Stereotypes or Bust(s): Will Redskin magazine help or hurt Natives?
by guest contributor Rob Schmidt, originally published at Newspaper Rock
The new magazine Redskin describes itself like this:
Redskin is an Indigenous owned and operated provocative publication penetrating the critical intersection of indigenous beauty, power, politics and art through the explosive forces of sexuality and humor…This adult oriented publication hopes to disrupt common stereotypes and barriers associated with our indigenous culture.
Wow, a magazine that finally reveals Natives in all their semi-naked glory. A magazine that shows us how men and especially women can have buffed, bodacious bodies and still be real people. Who would’ve thought of exploiting Native sexuality to engage readers and make a buck too? I’m amazed no one ever came up with this idea before.
Yep…as I said, a totally creative and innovative idea. Uh-huh, sure.
The real question isn’t whether Redskin will be “pornographic.” No mainstream magazine could do that and survive. The real question is how bare the women will be. Will they be nude, topless, or just scantily clad? Curiously, the editors don’t address this question, which seems like an obvious one to me.
I’d say there are more Native magazines for adults than there are for children. Of course, most of them do current affairs, the arts, and academic studies rather than popular culture. But for popular Native culture, you don’t need a magazine, since Newspaper Rock has it all. We cover more pop culture in a week than a typical magazine could cover in three months.
As for the “Redskin” title, guess my opinion on that and you’ll probably be right. A critique of the name practically writes itself. Why doesn’t someone do it for me so I don’t have to? 
Anyway, I sure hope the sex-oriented Redskin magazine dispels the stereotype of Indians as sex objects and redskins. To dispel other Native stereotypes, maybe they’ll have a news section called Smoke Signals. A music section called Flutes & Drums. A money-management section called Wampum. A footwear section called Moccasins. A cosmetics section called Warpaint. A hair-styling section called Scalped. (I could go on.)
If Redskin is a success, they can spin off more stereotype-busting magazines. A women’s magazine called Squaw. A child-rearing magazine called Papoose. A home design magazine called Teepee. A fashion magazine called Buckskin. A sports magazine called Warriors. An executive magazine called Chief. (I could go on, and on.)
In short, let’s reclaim these derogatory and stereotypical terms from the dustbin of history. Let’s start saying them proudly and provocatively to show we’re not Uncle Tomahawks. Let’s make ourselves as naughty and notorious as the rappers who use “nigger.”
Ahem.
For a more serious take on the subject, see Indian Women as Sex Objects. For a case study on the subject, see The Rez Dog Calendar: Role Models or Sex Objects?
Speaking of Native sexuality, someone once claimed Natives used to engage in all sorts of Kinky Indian Sex. Check it out and tell me if he was right.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
summer wrote:
OMG, rob schmidt’s tongue-in-cheek humor is hilarious. I loved the other “sections” the magazine could have as well as the “spin offs.”
Great article.
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 9:46 am ¶
dnA wrote:
I have to admit, before I even read the article, all I thought was “Man those women are FINE. What magazine is this???”
I am so ashamed.
Just a thought, but I’m from DC, and it seems to me that the name of this magazine is a copyright violation. There’s already a commercial entity currently using that particular racial epithet, and it’s my hometown football team.
I guess what I’m saying is I doubt the magazine will go far without having to deal with that in court and possibly change its name.
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 11:07 am ¶
Prometheus wrote:
Interesting. It’s like “Maxim” for the “noble savages.” Interesting concept. I understand the logic behind it: participate in American pop culture by re-appropriating Caucasian terminology already in circulation, thus ameliorating it’s derogatory valences. The problem with that is that traditional native american culture becomes further absorbed into capitalist ideology and commodity fetishism. That’s the price one pays for acceptance: the substitution of subjectivity for commodity.
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 12:24 pm ¶
Theora wrote:
It’s possible that “Redskin” is taking their naming idea from a Jewish pop culture magazine called “Heeb” (http://www.heebmagazine.com/). They get to say that they are reclaiming an offensive term with the added benefit of making a play on words for their Maxim-style skin mag. Still racist and obnoxious, but they probably do think they are being all hipster and ironic in that sad 90s way.
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 2:11 pm ¶
Mike wrote:
I dont have a problem awith lad mags but damn how did they think that the title was cool, If Native americans are not offended I guess there is no reason for me to be bent out of shape about it.
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 4:34 pm ¶
dnA wrote:
What I like about Mike: He always knows when to let himself off the hook. Which is always.
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 4:52 pm ¶
hoo_boy wrote:
dnA: I know DC well, but I don’t think Danny Boy (Snyder) can win this one. I think, the mag can hide behind “trade dress” protections (as skimpy as it wants to be) at the least in its use of “Redskin” with the design and all versus the team’s “Redskins” name and logo, etc. I’ll defer to gatamala (she’s in DC as are you, I think), as the legal expert on here, tho’…
Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 7:16 pm ¶
JC wrote:
As long as the magazine is owned and edited by Native Americans, I say more power to them. If a white guy stared this thing like that Asiaphile mag in Boston, then I’d be totally against it.
I’m also glad they’re taking back the racist term “Redskin”. I’ve always have the hardest time cheering for the NFL due to the utterly racist name used by the team from Washington DC; might as well have teams called the “New York N*****rs” or the “S.F. Ch**ks”, but no one in the white world gave a damn.
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 4:07 am ¶
bdsista wrote:
Redskin still means the same thing as the N word and being part Native, this really pisses me off. It doesn’t matter if its Native produced. One group of money grubbing sexist Indians doesn’t speak for the majority. Even most Black people are dropping use of the N-word. I live in MD and can’t stand and won’t go see the DC team, even though my mother is a 3rd generation native Washingtonian and all my relatives are there.
This is not what the Native community needs. If you want to see beautiful Native women, they are probably all around you and look like you. Native women look like all races and the beauty of the Native community is the diversity in the tribes and families. We need to see the beauty in the women who are teachers and doctors and clerks and at powwows and who are artists and who care for their families with almost nothing and who go to college and who read these blogs and write the truth. Not in objectifying young women for men to ogle at. This does not lift up a people, it does not dignify us either.
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 8:55 am ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
A Maxim for Native people is how I see Redskin too. But once they officially launch the magazine, I hope to get a copy and review it.
I’m not sure there’s a trademark issue between Redskin magazine and the Redskins football team. You’re allowed to used the same term if it’s for a different class of product and there’s no possibility of confusion. Even if the team or an affiliate publishes a Redskins football magazine, I’m not sure they’d have a case.
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 12:25 pm ¶
Nav Pundit wrote:
This “taking back” crap is so stupid. First of all, the title only shows that [some] native people are so lacking in the creativity department that they have to rely upon this 90s argument about reclaiming a term. How exactly do you do that? What are the benchmarks? It’s a silly notion that relies upon tired old arguments with a few philosophical/sociological hypertechnical theories & terms thrown in. I’ll bet the creators of the magazine drew a blank and thought “duh, why don’t we call our mag something derogatory to grab attention?” That’s also a tactic used by the rappers ten years ago to sell CDs when they created east/west beef. I’ll bet the magazine borrows that and other tactics which again, show how pathetic some so-called natives from the east come up with marketing strategies. The actual fight against the struggle, whatever it is purported to be, is hollow. Even Tupac knew when to draw the line between marketing and honestly fighting for a cause. It’s time to call out the phonies.
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 12:30 pm ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
Another interesting question is what’s the market for this magazine? I’d love to see the business model if they have one. My understanding is that most “lad mags” are struggling. How will this one succeed against all the competition?
More to the point, most Native publications, even those for a general audience, struggle to make money. This magazine will appeal only to a small slice of an already small population. Unlike a general magazine, it won’t be able to count on sales to schools, libraries, or tribes. How many young, urban Natives have enough disposable income to spend on this luxury item?
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 12:49 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Rob –
I am so afraid for you when (if?) you finally do get a review copy.
What if the clothing section really is called Buckskin? I wouldn’t put it past them to play up the gimmick…or what if they had a “Squaw Candy” section, like XXL’s Eye Candy?
The ignorant possibilities are endless.
(Great post, BTW).
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 1:30 pm ¶
Naomi wrote:
Amen, bdsista, as a Native woman myself, this is totally ridiculous. People will do anything to make a buck I guess. And for the record, I’m one of those Natives who do not find any value in “reclaiming” the word redskin, and I seriously wonder what in the heck Irene Bedard is doing on the cover, I would hope she had better sense.
Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 1:40 pm ¶
chase wrote:
all these comments reflect our growth; natives are people being human- some of these comments sounds too critical too soon-im not yet critical of the content of a mag that calls itself redskin. Im highly critical of the name-its nigr to me, but I think it reflects a business decision- we are a small market- so if u can name it something catchy-controversial-sexy even- u just may get people to buy a copy- question is : how will the mag’z writing/content contribute to natives- maybe it wont- maybe the writers dont care- but if theyr native- theyr just natives being human-or mainstream- either way its part of our “growth”
Posted 23 Sep 2007 at 2:46 am ¶
Lainy wrote:
I heard somewhere beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It’s too bad the woman potrayed in the magazine don’t reflect the “real” women in Indian Country. “Indian Barbies” only teach our young women you have to be anorexic to be noticed or to be successful. It is that lack of leadership and confidence building that leads our young people into hopelessness. I betcha those skinny women can’t even butcher a sheep, haul wood, plaster a mud wall, or contribute to their communities. If the intent was to market to white men and women, then it was accomplished. Maybe “stereotyping” served its purpose.
Posted 23 Sep 2007 at 10:57 am ¶
Jody MM Hill wrote:
Vote no to Colonial Propaganda:
Brilliantly sarcastic, a stabbing tongue in cheek comedic view of colonial propaganda. My friend’s, please do not pursue the endless crusade of oppression perpetrated by our white racist friends.
“If the moderates of the white South fail to act now, history will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King, Jr., 1958
Posted 27 Oct 2007 at 7:20 pm ¶
Kahsaklahwee wrote:
I am Cherokee & Creek raised in Indian country with a very traditional background. Having said that, I am also in the entertainment business as an actor & model and all too familiar with the statements found on this page. The idea that Natives are held to a different standard than any other race by virtue of our blood is far from groundbreaking. Accusations & complaints towards Redskin Magazine is just another example of a hastily concluded & misinformed judgment.
Forced assimilation transpired for this very reason. Erroneous judgments met with stark resistance resulting in mass murder & the “savage” depiction that still persists. An imposed limitation by virtue of race has occurred for centuries. Why then perpetuate what you detest? If the acceptable standard for Native art, music, film, etc is based upon race is this behavior not racism in itself??
The placement of our people into a niche by anyone is wrong, but by our own is inexcusable! Is not the crux of the argument racism? As the comments clearly indicate the issue is indeed just that by the use of the term Redskin & by those of us who are in the entertainment industry. Yet racism is fought by those of us who attempt to eradicate this discrimination, too often provided with complaints & judgments born of imposed limitations upon all Natives. No solutions, just more encumbrances & limitations.
To challenge and dispute the widespread misconception of our culture, we must encourage one another that the limits no longer exist. If we choose a career that is acceptable for every other race we are not disregarding our traditions. To the contrary, we celebrate our culture through dispelling the inaccurate & hurtful myths perpetuated again & again while striving to blend both worlds. We celebrate our traditions & we live with a high degree of respect for our elders & the wisdom they impart. We dance recognizing that not long ago this was forbidden…a freedom & honor we recognize with pride!
Wado~
(I realize not all comments posted fall in this category)
Posted 09 Dec 2007 at 2:21 am ¶
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.
Posted 03 Apr 2008 at 12:09 am ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
I love unresponsive statements such as this one:
“Accusations & complaints towards Redskin Magazine is just another example of a hastily concluded & misinformed judgment.”
Is there a single Redskin supporter who can address the issue I tacitly raised: that “redskin” is an offensive slur? If so, let’s see it. Stop telling us we’re ignorant and uninformed and start informing us.
Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 3:02 am ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
See http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2008/04/response-from-redskin-model.html for more on Sher’s response and my response to her.
Posted 09 Apr 2008 at 11:26 am ¶
Alice wrote:
I am a First nations Youth who lived one half of my life in the city of Vancouver and the other on my Reserve. I was raised traditionally as well as be able to adapt in the Urban environment. I have seen all kinds of first nations people, diverse, unique, traditional, daring etc…. ” I could go on” Not everyone is going to agree with ones certain beliefs because they seem “right” or more suitable for first nations people!
Our people are constantly evolving in billions of different ways and I hope that whatever each one of us decides we succeed in! That’s the way our people are right? We are traditional and want to help out our people no matter what? Is that the concept? Or what exactly is it? Not one person can speak for all of us native people and I wish that people would just let things be! Yes it could be bad, it could be good but who is to say that one person os the right or not? Everything happens for a reason and if this magazine is alluring successful people to join in the “REDSKIN” vibe then let them! The people who read it will read and if you don’t like it then why should it matter to apply to you?
I love all my people and I wish the best for all in your journeys!
Alice
Posted 09 Dec 2008 at 8:18 pm ¶
Jonathan Garlow wrote:
Stereotypes or Bust(s): Will Redskin magazine help or hurt Natives?
1. Why does Rob Schmidt care? What is the motive of this “white, anglo-saxon” columnist (colonist)? He must be here to save the “natives” with his snide brand of humor! Let’s take another look at his powerful lyrics… “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. He’s gotta make a living somehow, besides we can’t have self-published native’s writing about themselves can we?! 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.
2. Who are these “Natives” everyone keeps talking about? Everybody is a native to some extent; I enjoyed watching the natives warring against the immigrants in the Martin Scorsese film Gangs Of New York. Perhaps Mr. Schmidt wants to “help” the “Dead rabbits clan” while simultaneously “helping” the native natives… the Dead Rabbits have been oppressed for far too long! By far, Native American Indian should be the most offensive term because it implies we are Americans and not an independent nation. Even worse are “natives” talking about “our culture” .. the mysterious, ever present pan-indian omni-culture involving beating a drum and dancing. While we’re at it let’s take the color red out of the Anishnabe medicine wheel because it’s racist!! White, black, yellow and brown are the politically correct colors!
3. Self-determination. We affirm the right to define ourselves and I support Redskin in their decision to identify with this English label. Redskin can be racist when hurled from the lips of a hateful white man but these kinds of people usually will use the term ‘dirty indian’ instead; it depends on who is using the phrase and what kind of motives they have by saying it. Just hang out around Caledonia and you can hear for yourself. All English naming conventions are false anyway, why argue over which ones are more false than others. First Nations, Native American, Indian, Redman, are all non-indigenous terms. We used to call humans “Ogwehonwe” but would you want this specific magazine to utilize our original language? This could have caused even more criticism from traditionalists due to the non-traditional material in the magazine. 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. 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. Thanks for being offended on my behalf but it’s really not necessary.
Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 5:38 pm ¶
navajo smih wrote:
Let it be, what ever you dont mind does not matter. This magazine kicks ass. The native female models are hot, good God we need more of them. If you dont like Redskin magazine then dont read it.
Posted 27 Mar 2009 at 5:25 pm ¶
Tatanka Ptecila wrote:
Why, do we as Native Indigenous People have to try to bring others, that are trying to keep up w the rest of the world, down?
I am sick to death of you “opinionists” making statements that these “Indian Barbies” wouldn’t be able to fish, mud a wall, butcher a sheep.
Blah blah blah!!!
Honey! I can do all of that and then some. I Thought we would want to teach the other cultures that we are just as modern and civilized as the rest of the world. Our women are just as beautiful and exotic as the next.
What defines a “Real” Indian Woman?
I have three beautiful children, I am a sales executive and also Vice President of a commercial construction company. Not only that I cook, clean, hunt and fish, I make star quilts and proud to say my daughter just reigned as her tribe’s powwow princess.
I have been modeling since HS and would be proud to be featured in RSM.
I am proud to say I am Sicangu, Oglala Lakota and I love my beautiful body! In the white man’s book it was Eve who was persuaded by the snake to eat from the tree of knowledge. Let us not be persuaded by any snake
God made us naked and saw us to be beautiful. Natives have only been clothed for the last century or so. By a white man’s choice.
Again, Let us not be persuaded by any snake!
Let em look ,make them wish, just don’t let them take a bite of the fruit.
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 7:25 pm ¶