How is this offensive?

[Two Thumbs]

That was not conservatives. That was John Ashcroft.

Then what's the OP's point? There wasn't even any context provided. Obviously someone was offended, but I doubt he or she had Ashcroft's standing.

a college in WI had it taken down. so I asked w/o the showing of any links so I could get honest answers. And I did, leftist snowflake college students wander around campus looking to get offended so they have something to do, other than study

What was Ashcroft's excuse?

he has nothing to do with the op and that reply has nothing to do with what I said.

I'm not a republican if that's the tree you're barking up

 

[Lumpy 1]

The incident as pictured didn't happen, it was painted that way to increase drama and tell a story. A bunch of people sitting in canoes is nowhere near as dramatic as a bunch of people sitting in canoes with one guy standing, indicating that he's the leader. Think Washington crossing the Delaware.

Unless you talked to the artist, you don't know what happened or what they were trying to present/depict. For all you know the artist could be depicting dude standing in the front canoe had a serious leg cramp or just got through taking a piss. If it makes you feel better to think that it is all a bunch of hoopla intended to send a different message that you have no way of knowing ... I think your idea stinks and like mine better.

How's that for dramatic?

I think the guy standing up ate too many beans that very morning and the guy behind him regrets it...

.

 

[hadit]

A picture is worth a thousand words. You're about 916 words short.

And yet, as usual, it is easy to see that my responses will always be worth more than yours, even in that context ... (here's picture for you)

Whatever helps you sleep at night...

 

[Hiryuu]

Whatever helps you sleep at night...

I sleep fine, it isn't like a painting is going to scare me or anything. I can see where you may have a problem with such trivial matters though, because it is evident in everything you post.

 

[hadit]

Whatever helps you sleep at night...

I sleep fine, it isn't like a painting is going to scare me or anything. I can see where you may have a problem with such trivial matters though, because it is evident in everything you post.

Glad you were able to clear that up. Now you can rest comfortably.

 

[Lumpy 1]

You 2 ever watch the, Odd Couple movies or tv shows, just wondering?

 

[Hiryuu]

You 2 ever watch the, Odd Couple movies or tv shows, just wondering?

I haven't watched the Odd Couple, but really don't have a clue what that dope has a problem with. Not that I would be concerned about a painting (no matter what it depicted), but the people in Wisconsin elected representatives that appointed college staff, so they have a say-so in what they want. If that's what they want, then who am I to say they shouldn't take the painting down?

I don't care what the people in Wisconsin do, just think it is a little silly they made a big deal out of getting rid of the painting. They are going to put something in it's place, and could have done so without saying anything. Instead, they chose to pander to one group or another, which says more about what they are really trying to promote.

 

[aris2chat]

o give me a break...how quickly one forgets that breasts offended the damn conservatives and have to be covered

That was the Moslems.

Nusaybah bint Ka’ab, Hind al-Hunnud, Negan, Apranik, Khawlah Bint al-Kindiyyah, Dahia Al-kahina were military leaders often spoken of as bare breasted fierce warriors from the 7th C. middle east and N africa

Nusaybah was one of the first converts to Islam and usually fought close to Mohammed to protect him.

Breasts were to be covered during prayers.

I'd be willing to bet those were men, and not exactly the same thing

they are well know women fighters of that time

 

[GLASNOST]

Please tell me why this is offensive and give a detailed reason as to why.

Because is shows the Spanish leading the Indians, when in reality it was the other way round.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Please tell me why this is offensive and give a detailed reason as to why.

Because is shows the Spanish leading the Indians, when in reality it was the other way round.

those are actually french fur traders

and if you look, the natives are parallel to the french

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Please tell me why this is offensive and give a detailed reason as to why.

Because is shows the Spanish leading the Indians, when in reality it was the other way round.

those are actually french fur traders

and if you look, the natives are parallel to the french

French fur flies. No ketchup.

 

[whitehall]

Umm, a guy standing up in a canoe?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yes, because you actually support Hillary.

I support Hillary the way you support the Devil. You far right cons have reached the bottom. The electorate now demands common decency from you and Comrade Trump, you won't do it, and he will not get more than 125 EVs.

See? That's what a Hillary supporter would say.

That's what a Trumper would say, Billy. See, I have no trouble telling the truth, but since the truth is Comrade donald is getting his butt kicked, you have to lie, just as any Trumper would do.

Boy, you wouldn't know the truth if it clamped onto your scrotum and did the macarena.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Again, white man use weapons that make wooden arrows useless. Silly white man?

Wooden arrows had a higher rate of fire than single shot muskets and pistols up to the mid 1800s and those Amerindians were far more accurate with them up to about 200 yards.

Colonial riflemen were regularly picking off British officers from beyond 300 yards in the Revolutionary War. Nothing short of a cumbersome (taller than the archer), heavy-pull English longbow could hit at that distance...and even if it DID, the arrow most likely wouldn't cause more than a minor flesh wound.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Again, white man use weapons that make wooden arrows useless. Silly white man?

Wooden arrows had a higher rate of fire than single shot muskets and pistols up to the mid 1800s and those Amerindians were far more accurate with them up to about 200 yards.

Colonial riflemen were regularly picking off British officers from beyond 300 yards in the Revolutionary War. Nothing short of a cumbersome (taller than the archer), heavy-pull English longbow could hit at that distance...and even if it DID, the arrow most likely wouldn't cause more than a minor flesh wound.

Natives didn't stand in line to be shot at.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Colonial riflemen were regularly picking off British officers from beyond 300 yards in the Revolutionary War. Nothing short of a cumbersome (taller than the archer), heavy-pull English longbow could hit at that distance...and even if it DID, the arrow most likely wouldn't cause more than a minor flesh wound.

The rate of fire for muzzle loading riflemen at that time was about 30 seconds. It was no easy feat to ram a ball down a threaded barrel after putting in powder and wadding, which had to be done from a standing position too, btw, while the Amerindian warrior could hide low behind more obstacles, A well trained/experienced bowman could let loose 5 or more shots in that time span, of course they wouldnt, in order to not wste arrows, which were difficult to make,but the possibilities are there. Some trick shot artists have learned of techniques that allowed ancient archers and Amerindian archers to fire much faster than most imagine today. I guess most that witnessed it first hand rarely lived to talk about it.



As to the penetrating power of the bows they used, the draw weights tended to be 35 to 40 pounds for the short composite bows the mounted plains Amerindians used, which has an effective range on a single target of about 70 yards, but that is typically doubled when calculating the effective range against a unit formation, like a line of musket men, which gives them an effective range of about 140 yards. The Eastern Amerindians used a bow that was called a 'flat bow' or 'self bow' that was about 5 feet in length and many had a pull in excess of 90 pounds and a range similar to the English Longbow which was effective against single targets up to 230 yards.

The Spanish were known to have had experiences with Amerindian bows that put arrows through their chain mail.

The Amerindian Plains warriors were the best on the Earth, man for man far better than the Mongols, and the best of them, the Comanche and Apache were unsurpassed in combat skill and unit tactics. We learned a great deal from them. We did not see an effective tactical superiority on the battlefield against Amerindian horse archers until the 6 shot revolver came out that equalized the deficiency in rate of fire for American forces..

 

[GLASNOST]

Please tell me why this is offensive and give a detailed reason as to why.

Because is shows the Spanish leading the Indians, when in reality it was the other way round.

those are actually french fur traders

and if you look, the natives are parallel to the french

French, Spanish, or Portuguese they are NOT parallel to the native Indians. Furthermore, by standing the painting is demonstrating his leadership in so much as he is 'in charge', the highest ranking ...... and anything found will have been his 'discovery' regardless of the fact that the Indians have been living amongst these 'new discoveries' for generations.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Please tell me why this is offensive and give a detailed reason as to why.

Because is shows the Spanish leading the Indians, when in reality it was the other way round.

those are actually french fur traders

and if you look, the natives are parallel to the french

French, Spanish, or Portuguese they are NOT parallel to the native Indians. Furthermore, by standing the painting is demonstrating his leadership in so much as he is 'in charge', the highest ranking ...... and anything found will have been his 'discovery' regardless of the fact that the Indians have been living amongst these 'new discoveries' for generations.

so he hired the locals as scouts and found stuff that he and his didn't know exist.

how is that offensive?

 

[JimBowie1958]

French, Spanish, or Portuguese they are NOT parallel to the native Indians. Furthermore, by standing the painting is demonstrating his leadership in so much as he is 'in charge', the highest ranking ...... and anything found will have been his 'discovery' regardless of the fact that the Indians have been living amongst these 'new discoveries' for generations.

As has the indigenous population everywhere else on Earth.

It is considered 'discovery' because these men RECORDED the routes for mapping as well as longitude, latitude and compass heading notes so people who have never been there can find their way; 'discovery' = 'they put it on the map' literally.

 

[GLASNOST]

Please tell me why this is offensive and give a detailed reason as to why.

Because is shows the Spanish leading the Indians, when in reality it was the other way round.

those are actually french fur traders

and if you look, the natives are parallel to the french

French, Spanish, or Portuguese they are NOT parallel to the native Indians. Furthermore, by standing the painting is demonstrating his leadership in so much as he is 'in charge', the highest ranking ...... and anything found will have been his 'discovery' regardless of the fact that the Indians have been living amongst these 'new discoveries' for generations.

so he hired the locals as scouts and found stuff that he and his didn't know exist.

how is that offensive?

Claiming to have 'discovered' it ...... that is what's offensive.