I Can’t Wait To See What They’ll Do For Next Year’s “Red Issue”

Skymag white issueWe got the new issue of Sky — “Saskatchewan’s magazine for living well” — in the mail this week and, um. Is it just me* or is this combination of cover text and photo a little, erm, insensitive?

I’m sure Sky meant well, and it’s clear from the feature that they admire football legend George Reed. And it’s certainly acceptable to write about colour in a fashion magazine and, I guess, have an annual white issue in winter.

But you can’t put a black couple on the cover of your “white issue” and think it means nothing.** There’s still racism and xenophobia in our culture, and not being aware of it is not the same as being unaffected by it. Did Sky approach Reed and his wife, Angie, and announce they’re going to be the white issue’s cover stars? I’m guessing they didn’t.

Then again, Reed’s lived in Saskatchewan a long time. Maybe nothing surprises him anymore.

I mean, even the publisher’s note is titled, “The Colour Of The Sky In My World”.

That colour is really, reeeeally white.

*It’s not just me. **Unless you’re a lot smarter. Vice could probably pull off something interesting.

Author: Stephen Whitworth

Prairie Dog editor Stephen Whitworth was carried to Regina in a swarm of bees.

30 thoughts on “I Can’t Wait To See What They’ll Do For Next Year’s “Red Issue””

  1. I’m with Aidan. If the editors are guilty of anything, it might be questionable judgement, but not racism or xenophobia.

  2. Maybe Brad Wall will be on the cover of the “Red Issue”…

    Really its just an unfortunate juxtaposition. Perhaps for this one time, they could have used “Green and White” issue. I am also mildly offended by the blue they used to print George Reed’s name…

    … and don’t get me started on the fuchsia font.

  3. Either spelling is correct, Emmet. How’s your writing coming along?
    Good point, John.
    Well put, Mr. Kennedy.

  4. Either spelling is not correct. “Judgement” is the UK spelling. The Canadian Press and the Supreme Court of Canada both rep for “Judgment” as the Canadian spelling. But feel free to keep making things up as you go along.

  5. Actually, I found both spellings, offered as correct, in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, as well as the Merriam Webster American Dictionary, so who’s doing the making up, oh aspiring writer?

  6. Considering the state of the press, including Canada’s, I’ll stick with the dictionary, thanks.

    When are you publishing your magnum opus, Emmet? I hate to think of all the time you’re spending on your monomaniacal jerking off, when you could be doing something serious.

  7. That’s crude and inappropriate. Nobody here speaks to you with such sexualized language. I’d like my comments and name removed from a page with such an abusive and disgusting personal attack. That’s just way over the line.

  8. Emmet: You keep threatening to leave, but you never do. How can we miss you, if you won’t go away? On a more serious note: you can dish it out, I’ve noticed, but you can’t take it. Maybe your energies are best employed elsewhere, such as your writing, for example.

    Bernadette: what a male response, for a committed feminist. :-) As to “equally rude, crude, and obnoxious”, I couldn’t hold a candle to you, my dear, and you’ve had so much practice, what with Friends of the RPL, Real Renewal, Save Our Connaught, etc. At least you’ve reserved enough time and energy to be a published poet, which should be a hint to Emmet: it can be done.

  9. Warning: segue into a related and less inflammatory topic.

    If anyone needs to burn off some grammatical frustration, go to the RSM. Their new interactive foyer design is nice but in the ‘tracking’ screen on caribou, they blew it. It is ITS NOT IT’S!

  10. I don’t know how to respond to such emotionally-charged and fact-free attacks, except that this seems the unlikeliest of venues to question my bona fides as a writer.

  11. You are right . This is not a forum to vent on peeps, except those that assume that they are ; “in charge”.

  12. Ron: I hope that Emmet takes your comment about venting to heart.

    Dear, dear Emmet: I don’t doubt that you can write. You’ve published music reviews and related interviews for years. You’ve described, in other places, your strong need to write. You’ve commented in this forum, not long ago, about work in progress, and that you have had praise and that you have expectations. I wonder. therefore, why you aren’t concentrating on your work to the exclusion of things far less important. Life is too short.
    As to “emotionally-charged and fact-free attacks”, I’m afraid that that’s on you, sir. If you look at the thread above, you’ll see that you got the ball rolling. Try not to ascribe feelings and motives to me that I don’t have, but which you feel the need to project onto me (note this use of “project”). If anger jump-starts your creativity, there’s a great deal in this world about which to be angry. Comments on the dogblog? Far, far down on the list.

  13. Barb, you really know not of what you speak wrt my activist life and writing, to Emmett’s writing life — or anything else for that matter. You must live one horrid existence if all you can do is write comments on the dog blog.

  14. Dear, dear Bernadette: perhaps you forget that I’ve seen and heard you in action on more than one occasion and in more than one venue. I could give examples, if you’d like.
    And gee, I thought that the publication of your recent book of poetry was general knowledge, and considered a good thing.
    As to Emmet’s writing life, you can check the dogblog archives, as well as things he has posted elsewhere on the internet. Sometimes people choose to make their lives an open book on cyberspace, and when they do, they’re often surprised and disconcerted when they realize where their privacy has gone.
    Thanks for your concern about my existence, but it’s concern misplaced…and an epic failure of imagination. Whoops, gotta go: the matrimonial cake is done.

  15. Barb, I’m flabbergasted that you think it takes any more than 30 seconds of concentration to call you out on your own syntactical shortcomings or rebut your puritanical cheap shots once or twice a month. I mean, Merriam-Webster, come on, how hard is that for a self-appointed pedant-at-large to get right?
    I’m even further bewildered that you would accuse me of projecting anything on to you in a paragraph when you commit repeated assumptions about me based on quite scant facts.
    I’m embarrassed by your constant sexualization of insults against me.
    You’ll notice that I speak in this post only of my own experience. Whatever goes on in your head is a mystery that I have no interest in solving. What I’ve surmised from your behaviour on this blog, I’d rather forget. Good day.

  16. Wow, you slipped a particularly vile comment in while I was composing. Do you think you know anything about me because of what I write on the Internet? Do you think you’re entitled to make sexual comments about me because I write about myself? Do you think you, what, own me because you may have read my blog? What the fuck, Barb, that reads an awful lot like a threat.
    Is this how you respond to someone correcting your spelling?

  17. Dear, dear Emmet: first, my remarks are “puritanical”, then “sexualized”. Do try and make up your mind. Or, did you mean to write “prurient” in the first instance?

    Your projection is at work overtime, as usual, fueled by your careless reading and your temper. Or, as I suggested above, do you need to have these tantrums on a regular basis, to recharge the creative battery? If so, I’m very sorry for you.

  18. First of all, Barb, don’t blame me for your cognitive dissonance. You’re certainly not the first person to partake in slut shaming and sexual harassment.
    I’m amazed that you continue to accuse me of projecting anything onto even as you accuse me of having tantrums. Are you really that poor of a reader that you construe any criticism of your behaviour as a tantrum?
    Anyway, bottom line, you owe me apologies for your disgusting comments about my sexuality and for your creepy intimations of stalking. I will not be terrorized by you.
    Congratulations on your use of the word “cyberspace”, by the way, I didn’t realize you were posting from the year 1994.

  19. Anonymous, Esq.: I sympathize with your frustration, but I’m dealing with a person who comes across as irrational and paranoid, and with a lot of baggage. I will not deal with him in future.

Comments are closed.