April 08, 2008

Response from Redskin model

A model for Redskin magazine comments on Stereotypes or Bust(s):  Will Redskin magazine help or hurt Natives?Sher wrote:

It’s pretty sad to see such negative comments about a magazine that I bet half of you have never even read! I was a model in the December 2007 issue and I happen to be proud of my photos. I see how people wrote about “Indian Barbies” well let me tell you this....I am a 6 ft, size 14 Ojibway woman far from being a ‘barbie’ who happens to be proud of who I am. I was brought up in the Little Saskatchewan First Nation Community in Manitoba. I was taught how to hunt and fish by my dad because I have no brothers, only sisters. I come from a close knit family, graduated from university and am a very intelligent well rounded woman. The curves I have are all natural, I do not believe in promoting unhealthy eating habits as I am a mother to two beautiful daughters and a handsome son. Beauty comes in all shapes and sizes and I am proof of that. All the women that have been featured in RSM have their bio’s with them so you can read about who they are. I have not come across one woman who you could label a bimbo.

Irene Bedard is an amazing actress and positive role model as well as Rachelle WhiteWind, and Nathaniel Arcand. They have all been featured in RSM and did not take off their clothes, neither did I. Does that make us traitors because we are in the mag? “Redskin Magazine-ONLY IGNORANCE MAKES IT RACIST!!!” So true, you see AMERICAN “INDIAN” MAGAZINE everywhere. Why aren’t people making a stink about that word? All the hype about the word REDSKIN is ridiculous! As for the editor being white? Not so, he is far from it and in no way racist. So get over it, stop the bashing and pick up a copy and then decide for yourself if all the negative hype was worth it.
Comment:  I didn't call anyone a "Barbie" or a "bimbo." If someone else used those words, I'm not responsible for it.

I bet none of us has read Redskin magazine. No one I know has seen an issue of it.

I was making fun of the magazine's title and concept, not its sexy pictorials. I don't have to see the interior to know the cover displays a word that most Indians consider a slur or epithet. For more on the subject, see Red·skin n. Dated, Offensive, Taboo.

Ignorance about "redskin"

"Only Ignorance Makes It Racist"...is that your claim or the magazine's? Doesn't matter. Let's consider this remarkable statement.

Only ignorance makes the word "redskin" racist? How do you figure? Are you claiming Indians actually had red skins? That they still have them? If so, I'd say you're more ignorant than I am.

I'm guessing I haven't ignored a thing about the word "redskin." But prove me wrong. Tell me what I've ignored and then we'll discuss it.

Why aren't people making a stink about "Indian"? Uh, because "Indian" is almost universally accepted among Indians? Unlike "redskin," which is a vulgarism at best, people have used "Indians" for 500 years without implying that Indians were bloodstained savages.

A helpful analogy
[Skip this section if you're easily offended]

If you don't mind appearing in Redskin magazine, how would you feel about appearing in Cunt magazine? I presume you wouldn't mind. After all, as an Indian woman, you don't have a red skin but do have a cunt. So any objection you have is only "ignorance." Cunt magazine fits you better than Redskin magazine does.

You say you have two beautiful daughters? Even if they're only children, they have cunts also. So let's feature them in Cunt magazine too. Let's teach them to proudly embrace their cunts just as you want them to proudly embrace their "red skins."

In fact, let's tell them to their faces that they're cunts as well as redskins. There's no reason to be ashamed of either of these words, is there? Sticks and stones may break their bones, but names will never hurt them.

If you disagree with any of this, well, too bad. Cunt magazine..."Only Ignorance Makes It Sexist." Now featuring proud women cunts of all races and ages.

P.S. Say hi to your redskin cunt daughters for me, okay? Let them know we're talking about them.

Returning to sanity

Sorry to be so crude and obnoxious. But people often don't understand the power of words until the words are applied to them. Maybe now you'll get the message.

So what are you planning to do with your university degree, Sher? If you have a modeling career, it'll be over in a few years. Then what?

I know all about Irene Bedard and Nathaniel Arcand, since I report on them frequently. Are they "traitors" for appearing in the magazine? "Traitors" isn't the word I'd use, but it's a legitimate question. Should they (and you) tacitly endorse the "Redskin" name and concept by appearing in the magazine?

Answering that question probably requires me to see Redskin's interior, so I'll hold off until I do. There you go...satisfied?

And when I do see the magazine and continue criticizing its offensive title, then what? You'll apologize for implying we were wrong about something when we weren't? I can hardly wait.


dmarks said...

"It’s pretty sad to see such negative comments about a magazine that I bet half of you have never even read!"

If there happened to be magazine with pictorials of African-American women that had Dom Imus' famous gaffe as the title of the magazine, there would rightfully be a bunch of comments by those who would never read the magazine either.

Anonymous said...

Yikes! I stand by your right to speak up about an offensive title even when you haven't read the contents of the magazine, but I think you've gone too far.

Obviously, not all Indians find the word "redskin" offensive (or why would proud, intelligent women pose for a magazine named so?), but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say all women will find the way you've used the word "cunt" offensive.

If you are as insulted by redskin in the same way that most women are insulted by the word cunt, say that. Please don't speak out against hate speech by slinging more of it!

As a woman and a mother of two beautiful daughters, this entry brought tears to my eyes. And I don't think I'm easily offended.

Anonymous said...

I'm actually seeing some women reclaiming the word "cunt"... Still, it's more of a using of it in general ways and when speaking about oneself, NOT using it on other people who might object.

Maybe "Redskin" can also be reclaimed, though I do greatly acknowledge the problems associated with one group trying to reclaim a sensitive word.

I agree with Jill on the fact that you may have took the redskin/cunt analogy too far.

dmarks said...

Is there an example of when "Reclaiming" has ever worked?

Rob said...

Redskin magazine is using the word "redskin" about people who might object. In fact, who would object and already have objected. So I'd say my point stands.

What percentage of Indians has to object before we declare "redskins" off-limits? 25%? 50%? 75%? If even a substantial minority of Indians object, I'd say we should seriously consider eliminating the word.

It's well known that a number of black artists (rappers, comedians, et al.) use the word "nigger" freely. Is that okay with you? Try hawking a copy of Nigger magazine in a black neighborhood and see what happens.

It's not uncommon to see "redskin" compared to "nigger." And "nigger" is arguably the most offensive word in the lexicon. So no, I don't think I overstated my case by comparing "redskin" to "cunt." If anything, I may have understated it.

People have made the redskin/nigger comparison before, and "redskin" is listed as vulgar or offensive in many dictionaries. Yet it's still applied to sports teams and girlie magazines. Since pointing out these facts politely hasn't done much good, it's time to point them out impolitely. Hence this posting.

Rob said...

Jill, are your tears an argument against this posting? They sound like an argument for it to me. They tell me I'm making my point.

When a hurtful word is applied to you and yours, you feel the pain. But when an equivalent word is applied to Indians, you don't empathize with the victims. Instead you seek to "understand" the victimizers. What's up with that?

Your rationale seems to be that "redskin" isn't as bad as "cunt." For starters, you have no evidence of that. More important, as Anonymous said, some women are already reclaiming "cunt." So your supposition is unfortunately incorrect. "Cunt" is not universally reviled.

In fact, I'd say "nigger," "redskin," and "cunt" fall roughly into the same category. Most of the people to whom these words apply don't like them. But a minority (10%? 20%? 30%?) of each group doesn't mind the word or is seeking to reclaim it.

If you think "cunt" is too harsh, how about "bitch"? You can hear that almost every night on network TV, so it's definitely not as bad as "redskin." Therefore, would you mind if I featured your daughters on the cover of Bitch magazine? Or called them bitches to their face? Why not, if the severity of the word is the issue?

If you think no Indian has ever cried over an insult such as "redskin," think again. Here are some anecdotes from The Harm of Native Stereotyping:  Facts and Evidence. Note that "savage" isn't considered an ethnic slur while "redskin" is:

"I went back to school in the fall... We read a history book about "the savages." The pictures were in color. There was one of a group of warriors attacking white people--a woman held a baby in her arms. I saw hatchets, blood dripping, feathers flying. I showed the picture to the Sister. She said, "Rose Mary, don't you know you're Indian?" I said, "No, I'm not." She said, "Yes, you are." I said, "No!" And I ran behind a clump of juniper trees and cried and cried." --Rose Mary (SHINGOBE) Barstow, (Ojibwe), 1976

--H. Mathew Barkhausen III, "'Red Face' Does Not Honor Us," Snag Magazine, 2/1/05

After listening to her sob uncontrollably for an hour and a half, Barry Landeros-Thomas finally calmed his daughter down enough for her to explain to him why she came home from school in tears.

During recess, a couple of boys danced around her singing a Pocahontas song, "Savages! Savages! Barely even human," he said.

--"Native Americans Face Stereotypes," The Post (Ohio University), 11/1/01

Rob said...

As for the "haven't read the magazine" argument, it's specious. When Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, and Don Imus uttered their ethnic slurs, we didn't have to meet and interview the subjects of their slurs. We didn't have to investigate the people to see if the insults fit. According to our societal values, it didn't matter what the context was. The words themselves were offensive and therefore wrong.

The same applies to Nigger, Redskin, Cunt, or Bitch magazine. I don't have to read any of these periodicals to know their titles are offensive. Why? Because they're offensive by definition.

If some group manages to reclaim an offensive word, be sure to let me know. When that happens, I'll change my opinion to match society's. Until then, I'm only reflecting what society says. "Redskin" is offensive according to Indians and the dictionary.

And offensiveness isn't even the primary problem. I'd object just as strongly if the magazine were named Savage or Primitive or Mystic. Why? Because all these words stereotype Indians along one dimension. They all portray Indians as something they're generally not.

I could go on and on with the analogies. If you don't like Cunt or Bitch magazine, Jill, here are some other titles for you:


Don't tell me these words don't apply to you or your daughters. They apply to almost every female, at least to some degree. They apply a lot more to women than "redskin" applies to Indians.

Do you see my point yet? These words stereotype women along one dimension. They don't convey the full-fledged complexity of the "opposite sex."

If we had a hundred magazines to choose from, I wouldn't care if the 101st magazine had a stereotypical name. But Redskin is one of only a tiny handful of magazines to target Indians. In that situation, choosing a title that's equivalent to "nigger" or "cunt" is a poor choice indeed. It's blazing a trail in the wrong direction.

P.S. I think gays are in the process of reclaiming "queer," DMarks. So it's theoretically possible to reclaim an epithet. Whether it'll happen with "nigger," "redskin," or "cunt" remains to be seen.

Anonymous said...

"Redskin magazine is using the word "redskin" about people who might object. In fact, who would object and already have objected. So I'd say my point stands."

I'm assuming this is addressing my earlier comment, so I hope to clarify/further what I was trying to say; I was simply assuming that the people featuring in Redskin magazine accept appearing in mag with such a title, but may not condone calling others "redskin". The more I think on it, though, this may be a very naive assumption. I certainly was not arguing with the larger issue of other people, unaffiliated with the magazine, taking offense.

I understand, and to some extent sympathize with self-aware groups trying to reclaim a word largely seen as an negative or an epithet. I guess the major issue with this is that it can, and does, just reinforce the word in the language and consciouss of the unsympathetic, uneducated in the issue, and prejudiced. Hell, "Redskin" as a reclaimation, may be facing the biggest hurdle of all here; for every black person using "nigger", or woman using "cunt" to refer to theirself or a fellow who also uses the word, it's easy to bump into many, many vocal people (outside cyberspace) who dencounce the term and who can explain WHY they are offended. Less people probably get the chance to hear, in day-to-day life, why "redskin" is so offensive.

By the way, here in Canada, from what I have seen anyway, "queer" has VERY much been reclaimed by the gay community.


Anonymous said...

My rationale was NOT that the word cunt is more offensive than the word redskin. I'm a romance writer and I read across the genre. Plenty of erotic romance authors use the word and I'm fine with that. What I said was that all women would find the way you USED the word offensive. By calling a woman's two innocent little daughters cunts, you have lowered the discourse into a crude personal attack.

The word cunt doesn't bother me. The word redskin does. I agree with you, dude! What I object to is the way you've made your point. And if you'd read my original post, you'd know that I said I STOOD BY your right to criticize the title of a magazine you hadn't read.

Because you resorted to name-calling again, throwing out more offensive words aimed at me and my two daughters, I've got one for you: dick.

Rob said...

I'm guessing most of the people who appeared in Redskin did so because they're struggling artists who need the publicity boost. Perhaps they figured that the good of furthering their careers would outweigh the bad of furthering the ethnic slur.

And who knows...they may be right. It's difficult if not impossible to measure the effect of one slur on anything.

Rob said...

Jill, I used the word "cunt" exactly the way the magazine used the word "redskin"--as a positive identifier that the people in question should embrace. I thought the parallels were clear and obvious. If you missed them, read them again. For instance:


Cunt magazine..."Only Ignorance Makes It Sexist."

Therefore, I was correct to conclude that you consider "cunt" worse than "redskins" in similar circumstances. Because the circumstances are similar whether you realize it or not. The magazine is promoting "Redskin" as a label for Indians and, using their "logic," I'm suggesting "cunt" as a label for women.

Rob said...

As for Sher's "innocent little daughters," you have it exactly backward. I didn't send my comments to Sher. As far as I know, she hasn't read them. The reference to her daughters was an impersonal analogy, not a personal attack.

Repeat: It wasn't personal, since I don't know Sher or her children. And it wasn't an attack, since I used the words only to make a hypothetical point. If you think real people were hurt, show me these people and prove that I hurt them. Otherwise, quit wasting our time worrying that someone might have been hurt.

Recall that I suggested "bitch" and several other alternatives to "cunt." Do you have anything to say about that? Why don't you stop bitching about my argument and start addressing it? Is it more acceptable to call Indians "redskins" than it is to call women "cunts" or "bitches"? Yes or no?

While you're complaining about me, real Indians are being called "redskin." And they're hurting because of it. Sher and Redskin magazine are giving non-Indians permission to use this slur. They're encouraging real name-calling, not hypothetical name-calling.

Ironically, I gave you two examples of real Indian children crying over being called names. You still haven't said anything about them--not a word of sympathy or acknowledgment. Yet you're upset over some girls you don't know who haven't heard a thing we've said? Incredible.

You say "redskin" bothers you? You also defend it by saying it doesn't bother everyone. And by offering the conditional "if you're insulted" formula--as if it's open to question whether "redskin" is insulting.

But we're not debating my opinion vs. Sher's. To reiterate:

1) Many if not most Indians find "redskin" offensive--as bad as "nigger" or "cunt."

2) It doesn't matter how any individual feels because the dictionary defines "redskin" as dated, offensive, and taboo.

3) "Redskin" is a poor choice of words because it's stereotypical as well as offensive.

So far I've raised a dozen or so points that you haven't touched. Let us know when you have something intelligent to say about them. At this point, all we know is that you don't seem to mind the epithet "redskins" much. Your concern for girls is matched only by your lack of concern for Indians.

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
writerfella's Native American science fiction stories will begin to be published in later issues of RED SKIN Magazine and he as a writer fella knows the words RED SKIN and the word REDSKIN are differentiated enough to take all air out of the argument that magazine's title is offensive. The single word is pejorative and the double word is not. Only those who cannot see past the tips of their own noses would believe otherwise...
All Best
Russ Bates

Rob said...

Uh, nice try to excuse the magazine's stereotyping. Now try again.

If you had bothered to check the official website, you'd see the magazine presents its name as Redskin, not Red Skin. For instance, "Good, bad or just plain sexy insane Redskin Magazine is the place to express your name."

Or you could've taken my word for it, since I've written about Redskin (not Red Skin) magazine several times. Unlike you, I check my work before I post it publicly.

So by your own admission, you're participating in a magazine with a title offensive to Native people. Would it be fair to say you're a turncoat or a sellout? Why or why not?

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
Wrong-o, RobFella! THIS IS YOUR BLOGSITE, and YOU are NOT NATIVE AMERICAN! Thus it is that your preoccupation with the title of that particular magazine is YOURS, period! You may regard yourself as a champion for Native American affairs, but you DO NOT REPRESENT Native American matters just because you may choose to do so! writerfella as easily could choose to defend Culver Citayans against Sony Studios, but WHY would he? The logic, therefore, is inescapable...
All Best
Russ Bates

Anonymous said...

I have read this blog for some time with a small smirk on my face and unrest in my heart. I work for Redskin Magazine, and am proud to say it is Native Owned and Operated and staffed by 80% women. The blog is proof that the name has gotten people talking...open dialogue, freedom of expression, and a new but yet controversial image was the intent. I have been honored to meet and work with some of the most talented and inspirational men and women in the entertainment industry today.
You may ask..with a name like Redskin..why am I so thrilled to be a part of this company? Because it has gotten people talking, about stigma's, about racism..about Native Rights, about our women..our current societal roles...it has caused many of us..these bloggers included to examine what exactly is in a name..it has caused mainstream Native publications to redefine what is sexy NOW..and not be afraid to embrace our beauty and sexuality. I am honored to have known the women who have modelled in the mag, and showcased how to be a modern role model. Change in any form is threatening for people used to the same old social norms. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the name...But a name only has the power you give it. This Magazine is fresh..it is new, and yes...it is controversial...but there is overwhelming support for the vision of opening dialogue on racial stigmas, while being a sexy entertaining publication.
Hate the name? Love the mag..check it out..actually READ it before you rant.

Anonymous said...

P.S. Say hi to your redskin cunt daughters for me, okay? Let them know we're talking about them.

Wow I don't know about you but these are harsh words, pretty ignorant if you ask me and I would say possible lawsuit material too. I can see you trying to make your point, but out of frusteration you target children? Preposterous!!

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Anonymous!! It takes a pretty ignorant person to target children to make his point. It calls into question the judgement on all aspects of what he says. That whole "C" post should rile every woman on here...not over the word..but the way it was used! Obviously does not have respect for women to target her children to make his idle point!

Anonymous said...

You claim to check your work before you post it? Well I have news for you. INDIAN as well as REDSKIN are both offensive to FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE.

These were both names given by WHITE PEOPLE, one of whom didn't know any better, and another idiot who couldn't read a map very well and thought he landed in INDIA!!

Perhaps you should do more RESEARCH before you start your rant. Have you even read this magazine that you are targeting?

"Judge not, that you be not judged."

Ever read that? It's from the bible, I'm not one to judge and I don't plan on sitting on any high horse and looking down at anyone because of what they choose to do.

From what I have read here in your blog, you made a low blow comment about the model's daughters. And you are sure to be getting alot of slack for that comment.

Anonymous said...

Hey there Rob,

i've enjoyed reading your pieces here...very entertaining...much like the magazine...

call me a Redskin! I'm proud to wear the name...RE-INVENTION IS A GREAT THING. i would honestly NOT be offended.

call me a wagon-burner, or a cunt...LOL...when did we all suddenly go back to the 5th grade? are we harboring some useless angst here? names names names...maybe you can just say SHEENA WASSEGIJIG...much more personal don't you think. because its who i am and not what i represent.

theres some things we can brush off because...theres just not that much time in the world to waste on being angry all the time.

i mean...a stereotype is no money out of my pocket, takes no joy out of my life. its just dumb people who think they are being smart by labelling someone else.

much like a bully in a schoolyard, its a blogger on the internet. eventually forgotten.

i am a writer, i am native, i am a woman...i am a redskin. do i need to be punished by the past for my freedom today? with censorship, religion, lack of equality, or these blogs?... i dont think so. i am me, hear me roar and defy the odds.

take the time and reply with what you must, i will read, and i will laugh, and i will forget...if you push my jerk button...maybe i will take the time and energy to continue your frenzy

peace and much love from this REDSKIN WRITER, who is also female native, and a catholic from an unceded indian reserve (YES WE DO EXIST)


Sheena Wassegijig

Rob said...

To Russ: I'm wrong in calling the magazine by its proper title, Redskin, not "Red Skin"? No, you're wrong. Unlike me, you didn't cite or quote any evidence to justify your spurious claim. Once again, you've proved yourself too lazy or inept to rebut my argument.

How stupid do you have to be not to know that many if not most Natives oppose the word "redskin"? I'm not inventing this grievance out of thin air, doofus. I'm repeating what many Natives have already said. If you're ignorant of their beliefs, that's your problem, not mine.

To reiterate, the magazine's name is Redskin, not Red Skin. Every poster in this thread has confirmed this point by calling it Redskin, not Red Skin. Learn to freakin' read so I don't have to keep helping your with your sadly deficient English skills.

So you admit the word "redskin" is problematical, but you're writing for the magazine anyway. In other words, you're contributing to the stereotyping of your own people. Which makes you a sellout.

If the turncoat fits, Russ, wear it. I hope the magazine is paying you to legitimize its slur--perhaps 30 pieces of silver? I guess you haven't kept busy enough shilling for white men who stereotype Indians: Gene Roddenberry, Mel Gibson, Dick Wolf, Larry McMurtry, et al. Now you're shilling for Indians who stereotype Indians, too.

Rob said...

Re "possible lawsuit material": What is this, a comedy venue? You must be joking, because you can't be serious. There's no conceivable way I could be liable for a hypothetical insult used as part of a constitutionally protected argument that I wrote on my own blog and didn't send to anyone.

I've already addressed the claims of how "offensive" my argument was. Here, read my responses again to refresh your memories:

I used the word "cunt" exactly the way the magazine used the word "redskin"--as a positive identifier that the people in question should embrace.

As for Sher's "innocent little daughters," you have it exactly backward. I didn't send my comments to Sher. As far as I know, she hasn't read them. The reference to her daughters was an impersonal analogy, not a personal attack.

When you have a response to my responses, let's hear it. Until then, your pretense that I haven't addressed the issue, that it's still an open question, is flatly wrong.

Rob said...

More spurious arguments....

Re "READ it before you rant": Already addressed. See the comment that begins: As for the "haven't read the magazine" argument, it's specious.

Re "Obviously does not have respect for women to target her children to make his idle point!" How is it an "idle point" when I'm reiterating the arguments of Tim Giago, Suzan Shown Harjo, and many other Native activists? When my own arguments against "redskin" have been online since 2002? I guess "idle point" means "long-held, deeply-felt, and well-reasoned position."

Re "INDIAN as well as REDSKIN are both offensive to FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE": Wrong, as you'll discover in "American Indian" vs. "Native American." Read it and learn.

If I'm getting a lot of "slack" for my posting, I'm dishing it out, too. I can take the heat...can you? I'll be here after the rest of you give up and go away because I know what I'm saying. I've studied the issue at length and the facts and evidence justify my claims.

Rob said...

Sheena, I've already addressed your argument that name-calling never hurt anyone in The Harm of Native Stereotyping:  Facts and Evidence. Read it and weep.

I've quoted two Natives who cried over insults similar to "redskin." And we've heard how Jill Sorenson cried when I hypothetically applied the word "cunt" to girls. Why don't you tell these people why their tears weren't justified? Tell them how you know better than they do what they should be crying about.

Rob said...

In telling us how you feel about "redskin," you didn't address any of the issues I raised. In particular:

1) Many if not most Indians find "redskin" offensive--as bad as "nigger" or "cunt."

2) It doesn't matter how any individual feels because the dictionary defines "redskin" as dated, offensive, and taboo.

3) "Redskin" is a poor choice of words because it's stereotypical as well as offensive.

Since you dodged these issues the first time, feel free to try again.

Anonymous said...

so yeah .. this is the first i've seen of this blog, Mr. Redskin himself, directed it to me.

I work for Redskin, too. Upon reading this blog, I asked why he (Mr. Redskin) hasn't said something, why he didn't give this piece of schmidt a piece of his Redskin mind, to give this schmidt head some love and grace him with answers but I guess he's thoroughly convinced it wouldn't solve anything. I argued that its not about if anything gets solved, schmidts' not trying to solve anything he's whole-heartedly ranting, RANT back but no, nope, "Why expense the energy?" he asks. So your a hippie? put his schmidty ass down Mr. Redskin .. PUT HIM DOWN, DAMMIT!!! My guess is, in a dirty-savage-redskin business kind of way - he likes the abuse, after all it, bring em' him - hims free smoke signals! ...

I really love a good rant. Like when Peter from The Family Guy got a spot on the news called, You Know What Really Grinds My Gears! - good wholesome entertainment right there. 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? .. Maybe our schmidty had his life traumatically flipped upside down and inside out by the word Redskin - like being forced to suck the mighty dick of Redskin .. 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-Idiot .. Maybe, his dog told him do it - that happens too you know. whatever the case schmidty has done the worst thing you can do in a social environment and revealed his true self .. he judged a book by its cover, literally. more specifically the title i suppose but still .. NEVER judge a book by its cover.

when mr. redskinny was telling me about the mag he said the title itself would be controversial .. i had no clue that ppl put redskin up there with nigger .. he said its a states thing .. then i recalled how before they were, still are, trying to change the name of sports teams .. and mascots .. which i thought was retarded to begin with .. who gives a schmidt .. theres streets and cities named after redskins all over this continent .. theres a fire hose company that has a trademark on the name redskin for its brand of fire hose .. saying redskin is alot different then saying, indian - native - aboriginal - wahoo - wagon burner - savage .. because they're all names that whitey associates us redskins with anyways .. we're not indians .. we are not from india .. Indian is NOT accepted by most .. we're not natives - thats what the national geographic channel calls ppl that live in mud huts .. and what the fuck is aboriginal anyways? - when you put AB in front of normal it denotes bad things .. i have no idea what wahoo is .. wagon burner is just mean .. and savage is a complete opposite .. we're the kindest caring ppl ..

redskin goes further back .. before whitey .. the word redskin is so old - onekwen:tara - means redskin in mohawk .. it comes with a story, a part of our oral teachings .. the medicine wheel for example - representing the people of the earth as four colours - red - black - yellow - white .. iroquois, cree, navajo, aztecs, ojibwes, inuits, bloods, hurons, tutelas, seminoles, and etc. - all red .. greek, jewish, german, russian, irish, scottish, and etc. are all white .. all asians are yellow .. all africans and reggae listening jamaicans are blacks ..

your a smart boy schmidt you understand ..

to end .. i'll just give some fun schmidts .. try schmidt ass .. smells like schmidt .. stepped in schmidt .. aww schmidt .. schmidty mood .. monkey throwing his schmidt .. try your own !!

Rob said...

At least Sheena Wassegijig was brave enough to sign her name, Anonymous. You didn't identify yourself or "Mr. Redskin."

Whoever this Mr. Redskin is, I imagine he didn't respond because he's afraid of getting his butt kicked in public. That's usually why people are afraid of responding.

I didn't judge the whole magazine by its cover. I judged the magazine's title by its cover. But perhaps that distinction is too subtle for you to grasp.

I explained my motives for creating PEACE PARTY and this website in such postings as Why Write About Native Americans? and The Genesis of PEACE PARTY. Read 'em and learn.

Puns on the name "Schmidt"...yawn. Gee, I haven't heard too many of those in the last half a century. Nice to know people are still pathetically unable to come up with anything original. Which may explain the stereotypical magazine title "Redskin."

What do posers do when they can't attack the message? That's right: They attack the messenger. Which is just what you've done.

See "Redskins" All Over the Continent? for my responses to the rest of your comments. And thanks for giving me another chance to rip Redskin magazine for its stereotypical title.