If John had posted up a scratchbuilt model of a 19th century 'blackface' minstrel with a plaque on the plinth that read "Oh Dem Golden Slippers", or of a caricature Chinaman in a coolie hat called "Hoo Flung Dung", I could understand why some might consider that a bit close to the knuckle and insensitive.

But what do we have here? We have an Apache warrior and Custer mixing it on horseback.

I fail to to see how anyone in their right mind could possibly get hot under the collar and holier-than-thou about that.

Because presumably - by the same token and skewed logic - they'd get into a similar self-righteous, politically-correct tizzy about another modeller placing a 1941 Barbarossa Red Army figure in a Manchuria '45 setting (that must be "offensive" to Russians surely, and to the memory of the 20+ million Russians who died in the Great Patriotic War?)

Or about a painter pitting a Roman Republic soldier against a 5th century Hun or a 13th century Mongol ("offensive" to Italians and even more "offensive" to Mongolians- we should be more "sensitive").

Its ridiculous. At most, the discussion should (logically) be about modelling & painting merits and beyond that possibly historical accuracy.

When a member of the Apache nation comes on here saying he's "offended" or "insulted" by it, then I'll stand corrected.

But this vignette & John's use of artistic license "offensive"? Come on guys, gimme a break and get a grip.

- Steve