica Mars"?

I'm beginning to see the problem here. You have no idea what's on TV so you swallow the networks' numbers uncritically. Unlike me, you literally don't know what you're talking about.

In case you don't know it, Numb3rs and Law & Order: Criminal Intent are both network shows even by your limited definition of "network." Numb3rs is on CBS and Law & Order: Criminal Intent is on NBC. Oops.

So it's not your responsibility to correct the numbers, but just to report them? In other words, it doesn't matter if the numbers are accurate? If this is your idea of "responsible," I'd hate to see what you consider "irresponsible."

Too bad my responsibility is to make sure everything I report is accurate. That includes my reports about your reports. Which brings us to this point.

Your Nuremberg-style defense--that you're just reporting what the authorities told you--is laughable considering I've proved their numbers wrong. Are you too dense to understand that several Native actors appeared on CBS and NBC in prime time (8-11 pm) during the 2005-2006 season? Prove to me you understand the preceding sentence, because it's not clear from your responses that you do.

Why don't you get up off your uninformed butt and ask the networks if Numb3rs and Law & Order: Criminal Intent used Native actors in 2005-2006? I.e., ask them if they made a mistake in their statistics? That you can't process the information in front of your face is a joke.

To put it another way, I've proved your statement false. Prove my statement false if you can. Otherwise I'll change my assessment from "Reed is mistaken" to "Reed is a liar."

As for your opinion that my comments are "insulting" and "destructive"...telling the truth is insulting only to people who lie. The only thing it destroys is falsehood. So these charges are worthless.

Russ claims he has inside information on how you and Sonny Skyhawk have sold yourselves. Regardless, as an actor who's trying to work in Hollywood, you obviously benefit from your claims. How? If you report there were no Native actors on TV but you're available, networks have an incentive to hire you.

You stand to gain a lot more than I do, certainly. What exactly do you think I'm promoting here? Unlike you, I'm not trying to be a Native actor or spokesperson. I have no stake in how many Natives are employed in Hollywood.

Incidentally, how would you know anything about my personality? Are you a regular reader of this blog? Or is that a gratuitous insult that does nothing except bolster your apparently bruised ego?

About the only thing being destroyed here is your reputation for accurate figures. Unfortunately, you're the one doing the destroying, since you continue to misstate the facts. I'm merely aiding and abetting your self-destruction by providing a forum for it.

It makes little difference to me if you get a reputation for fudging the facts. So keep it up and watch your credibility diminish to zero. Or correct your mistakes and resuscitate your rep before it's too late.

Rob said...

Judge for yourself whether Mark Reed is falsifying the facts. Here are the links to IMDB that prove Native actors had roles on prime-time network TV shows in 2005-2006:

Numb3rs: "Bones of Contention" (CBS, 12/9/05)

Law and Order: Criminal Intent: "Wasichu" (NBC, 3/19/2006)

Veronica Mars: "Versatile Toppings" (UPN, 3/15/06)

Veronica Mars: "Happy Go Lucky" (UPN, 5/2/06)

And at least one more:

Charmed: "Payback's a Witch" (WB, 1/15/06)

Also, don't forget Jonathon Joss, who provides the voice for John Redcorn on Fox's King of the Hill (1997-present). Redcorn counts as a Native acting role even by Reed's limited definition of "network."

Rob said...

As for introducing myself at the FAITA show...the room was dark and I'm not sure what you look like. Besides, it's not the reporter's role to get too familiar with his subjects. And what would I have said?

"Hi, Mark. Nice to meet you.

"You're not serious about claiming there were no Natives on prime-time network TV in 2005-2006, are you? Didn't I explain to you why that claim is false?"

Rob said...

Why 49%, Russ? Are you sure I didn't go up 48% or 50% in your estimation? How about 49.5%?

Actually, my writing is quite consistent. It's certainly more consistent than yours, since yours tends to be all over the map. It's also more error-free, since I can punctuate, spell, and use words such as "media" better than you can.

Mark Reed said...


I have stuck a nerve.

I was talking to Gil on a unrelated matter. As for network TV you are wrong. The only channels that are network are 2-4-7 and 11. You need to check on that and you will see. My statements have been consistent you just refuse to listen to what I have said. The roles that are reported are speaking roles only and the number falls into the year they wre hired not the year it was aired. You are so full of hate for me. Why? You are trying to slander my name but, you are only hurting yourself and the community you say you are fighting for. I am now requesting you to stop trying to slandering my reputation.

AS for landing a role on TV or film, you should know this it goes to the best actor for the role. I am proud of any American Indian who gets the job. To insinuate that the networks will throw me a bone just because I am the National Rep is just ignorant.
The fact is it has gone completly the other way, because I am doing an effective job on shinning a light on the networks exclusion of American Indian talent. Rob get a grip and look at the big picture.

Your comments are still insulting, destuctive and 'self-promoting'.

Best, Mark Reed

Rob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob said...

Mark, if you meant the four biggest national networks, you should have said so. The CW, WB, and UPN are national networks also, although they aren't as big as the big four.

Here are the facts on what Americans deem the major networks:


In the United States, for most of the history of broadcasting, there were only four major national broadcasting networks. From 1946-1956 these were ABC, CBS, NBC, and the DuMont Television Network. After that and until 1969, the national networks were ABC, CBS, NBC, and NET. From January, 1970 until September, 1986, the four main national networks were ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS.

Today, more than 20 nation-wide broadcasting networks exist, although some of these are admittedly quite small. Other than PBS, which has the largest number of member stations, the largest broadcast networks remain the traditional Big Three Television Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC). Many other large networks exist, however, notably Fox, Univision, MyNetworkTV, and The CW.


On Friday, all six major American television networks; ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, WB, and UPN, along with most PBS stations, united in a rare show of solidarity to air a one hour charity concert called Shelter from the Storm: A Concert for the Gulf Coast.


The WB and UPN were the first major television networks to close since the collapse of the DuMont Television Network in 1955, although other small broadcast television networks have also ceased operations over the years.

Rob said...

Yes, you struck a nerve, Mark. I hate anyone who lies about any aspect of Native Americans, so I correct their lies in public. I call a spade a spade and a liar and liar whenever the facts justify it.

Numb3rs and Law & Order: Criminal Intent had speaking roles for Natives, so they still qualify for your latest redefinition of your terms. Oops.

Are you telling us no Native actors were hired from September 2005 to September 2006, regardless of when their shows aired? I find that hard to believe. Why don't you send me your raw data, since I'm more qualified to interpret it than you are? I'll let you know if you're reporting what you think you're reporting.

Several Native actors have appeared in speaking roles on network shows in the 2006-2007 season. For instance, Splitting the Sky on Men in Trees (ABC) and Princess Lujac on Jericho (CBS). Since these actors appeared on the first shows of the season and shows are filmed in advance, they must have been hired before the 2006-2007 season began.

But according to you, they weren't hired during the 2005-2006 season either. So they were hired during 2004-2005 (or earlier) for shows that weren't broadcast until 2006-2007? I don't think so.

You're really backing way off your original claim, although you don't seem to realize it. When you publicly stated that there were no Native actors in prime-time network TV shows in 2005-2006, what you meant was:

There were no Native actors hired in 2005-2006 by four of the six major networks for speaking roles in prime-time network TV shows that were broadcast in 2005-2006, 2006-2007, or some future season.

Does that about sum it up? Or will you come up with a fourth and fifth qualification to add to your previous list of qualifications? Namely:

1) Only the top four networks.
2) Speaking roles only.
3) Hired in 2005-2006, not broadcast in 2005-2006.
4) ???
5) ???

No wonder you simplified your claim into a blatant misstatement of the facts. Your actual claim is so complex that no one would sit still to listen to it. Fox would've run out of videotape long before you could've explained what you meant.

But let's cut to the chase. In your last "report card," you stated there were three Native roles in the 2005-2006 season. Quoting you:

Fox Entertainment cast John Hensley as "Matt McNamara" on nip/tuck, Steve Reevis and Kalani Queypo guest stared on the Fox show "Bones."

Let's ignore the fact that you counted nip/tuck on FX Networks, although you say you're surveying only the four biggest networks. Here you clearly stated that there were three Native roles in the 2005-2006 season. But on the Fox video, you stated there were zero roles. Which is it, Mark: three or zero?

I've already addressed your worthless "insulting, destructive and 'self-promoting'" comment. Apparently you can't address my rebuttal, since you didn't even try. So noted.

Needless to say, I couldn't care less what you think of me. I'm all about the facts and evidence. You misstated the facts about Native actors and I'm calling you on it. That's the issue and the only issue here.

SuperIndian said...

Judge not lest ye be judged, isn't that how it goes??

This one's for you Rob, excuse me I shall give you a new name, let's say "Dog in the Manger", but I'll just stop at Mangy Dog for short.

After reading through this blog I feel I have somehow lost a few IQ points just by attempting to understand the mentality behind some of the statements being made by yourself and your army of one.

I can get into the hows and the why's, but that to me would be a waste of time so let me keep this short sweet and to the point, something you may consider for future reference;

You've showed yourself as an ignorant racist and a fan of advocates of genocide. Period. Do we need to explore any further?

Considering the ignorance, perhaps you aren't even aware that you are a racist, and maybe you have overlooked who you pay hommage to in the world of "annihalation" and "extermination of the redskin"...

You say you "call a spade a spade and a liar a liar" so you are calling Mr.Reed a "lying spade." A lot of African-American Rap artists who proudly refer to themselves with the "n" word would even take offence to being called such a name as you have used, and nevermind what other Human Rights groups or African-American leaders would have to say about your writing in those terms. Racist. Ignorant.

I just took a glance at your profile where you speak so highly of yourself in writing for native issues and having learned so much about american indian issues, yet you also include Wizard of Oz as your favorite stories...written by Frank L. Baum, early advocate of genocide. Don't act so surprised, you probably already know this part...


"One hundred years ago, on December 29, 1890, in a ravine near Wounded Knee Creek, South Dakota, the U.S. Army, supported by American Indian mercenaries, slaughtered approximately 300 Lakota men, women and children -- 75 percent of Big Foot's Lakota community. Two-thirds of the massacred Lakotas were women and children. Only 31 of the 470 soldiers were killed, many by "friendly fire" of fellow soldiers.

Big Foot's Lakota followers had already surrendered when they were brought to Wounded Knee by the army. While the Lakota warriors were being disarmed, fighting broke out. Any real resistance on the part of the warriors was quickly over. But atrocities escalated as the U.S. troops turned their weapons -- including four rapid-fire Hotchkiss guns -- against clearly defeated warriors and innocent women, children and old men. Women and children trying to escape were pursued and slaughtered. An official U.S. report noted that "the bodies of the women and children were scattered along a distance of two miles from the scene of the encounter."

The editor and publisher of "The Aberdeen Pioneer" during this time who advocated genocide was Frank L. Baum.

The following is an excerpt taken from Frank's paper 14 days prior to this massacre, and one day following Sitting Bull's assasination,

"The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are."

Only days after the massacre at wounded knee, Frank L. Baum had this to say in his newspaper;

"The PIONEER has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extirmination [sic] of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth. In this lies safety for our settlers and the soldiers who are under incompetent commands. Otherwise, we may expect future years to be as full of trouble with the redskins as those have been in the past."

So Rob, MD...your words are ignorant, racist, and your heros include advocates of genocide, and now you attack a representative of Indian Country who is out there putting his neck on the line for the best interest of the community he represents...

It takes a lot of stones to say publicly what Mr.Reed has said in the forums he has presented them. Many shy at the opportunity to take on such a task, lest they reap the result of having the likes of Anti-Natives like you tromp on their tailfeathers. To be frank(excuse the unintended pun), I am actually surprised to see a man of his stature even bother to communicate with you. For that much you should be thankful. I may have used less tact than Mr.Reed, but then that's why he is the representative.

I see you as nothing more than a shadow of the man you idolize, Frank L. Baum. You carry an apparent interest in American Indian issues, and you attack those who would do justice for the American Indian community.

Your issue is not with Mark Reed or his numbers, your issue is apparently with minority groups, particularly Blacks and Indians.

You may have opened a can of worms that perhaps should have been left closed or at least saved for a fishing trip, not on this forum.


SuperIndian said...

After a further look at the big picture I see you are already well aware that you pedge your support to an advocate of genocide as you state in your message here, MD;


So it may not be so much that you are ignorant, you are just a racist and fan of those who promote genocide. Makes sense.

SuperIndian said...


SuperIndian said...


Rob said...

"Army of one," SuperIndian? Tell it to the 60,000 people who visit my site every day. Tell it to all the people (Native and non-Native alike) who have written to voice their support.

How many hits is Reed getting on his site? Oh, wait...I don't think he has a site. So he publicizes his cause once a year with his report card on minorities in TV, while I get 60,000 hits/day x 365 days/year. I can't prove it, but I bet more people have read my work than his.

You're the ignorant one if you don't know the origin of the phrase "calling a spade a spade." It has nothing to do with race. Here are the facts for you:


To call a spade a spade, which means, ironically for this discussion, 'to speak plainly and bluntly; to speak without euphemisms', is first found in Ancient Greece. The exact origin is uncertain; the playwright Menander, in a fragment, said "I call a fig a fig, a spade a spade," but Lucian attributes the phrase to Aristophanes.

Rob said...

Damn straight I know about Baum, since I've written about him extensively. Your mistake is thinking I can't separate the work from its author. Wrong, I can.

Are you a liar too, SuperIndian? I never said Baum was my hero. In fact, I've criticized him at length. If you'd read my postings before spouting off, you'd know that.

Thanks for reposting the "Twisted Footnote" essay. If you weren't so foolish, you'd know I published that same essay in PEACE PARTY #1 and on my website in 1999 with permission from the author. Oops.

By the way, I also appreciate Thomas Jefferson's work even though he owned slaves and called Indians "merciless savages." And I enjoy Mark Twain's writing even though I've called him an Indian hater. It's called complex thinking; try it some time.

As I think I've indicated, I'm glad Reed's organization puts out its annual report card. I'd have no problem with it if he reported his numbers fully and accurately. Other than that, my impression is that he's doing good things to help Native actors get jobs.

superndn said...

SuperIndian here...

You claim to be "laying the smackdown"?

By making racial slurs and justifying them by stating the original usage dating back to greek and roman times, that is in no way laying the smack down. Most racial slurs never began their existence as racial slurs, however what you said is a a very offensive term by todays standards. You owe the African-American community an apology now.

Again you defend your admiration for profiteers of genocide. I would hate to hear about how much you love hitler based on his abilities or lack therof as a person of literature.

Seems like you have an obsession with American Indian issues. Are you a new ager or just another Frank Baum?

Rob said...

I explained that "a spade is a spade" isn't a racial slur. If you're too dense to understand my explanation, that's your problem, not mine.

Your opinion that it wasn't a slur but has become one is utterly worthless. It has no basis in fact. Proving the point, I searched for "a spade is a spade" and "offensive" in Google and found no hits linking the two.

Go ahead and document your claim that the phrase is offensive with something resembling evidence. In other words, put up or shut up. Good luck with your answer.

Until then, I'll continue to laugh at your silly ignorance. I hope you don't mind this smackdown being on display for the next umpteen years. I think others will enjoy reading it as much as I've enjoyed writing it.

Rob said...

Every single person in the United States, if not the entire world, has profited from genocide. So are you saying you don't admire anyone? Or what, exactly?

Again, I distinguished between the writers and their works, a point that seems way beyond your comprehension. Let us know when you find the first instance of my expressing admiration for L. Frank Baum. Until then, you're lying about my views and I'm calling you on it.

Awaiting your documentation of my expressed admiration for Baum, liar. Again, best of luck with your answer. You'll need it.

Rob said...

As for your other comments...if you weren't so foolish, you would've known how I dissected Adolf Hitler:  A True American years ago. And you would've known about my background and why I write about Indians. Next time, try alleviating your ignorance before you share it with us.

Rob said...

P.S. The actress's name is Princess Lucaj, not Princess Lujac. My mistake.