Posted on 04/30/2013 4:35:09 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Two billboards in which images of Native Americans are used to make a gun rights argument are causing a stir with some Colorado residents who say the image is offensive and insensitive.
The billboards in this northern Colorado city show three men dressed in traditional Native American attire and the words "Turn in your arms. The government will take care of you."
Matt Wells, an account executive with Lamar Advertising in Denver, said Monday that a group of local residents purchased the space.
"They have asked to remain anonymous," he said.
He also refused to disclose the cost but said the billboards are only appearing in the Greeley area. Wells said he has not received any complaints so far.
"I think it's a little bit extreme, of course, but I think people are really worried about their gun rights and what liberties are going to be taken away," Wells told the Greeley Tribune.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Probably just “feeling” cold.....
“Feeling” like “gay” has nothing to do with reality.
Here in Creek Nation territory (Muskogee, OK) the signage that been well received. We like our firearms/smokes/gambling here in Oklahoma.
Well one thing to learn would be to not make a circular firing squad.
Bingo!
LOL -- That's amusing.
Quite true.
I always find it interesting that the few times the US Army arguably engaged in atrocities, such as Washita and Wounded Knee, are constantly being tossed out to show how immoral and illegimate the US is.
Meanwhile, atrocity was the normal method of Indian warfare, it’s what they did. So it could be posited that Army doing the same was just being culturally sensitive, imitating the culture of the natives.
At its very worst, the Army never captured Indians and dragged them off for long slow death by torture, which was of course standard practive for most tribes when they got the chance.
Iron Eyes was of course 100% Sicilian by ancestry.
Torturing the captured to death is never a good idea. Makes it hard to convince a defeated foe not to fight to the last man.
A Paiute Paisan?
Certainly doesn’t incentivize surrender.
Nope. Kind of makes fighting to the last breath of the last man an attractive alternative - even if hopelessly outnumbered and surrounded.
I remember in Iraq when they tortured to death a couple U.S. troops that had surrendered. I don’t recall many more instances of U.S. troops surrendering - no matter how precarious or hopeless their position.
Why would native Americans find that offensive? It seems like a very pro-Indian message to me, i.e., “You guys got screwed by the government, hopefully the rest of us can avoid the same fate.”
Julius Caesar was renowned for pardoning those who fought against him, even taking them back into his confidence. It was cited at the time as one reason for his unbroken string of victories. Why fight to the death when you can just surrender and go on with your life?
Of course, JC eventually discovered the downside of mercy to his enemies ...
“We were friends, we quarreled, and now we are friends again!”
Notice how hard they had to reach to find “native Americans” to object to this? They had exactly *one*, who said she was a “native American”, which sounds like something Ward Churchill would say. The other person they asked was a non-Indian, probably a liberal, who had worked on a reservation.
Indians are very tribe-oriented. They are not bashful at all about their ancestry, as they are usually proud of it. As far as “native American” goes, that is like describing any of the hundreds of peoples in Asia as “Asians”. “Are you an Asian?” “I’m Japanese”.
And most of the warrior tribes, of which there are many, are very pro-gun, and very aware of the value of guns in their lives.
Many of the names the warrior tribes are known by are not their tribal names, but names given to them by other tribes, which tend to mean things like “invaders” and “conquerors”.
“Children of nature”, my butt.
The Cherokee at one point had a territory of about 140,000 square miles. The Sioux, the Navajo, the Apache, and many others didn’t just rapidly adapt to the gun, but even innovated improvements to it, such as center fired cartridges (though the idea was taken and patented by a white man.)
It should also be pointed out that as soon as war was declared in World War I and II, the tribes had lines outside of US military recruiting offices long before they were ready to enlist that many men.
One large tribe had independently declared war against Germany in World War I, and had not ended this declaration at the armistice, so were still technically at war with Germany when World War II was declared.
"...She thinks the billboards are making light of atrocities the federal government committed against Native Americans."
I think it is just the opposite. This person is making light of what the government is doing now and their intentions.
"I think people are really worried about their gun rights and what liberties are going to be taken away,"
Ya think?!!
“..Talk began about whose ancestors came here first and settled in what towns...Finally, someone asked me about MY ancestors...I quietened down the party when I replied, “My ancestors probably scalped your ancestors...” *ROFL*”
********************************************************************
Love it!! The come back of all come backs.
Disarmament made Sand Creek and Wounded Knee possible.
Great White Father speak with forked tongue. Ugh!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.