Well... at least were discussing this, right?

"Since 1492"... that is where the problem lies? Or does the problem lay with the fact that someone like you needs to have the poster define the issue to such a degree of detail that it would really take a BOOK to make the case?

Does the Spanish, French, British and finally American trafficking in Indian slave trade not constitute "terror" as you define it? How many native people were forced into slavery since 1492? How many were forced to load onto ships or trek across hundreds of miles of land at the whim of European "owners"? Columbus himself enslaved (and eventually extinguished) the entire race of Caribb Indians as "property" of the Spanish Crown... so wouldn't that lend a touch of validity to the date of "1492"?

Most "New World" cultures can point to 1492 as the beginning of the end as far as their sovereignty is concerned... its not an arbitrary number, is it? It is an excellent point in world history to begin to say that the rights and privileges of the people that lived here prior no longer applied once Europeans continued to settle the land.

If one really wants to have this sort of discussion, then perhaps we should talk about the fact that names like Red Cloud, Black Elk, Geronimo, Crazy Horse need the sort of detailed explanation that you expect from the creator of the offensive poster. More to the point, it is rather telling, isn't it, that we need to give greater detail into the WHY story? Like WHY these men were photographed in the first place? Perhaps, as I hinted at, those who are more familiar with the history of the Indian struggle, want to bring home the point that the general level of ignorance is unacceptable.

Which brings me to my point... You have a problem with this because of a blanket generalization (or indictment, if you will) of non-natives since 1492. I don't see this as the case, because there are thousands of examples of Indians serving with distinction in our Armed Forces since our nation's founding, and serving in all corners of the public sector. Senators, governors, Congressmen, mayors, teachers, generals, admirals, astronauts, civil rights leaders, MLB layers, Olympic medalists, NFL players, and no fewer than 28 Medal of Honor recipients can all claim Indian heritage. A blanket indictment would indict them as well, right?

The creator of that poster has every right to send the message that the USA does NOT have a monopoly on moral or ethical outrage at tyranny and terror, and using Indian leaders as an example of that is no different than a poster showing Martin Luther King or Frederick Douglas does for black Americans, right? Did MLK or Douglas NOT fight tyranny and terror as blacks raging against the Klan? Could a poster of them show a correlation between their fighting terror since 1869? Or perhaps since 1776 and the founding of the Republic, which allowed the institutionalization of slavery as the status quo over millions of square miles of the nation?

One more point. You make a comment that it is a "tasteless poster". Now THIS I might agree with... perhaps it is in bad taste to make the association in the manner that they do, if for no other reason that people like you are so ready to make the assumptions that you have. I will agree that this poster (and any like it) are in bad taste and should be considered nothing more than satire and are a detraction from the real effort... IF YOU CAN AGREE that posters showing Obama portrayed as a Maoist "Chairman" of the Party, or superimposed over the image of Lenin with waving Soviet flags behind him, or images of Hitler floating over the words CHANGE, are just as offensive and just as detracting from the greater effort of the national agenda.

THIS is my problem, Ryan... you have issues with images and language that might (might, mind you) make the issues and icons that you hold dear look different in a new light, but have no issues with the same effort turned against issues and icons you have no love for or association with. You hate the CHE t-shirts, but love the Chairman Maobama t-shirts... one should be banned, but others are simply "free expression". How is that NOT hypocracy?

We've already established the fact that Jackson is NOT the Hero of the Republic that some thought him to be, and that claims that he shouldn't be on the $20 bill are more than valid in the modern day... so perhaps this poster isn't that far from the mark as Ryan feels.

Now, where are we? Where does this discussion go? I haven't called anyone names, I haven't questioned anyone's integrity or honor, and I have done my best (first thing in the morning with a busy 8-year-old making constant demands on my time and attention) to respond to the valid points of previous posts. I'm still waiting for a legitimate explanation of why the poster is so grossly offensive, because all you have provided so far is emotional rants based on assumptions and stereotypes that are NOT universal even in our small group of like-minded friends... let alone the broader world in general. Notice I have not demanded ANYTHING in my posts, including apologies for personal slights and attacks, other than a move to more adult behavior... so I'm leaving this up to you. You decide where we go from here, because you are the one that can't seem to participate in Bund activities without suffering servere emotional or psychological trauma on a regular basis.