Westerns and America's fractured culture

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  233 comments

Westerns and America's fractured culture
“- Brad: They gotta stop sometime. If they're human men at all, they gotta stop. - Ethan: No, a human rides a horse until it dies, then he goes on afoot. A Comanche comes along, gets that horse up, rides him 20 more miles... and then he eats him.”

The "western movie" was once a reliable source of income for movie makers. The genre has been a part of American entertainment since the beginning of movie making. The very first were short silent movies made by the Edison studios. The first noteworthy western movie was "The Great Train Robbery" (1903). It was adapted from a British robbery and retold in the setting of the old west. It is one of the very first landmark films in American movie making history.

The quality of these movies varied wildly, and the lesser ones were considered B movies. By the late 40's the B movies were relegated to matinee status and acted as a sort of babysitter for a generation. It was in these lower grade westerns that John Wayne got his start. There was usually a prevailing theme that the settlement of the west and the defeat of the Indians was a patriotic necessity. However, something strange happened in the late 50s and 60s. In 1952 Stanley Kramer brought a magazine story about duty & courage to life with the memorable "High Noon."  Then in 1956 John Ford directed his masterpiece; "The Searchers." Suddenly the western was raising interesting social questions. The superior westerns began to romanticize the plight of the Indians. Movies like Hombre, Cheyenne Autumn and Broken Arrow presented Indians as tragic heroes.

The western was reflecting social changes and the way we, as Americans interpreted our own history. By the 1970's there were radical forces at play in our society. In 1970 we had a western which served as the classic anti-establishment movie, (arguably an anti-American film) entitled "Little Big Man." Hollywood itself would be transformed by this new ideology. Thus, after giving a fair assessment of the old west in the 50s & 60s, the motion picture industry had no sooner achieved a degree of historical accuracy and it was leaping to a sort of tit-for-tat revision of old stereotypes. The new westerns such as "Dances with Wolves" (1990) would portray Native Americans as morally superior.

Today the values that were once celebrated in the American western are no longer part of the story. They still make westerns, but the genre is for the most part passe. The western may have reflected western civilization. We'll miss them both. The Westerns reflected the story of this nation's humble beginnings to it's doctrine of expansion, to the modern age of concious reflection and finally to the post modern age of tribalism, Socialism & decadence.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Old Man:  You could a-stay, you know. They wouldn't be sorry to have you a-stay .

Vin: They  won't  be sorry to see us go, either.

(Some of the final ines from (the Magnificent Seven )




The meaning being that it took gun-slingers from north of the border (America) to free a Mexican town form the ravages of Mexican bandits. Vin (Yul Brynner) knew that the farmers & their families wouldn't want hired killers around after their job was done. It reminded me a little of the 2020 election. In the post modern world some would rather the farmers be blackmailed and give up most of their harvest to the bandits than go through a war.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

I've always admired the simplicity of hollywood westerns where it seemed justice worked correctly everytime. the bad guys always ended up with large caliber entry wounds, an arrowhead collection, or hemp neckties. it was easier then to tell who the bad guys were, and justice was swift and permanent. unlike today where power and influence can cause the judicial machinations to drag on unnecessarily until the evidenced conclusions of the process are fully adjudicated and the scumbags are ultimately held accountable in a less than epic way.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

Yul Brynner's name in The Magnificent Seven was Chris, Steve McQueen was Vin.   And in fact one of the Magnificent Seven DID stay with the Mexicans - Chico (Horst Buchholtz).

The point you're trying to make does get questionable when you don't get the facts straight.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.2    one month ago

Read the link to the quote.


The point you're trying to make does get questionable when you don't get the facts straight.

My point is valid. I expect better from you.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.2.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    one month ago

Did you not write this sentence?

"Vin (Yul Brynner) knew that the farmers & their families wouldn't want hired killers around after their job was done."

Did you not put the name "Yul Brynner" in brackets after the name "Vin"?  Do you think the character "Vin" was played by Yul Brynner?

From IMDb
Steve McQueen

I never said Vin (Steve McQueen) wasn't the one talking to the old man at the end.

As for your "point" i.e. " In the post modern world some would rather the farmers be blackmailed and give up most of their harvest to the bandits than go through a war."   I have no idea what you're talking about.

I expect better from you as well. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.2.2    one month ago

Address the premise of the article and let us end the Alinsky tactics.

Which character was Vin or Chris or the personal beliefs of John Wayne are irrelevant.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.3    one month ago

“- Brad: They gotta stop sometime. If they're human men at all, they gotta stop. - Ethan: No, a human rides a horse until it dies, then he goes on afoot. A Comanche comes along, gets that horse up, rides him 20 more miles... and then he eats him.”
-
That is at the top of the article you wrote.
-
The point of the article seems to be that racism is good.  If not, why highlight words in the movie that come from a racist character who is talking about how Indians are not human beings?
-
One COULD argue that Ethan admires the persistence of the Indians facing adversity, but that argument fails when you realize that Ethan is a racist who actually does not consider the Indians to be human beings equal in value to whites. 
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.4    one month ago
The point of the article seems to be that racism is good. 

The point of the article was clear. Western movies have changed over the decades. At one point they kind of confronted the problems of westward expansion. Most recently they entered the post modern era.

How many ways can it be said?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2  Perrie Halpern R.A.    one month ago

OMG Vic, not everything is political. 

The storytelling of Westerns changed as we began to look at our history. But there have been plenty of westerns that are fine movies. The most popular TV show right now, is "Yellowstone" a modern "Western". It shows the truth about what is going on out west and shows all sides of living out there.

And there is nothing wrong with showing Indians as people, too. That isn't political. That is humanity.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1  Kavika   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2    one month ago

Actually knowing something about Comanches would sure help credibility. 

The US Army slaughtered all the Comanches horses to defeat them.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kavika @2.1    one month ago

But don't point that out, Kavika. Why bother with actual history/ sarc.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
2.1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.1    one month ago

Don't bother to have anyone watch any of the "Old Westerns" on CMAX/Showtime/A&E/Encore - where Audie Murphy, fresh from WWII (should have take acting classes).  He's in there killing all dem "Wild Injuns" and saving all dem whites womens from rape and massacres.

Racist ya think?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @2.1    one month ago

don't be teaching none of that woke CRT american history here........... /s

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @2.1    one month ago

y knowing something about Comanches would sure help credibility.

The 16-year-old girl’s once-beautiful face was grotesque.

She had been disfigured beyond all recognition in the 18 months she had been held captive by the Comanche Indians.

Now, she was being offered back to the Texan authorities by Indian chiefs as part of a peace negotiation.

To gasps of horror from the watching crowds, the Indians presented her at the Council House in the ranching town of San Antonio in 1840, the year Queen Victoria married Prince Albert.

‘Her head, arms and face were full of bruises and sores,’ wrote one witness, Mary Maverick. ‘And her nose was actually burnt off to the bone. Both nostrils were wide open and denuded of flesh.’

Once handed over, Matilda Lockhart broke down as she described the horrors she had endured — the rape, the relentless sexual humiliation and the way Comanche women had tortured her with fire. It wasn’t just her nose, her thin body was hideously scarred all over with burns.

When she mentioned she thought there were 15 other white captives at the Indians’ camp, all of them being subjected to a similar fate, the Texan lawmakers and officials said they were detaining the Comanche chiefs while they rescued the others....

He refers to the ‘demonic immorality’ of Comanche attacks on white settlers, the way in which torture, killings and gang-rapes were routine. ‘The logic of Comanche raids was straightforward,’ he explains. 

‘All the men were killed, and any men who were captured alive were tortured; the captive women were gang raped. Babies were invariably killed.’

The historian T R Fehrenbach, author of Comanche: The History Of A People, tells of a raid on an early settler family called the Parkers, who with other families had set up a stockade known as Fort Parker. In 1836, 100 mounted Comanche warriors appeared outside the fort’s walls, one of them waving a white flag to trick the Parkers.

‘Benjamin Parker went outside the gate to parley with the Comanche,’ he says. ‘The people inside the fort saw the riders suddenly surround him and drive their lances into him. Then with loud whoops, mounted warriors dashed for the gate. Silas Parker was cut down before he could bar their entry; horsemen poured inside the walls.’

Survivors described the slaughter: ‘The two Frosts, father and son, died in front of the women; Elder John Parker, his wife ‘Granny’ and others tried to flee. The warriors scattered and rode them down.

‘John Parker was pinned to the ground, he was scalped and his genitals ripped off. Then he was killed. Granny Parker was stripped and fixed to the earth with a lance driven through her flesh. Several warriors raped her while she screamed.

‘Silas Parker’s wife Lucy fled through the gate with her four small children. But the Comanche overtook them near the river. They threw her and the four children over their horses to take them as captives.’

So intimidating was Comanche cruelty, almost all raids by Indians were blamed on them. Texans, Mexicans and other Indians living in the region all developed a particular dread of the full moon — still known as a ‘Comanche Moon’ in Texas — because that was when the Comanche came for cattle, horses and captives.

They were infamous for their inventive tortures, and women were usually in charge of the torture process.

The Comanche roasted captive American and Mexican soldiers to death over open fires. Others were castrated and scalped while alive. The most agonising Comanche tortures included burying captives up to the chin and cutting off their eyelids so their eyes were seared by the burning sun before they starved to death.

Contemporary accounts also describe them staking out male captives spread-eagled and naked over a red-ant bed. Sometimes this was done after excising the victim’s private parts, putting them in his mouth and then sewing his lips together

The Comanche and the SS shared tactics. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.4    one month ago

You mean the Comanche followed the white US army and civilians' killer tactics like Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, Bear River, and numerous slaughter of Indian women and children in CA. and on the east coast and midwest.

Seems like the US government shared tactics with the SS long before Native Americans and interesting enough both the US government and the SS were white.

In case your not aware Quanah Parker the feared Comanche chief was half-white. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @2.1.5    one month ago
Comanche followed the white US army and civilians' killer tactics like Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, Bear River

Squirrel! 

But do you believe the Comanche had a mystical ability to travel in time?   Pretty surpassing they used events that would happen  generations in the future to justify the torturing, raping  and murdering of women and children described in the link. 

‘One by one, the children and young women were pegged out naked beside the camp fire,’ according to a contemporary account. ‘They were skinned, sliced, and horribly mutilated, and finally burned alive by vengeful women determined to wring the last shriek and convulsion from their agonised bodies. Matilda Lockhart’s six-year-old sister was among these unfortunates who died screaming under the high plains moon.’

Ironically, you just justified those depredations by the US Army with that logic. 

You justify and excuse torturing kids.  I condemn it.  I'm fine with that distinction.  

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.6    one month ago
But do you believe the Comanche had a mystical ability to travel in time?   Pretty surpassing they used events that would happen  generations in the future to justify the torturing, raping  and murdering of women and children described in the link. 

Many of the slaughter of native women and children took place long before the Comanche rose to power.  

Not a squirrel at all Sean, just pointing out what the US army and white civilians did to natives starting in the 1500s. 

Ironically, you just justified those depredations by the US Army with that logic. 

Just pointed out facts to you, Sean. I didn't in any way justify the killing of children by anyone.

You justify and excuse torturing kids.  I condemn it.  I'm fine with that distinction. 

Only in your mind, Sean your assumptions are getting more bizarre with each of your comments.

I didn't see where you condemned the killing of native women and children.

 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2    one month ago

jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Masters Quiet
2.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2    one month ago
It shows the truth about what is going on out west and shows all sides of living out there.

I'm going to need you to elaborate on how Yellowstone shows the truth about anything.  The number of people killed during paramilitary activity alone stretches the bounds of willing suspension of disbelief, much less truth.

Yellowstone is basically a very violent remake of "Dallas", set on a Montana cattle ranch instead of a Dallas oil company.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3  Kavika     one month ago

John Wayne the star of many Westerns and the macho man was nothing more than a make-believe soldier that he played in the movie while real men were fighting in WWII.

Also, an admitted white supremacist.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @3    one month ago
John Wayne the star of many Westerns and the macho man was nothing more than a make-believe soldier that he played in the movie while real men were fighting in WWII.

Makes perfect sense since Wayne was an actor.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    one month ago
Makes perfect sense since Wayne was an actor.

And these were actors that chose to fight in WWII

You can add Charles Bronson, Charles Durning and Eddie Albert to that list.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @3.1.1    one month ago

Great!!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @3.1.1    one month ago

America's entry into   World War II   resulted in a deluge of support for the war effort from all sectors of society, and Hollywood was no exception. Wayne was exempted from service due to his age (34 at the time of   Pearl Harbor ) and family status (classified as 3-A – family deferment). Wayne repeatedly wrote to John Ford saying he wanted to enlist, on one occasion inquiring whether he could get into Ford's military unit. [39]   Wayne did not attempt to prevent his reclassification as 1-A (draft eligible), but   Republic Studios   was emphatically resistant to losing him, since he was their only A-list actor under contract.   Herbert J. Yates , president of Republic, threatened Wayne with a lawsuit if he walked away from his contract, [40]   and Republic Pictures intervened in the Selective Service process, requesting Wayne's further deferment. [41]

U.S. National Archives records indicate that Wayne, in fact, did make an application [42]   to serve in the   Office of Strategic Services   (OSS), precursor to the modern   CIA , and had been accepted within the U.S. Army's allotted billet to the OSS.   William J. Donovan , OSS commander, wrote Wayne a letter informing him of his acceptance into the Field Photographic Unit as a special forces commando, but the letter went to his estranged wife Josephine's home. She never told him about it. Wayne toured U.S. bases and hospitals in the South Pacific for three months in 1943 and 1944, [43]   with the   USO . [44] [45] [46]   During this trip, he carried out a request from Donovan to assess whether General   Douglas MacArthur , commander of the   South West Pacific Area , or his staff were hindering the work of the OSS. [21] : 88    Donovan later issued Wayne an OSS Certificate of Service to memorialize Wayne's contribution to the OSS mission. [21] : 88  [47] John Wayne - Wikipedia
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kavika @3.1.1    one month ago

And Jimmy Stewart.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.3    one month ago

Good for the actor and white supremacist

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.1.6  Nowhere Man  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.3    one month ago
Republic Pictures intervened in the Selective Service process, requesting Wayne's further deferment.

Yeah, Why bother with actual history when it's easier to call someone a racist/bigot... another democrat/liberal mantra, if you do not like what a person stands for accuse him of being racist...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @3.1.5    one month ago
Good for the actor

Yes, facts are always good!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.6    one month ago
Yeah, Why bother with actual history when it's easier to call someone a racist/bigot...

History shows that he was a racist bigot.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.1.9  Nowhere Man  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.8    one month ago
History shows that he was a racist bigot.

And that's some fairly twisted history... but then twisting history to suit someone's own political bigotries is another characteristic of the liberal mantra...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.10  Kavika   replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.6    one month ago

Another phony comment by you, NWM.

In a now-infamous 1971 Playboy interview, he stated:

“I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people. ... I don’t feel guilty about the fact that five or 10 generations ago these people were slaves.”

About Indigenous Americans, Wayne said: “I don’t feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them. … [O]ur so-called stealing of this country from them was just a matter of survival. ... There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves.”

Wayne used a gay slur to describe the lead actors in Midnight Cowboy, and considered the movie and Easy Rider "perverted."

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.1.11  Nowhere Man  replied to  Kavika @3.1.10    one month ago

You know, I don't believe there is a non-bigoted democrat/liberal in this country right now... they reveal it every time they open their mouths...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @3.1.10    one month ago

Perhaps to Wayne's thinking, blacks were not as well educated at that time.

The Supreme Court decided to allow bussing that very same year, which would tend to support an idea that perhaps blacks were not receiving quality educations then.

Is it wrong to want educated people to lead the country?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.9    one month ago

His own words are "twisted history", eh?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.14  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.12    one month ago

Defending racism.  Nice.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.15  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.11    one month ago

Says the party of the proud boys, the oath keepers etc...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.14    one month ago
Defending racism.  Nice.

Ignoring context and labelling dead people.

Nice.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.17  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.16    one month ago

In what context do you consider such words to be acceptable, Tex?  They sound pretty inexcusable in any context to me.

You are defending the indefensible.

His words label a lot of people who were then dead as "selfish" for defending their own land, too.

Double standards and defending racism.  Nice.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.18  Kavika   replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.11    one month ago

It would seem that your inability to recognize the truth and spew nonsense is still intact.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.17    one month ago

Look, I get people get all riled up about Indians "losing their lands" and all, but every country in the world belonged to someone else at some point or another.

I am not defending racism, I a just refusing to look at a couple of comments from someone from 50 years ago and conclude that they are racist considering the times and what he actually stated.

Knock yourself out calling me a defender of racism, no big deal to me because I know you don;t have a clue as to what I am saying.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.20  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.19    one month ago
I am not defending racism

Of course you are.  And you are attacking those calling out racism.

I know you don;t have a clue as to what I am saying.

We all know exactly what you're saying, Tex.  We just expect you to own it.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.21  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.12    one month ago
Is it wrong to want educated people to lead the country?

No, it isn't but in 1971 there were plenty of educated blacks and other minorities. That BS excuse doesn't fly.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.20    one month ago
Of course you are.  And you are attacking those calling out racism.

Typical liberal response here---tell people what they say and do, no matter what the fucking facts are.

Piss poor way to 'debate'.

We all know exactly what you're saying, Tex. 

Not one thing in your posts to me indicate that to me.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.23  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.22    one month ago

Nobody needs to tell you what you're saying.  It's all there for us to read, Tex.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @3.1.21    one month ago
No, it isn't but in 1971 there were plenty of educated blacks and other minorities.

Really?

Blacks and Education: What We Learn (theroot.com)

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.23    one month ago
Nobody needs to tell you what you're saying. 

And yet, you and others persist in doing exactly that.

It's all there for us to read, Tex.

AND there to comprehend.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.27  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.26    one month ago

We comprehend just fine.  And we expect you to own your words, which seems to upset you.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.28  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.11    one month ago

How so? The truth is bigoted now? Is this some sort of altered reality where if you quote what a man says, that it's not the truth? Btw, that was a personal comment directed to Kavika. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.27    one month ago
We comprehend just fine. 

Not a thing indicates that is true.

And we expect you to own your words, which seems to upset you.

I own what I write. I am not upset. I do not like it when folks lie about what I say, and will never hesitate to call folks out on it.

See--there you go again, telling me what I feel.

Look, you don;t know me from Adam, so your "opinion' of me doesn't faze me any.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.30  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.29    one month ago

You can keep saying it, Texan.  Doesn't make it true.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.31  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.12    one month ago
Perhaps to Wayne's thinking, blacks were not as well educatedat that time.

The Supreme Court decided to allow bussing that very same year, which would tend to support an idea that perhaps blacks were not receiving quality educations then.

Is it wrong to want educated people to lead the country?

Because there were loads of uneducate white people also voting, also in leadership positions in their states. It should have been said that people who are uneducated should not be in leadership positions.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.30    one month ago
You can keep saying it, Texan. 

Apparently, it is completely necessary to keep saying it until it sinks in.

Your denials are pathetic.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.31    one month ago
Because there were loads of uneducate white people also voting, also in leadership positions in their states. It should have been said that people who are uneducated should not be in leadership positions.

That doesn't make him a racist.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.34  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.32    one month ago

My denials are pathetic?  That's hilarious.  Your comments are a study in apologetics for bigotry, but you object to somebody saying as much.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.35  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.24    one month ago

Yes, really. 

According to the article 3.1% of blacks were college grads in 1960. That would equal 465,000 based on the population in 1960.

That does not include other minorities so yes, there were plenty of educated blacks and other minorities that could be part of the government. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.36  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.34    one month ago
My denials are pathetic? 

Yes.

Your comments are a study in apologetics for bigotry, but you object to somebody saying as much.

Your projections are duly noted and summarily dismissed as worthless.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.37  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @3.1.35    one month ago
That would equal 465,000 based on the population in 1960.

About one quarter of one percent of the population of the US at the time.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.38  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.36    one month ago
summarily dismissed as worthless.

By the guy whose comments are apologetics for racism.

Well, that holds any weight at all.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.38    one month ago
By the guy whose comments are apologetics for racism.

TO someone who has exhibited they clearly don't understand.

Well, that holds any weight at all.

At least as much weight as some liberal telling others what they feel, say and do!~

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.40  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.39    one month ago

Black and white, Tex.  Your own words, defending racism.  Everyone here can read and know them for what they are.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.41  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.19    one month ago
Look, I get people get all riled up about Indians "losing their lands" and all, but every country in the world belonged to someone else at some point or another.

Most other countries didn't agree to treaties with the indigenous people guaranteeing them specific land, rights, and support the US government broke all of them and then passed new laws to take away land and rights. 

 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.1.42  Nowhere Man  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.28    one month ago
Playboy: "Angela Davis claims that those who would revoke her teaching credentials on ideological grounds are actually discriminating against her because she's Black. Do you think there's any truth in that?"

Wayne: "With a lot of Blacks, there's quite a bit of resentment along with their dissent, and possibly rightfully so. But we can't all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the Blacks. I believe in white supremacy until the Blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don't believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people."

Context matters, selectively using quotes to highlight a racialist impression when that is farthest from the truth used to be called twisting the truth...

And as justification for calling people what they aren't.....

A lie is a lie.... and claiming John Wayne is a racial bigot based upon a twisted lie is a lie...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.43  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @3.1.41    one month ago

You may rehash that all you want, it has been done many times here with always the same results.

You certainly don't need me to rehash it with you.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.44  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.42    one month ago
I believe in white supremacy until the Blacks are educated to a point of responsibility

Claiming this statement is not racist is living in denial.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.45  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.40    one month ago
Black and white, Tex.

Which is exactly why your obtuseness is so startling.

Your own words, defending racism. 

Your own mind, inventing what you wish to see!

Everyone here can read and know them for what they are.

The first part is undoubtedly true, the second part is yet to be decided. No posts here indicate that part to be true.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.46  Sean Treacy  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.6    one month ago

hy bother with actual history when it's easier to call someone a racist/bigot..

yes. Let's deflect to an interview an old man gave over 50 years ago and point out  how outdated his opinions are.

I always wonder people are so solipsistic as to think the same thing isn't going to happen to them and their opinions?  Because if that's the standard, everyone on this board can be dismissed or demonized on the basis that people will likely find some of their opinions vile 50 years after they are dead.   

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.47  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.43    one month ago

Yup, facts are difficult to dispute.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.48  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.45    one month ago
Which is exactly why your obtuseness is so startling.

No, Tex.  You would like for us to not recognize your words for what they are, which is a defense of racism.  IOW, we're not nearly as obtuse as you'd like us to be - obtuse enough to just accept that defense of bigotry without calling it out.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.49  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.46    one month ago

And yet there were people at the same time frame that didn't say things like he did.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.50  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.48    one month ago
You would like for us to not recognize your words for what they are, which is a defense of racism. 

No, I would like people to be able to read and comprehend what they read instead of projecting. I know it is a lost cause here.  

IOW, we're not nearly as obtuse as you'd like us to be - obtuse enough to just accept that defense of bigotry without calling it out.

Obtuse enough to continue to project and ignore what is written.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.51  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @3.1.47    one month ago
Yup, facts are difficult to dispute.

You let me know when you accomplish something when you rehash old stuff.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.52  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @3.1.49    one month ago
And yet there were people at the same time frame that didn't say things like he did.

And there are people who disagree with you right now.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.53  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.52    one month ago

And not all people say they were white supremacist back then.

I actually could care less about some future date as I will not be here.

Yet in context, who's comments would sound better as a whole?

People saying he made a racist statement or the people denying it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.54  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.20    one month ago
And you are attacking those calling out racism.

Really?

Tell us Sandy: are Native Americans morally superior to all other Americans?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.55  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.54    one month ago
Really?

Yes, really.

are Native Americans morally superior to all other Americans?

No, nor have I seen anybody make such a claim.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.56  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.55    one month ago
No, nor have I seen anybody make such a claim.

Did you read the article?

What was the theme of "Dances with Wolves?"

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.57  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.56    one month ago
Did you read the article?

"The article" is your opinion, Vic.  Unless there's another source we don't know about?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.1.58  Nowhere Man  replied to  Ender @3.1.53    one month ago
People saying he made a racist statement or the people denying it.

No one is denying your out of context interpretation of what he said, they have posted the truth, in actual fact, which is what you are rejecting....

Yet in context, who's comments would sound better as a whole?

So in essence you are stating an opinion, an opinion that is factually unsound.... what does that make you?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.59  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.57    one month ago

As is your emotional calling out of people around here. What is not opinion is the actions of certain univerities regarding race. They are in clear violation of the consitution. There won't be any baiting of the Asian Americans filing that lawsuit.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.60  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.58    one month ago

How on the world is it unsound going by the man's own words....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.61  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.58    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.1.62  Nowhere Man  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.61    one month ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.63  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.59    one month ago

Excusing racism is excusing racism, Vic, whether I call  it out or not.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.1.64  Nowhere Man  replied to  Ender @3.1.60    one month ago
How on the world is it unsound going by the man's own words....

What is unsound is the way your side is very selectively choosing his words and ascribing things to them that are not present when the original question is revealed and his complete response is repeated...

But then of course the out of context statement is the bread and butter of bigots in general... (and those that defend the bigotry)

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.1.65  Nowhere Man  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.63    one month ago
Excusing racism is excusing racism, Vic, whether I call  it out or not.

In your opinion... an opinion that is not shared by everyone...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.66  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.63    one month ago
Excusing racism is excusing racism

In other words it is you who defines who is racist?  You talk about the difference between opinion and fact and now you maintain that you determine who is and isn't a racist.

I don't have much time right now, so let me just say that you most likely will never apologize to certain members here, but I have a feeling that one day you will regret it.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.67  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.66    one month ago

A man who declares himself a white supremacist is by definition racist, Vic.  Why do you have problems with word definitions and taking people at their word about their own racist views?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.1.68  Nowhere Man  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.62    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.69  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.64    one month ago

Saying I am going to remain a white supremist says all I need to know.

You can deny it all you want it is plain to see.

You tell people you are going to remain a white supremist until people of colour are more educated and see how far that goes...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.70  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.51    one month ago

Actually, much of it isn't old stuff and can be seen in recent court cases that returned land to tribes. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.71  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    one month ago
was nothing more than a make-believe soldier that he played in the movie while real men were fighting in WWII.

If i remember right , his deferments were based on age at the time (34 which was considered too old in 1941) , his maritial and parental status , as well as past medical history of injuries . way i underdstand it because of this he was told he could do more for the war effort as an actor .   funny thing was that stalin put a "hit " out on him after the war and during the cold war .

a white suprmacist? yet he married strickly women of mexican decent ....i will have to ponder that one .

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.72  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.42    one month ago

I get the context, and he could have said that eh doesn't believe in what Angla Davis or black leadership was saying was saying, and for the record, there were a lot of people who didn't. Even black folks. But he didn't stop at Angela Davis.  

I believe in white supremacy until the Blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don't believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.

Which put his comment over the top. Who says they believe in white supremacy? If a black person said that the white man was inferior, you would call them racist, right? People like Louis Farrakhan say stuff like that. Do you think that black people should be defending him? Of course not. 

So no, Wayne went over the line with that comment, because reverse it, and it's still bigoted. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.73  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.71    one month ago
a white suprmacist? yet he married strickly women of mexican decent ....i will have to ponder that one .

Spanish was always considered more acceptable than black. And that comment had nothing to do with Latinos. And he used those words himself. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.74  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.56    one month ago
What was the theme of "Dances with Wolves?"

That the US government mistreated Indians, which they did. It doesn't imply anything more than that. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.75  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.64    one month ago

Who are they being bigoted to? Themselves? These are white people who know when something is off. That whole line of reasoning is off.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.1.76  Nowhere Man  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.75    one month ago
That whole line of reasoning is off.

In your opinion... an opinion that is not shared by everyone...(not even the majority of people)

Notwithstanding that is...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.77  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.76    one month ago
not even the majority of people

I'd like to see that poll. I think most people would recognize that it is not in their self-interest. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
3.1.78  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.66    one month ago
I don't have much time right now, so let me just say that you most likely will never apologize to certain members here, but I have a feeling that one day you will regret it.

That reads an awful lot like a threat, Vic.  Not that it would be the first one you've made aimed at me.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.79  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.74    one month ago
What was the theme of "Dances with Wolves?"
That the US government mistreated Indians, which they did. It doesn't imply anything more than that

Maybe thats what you got out of it , thats not what i get out of that movie .

 what i got was a combat soldier  trying to find some reason for the conflict he is thrust into  in the begining , later he is sent on request someplace supposedly peaceful.

 in his move he finds the assigned post deserted , filthy , evidence that those before him lived in filth and squalor so he sets out to improve his conditions .

 enter the native americans . an alien culture to John Dunbar , so he sets out to learn about them , just as they set out to learn about him and his people eventually.

About the only mistreatment throughout the whole movie towards any one was towards John Dunbar , a white man , by other white government agents . any thing after his capture happend during the effort to free him from said mistreatment .

 end of the movie Dunbar has a choice to make , he had gotten his diary back, could have gone in and cleared his name , he chose to turn his back on what he once was and go a different path than that he had known prior to coming to this place , i think or it appeared to me , that he came to the sad understanding , even ifhe went back , because of how people were , he would have changed nothing , and likely what he had learned would then be used against those he had come to respect and care for .

It is a period piece , and the things depicted in the movie very seldomly if ever went the way they did in the movie , but its a reflection of when the movie was made of how some people would have liked for things to have happened in this instance .

Ok teacher , there is my book/ movie  review and what it said to me 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.80  Kavika   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.79    one month ago

It's a feel-good story but in reality, it took place in the late 1860s which was in the middle of the Indian wars this story was between Dunbar and the Sioux which at that time were in the middle of the Sioux wars with the US. 

It would be doubtful if he would have been accepted wearing a ''blue coat'' by the Sioux. 

''two socks'' was my favorite character in the movie.

The movie did, finally, show Indians in a much different light than the prior Hollywood movies which was certainly a huge improvement over prior crap they produced about Indians.

I would recommend movies about Indians that are written by Indians and star Indians. we can tell our story much better than others. 

A good start would be ''Indian Horse'' adapted from the award-winning novel by Richard Wagamese, Ojibwe. Produced by Clint Eastwood, who I could expand on but refrain here other than to say that he was a strong supporter of Indians.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.81  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Kavika @3.1.80    one month ago
It's a feel-good story but in reality, it took place in the late 1860s

not the impression i got , it opens during the civil war ,the impression i got from his first commanding officer who wet his pants  was the war was still going on and he had not been given a "battlefield position as of yet". So i take it up til then the war in the east is still going on , now maybe towards the end when troops are showing up in more numbers the war might be over in the east and that would historically fit that more troops went west after the war ended and some decided to stay in the army.

The other thing i saw was we really dont have a time line of how long all this took to take place , months ? healing from his wound would take that , years ? i think it would have taken that long to get to the different points in the movie really.

 now how close to the end of the war is a guess for anyone , and where in history the end is is again anyones guess  it could be years , but its before real hostilities broke out i think ..

 now my favorite characters were the kids who tried to steal his horse and all ended up on their butts . now watching them through the course of the movie and how they changed towards the end , especially the older , bigger/taller one  struck me .

 you have a point about not being accepted as a "blue coat " unless the story starts before hostilities as i said , and the end of the movie is around the times it started to get hot . again no real timeline of seasonal change or how much time had passed .

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.82  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.79    one month ago

Your review was mostly spot on, with the exception of the ending, in which you see that the US army is about to take over the tribe. The ending does make a difference. Read the ending.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.83  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.82    one month ago

 thats the ending i saw , and i see that it took 13 years  from this point for the plains wars to be considered over  and thats generally accepted to be about 1880 or so . i also saw they were not there when the army and their native scouts got there, now the army coming in on horseback? smoldering fire ? day maybe 2 and they, the tribe evaporated into the winds ...Dunbar even commented in the movie in the narration how fast the tribe/band broke camp were packed up and on the move after the buffalo after being told about them . , I like to think for the sake of the movie , Dunbar warned them to stay away from the army if possible even if he couldnt do anything else  .

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.84  Kavika   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.81    one month ago
not the impression i got , it opens during the civil war ,the impression i got from his first commanding officer who wet his pants  was the war was still going on and he had not been given a "battlefield position as of yet".

It could have been earlier during the Civil War but the Sioux wars started shortly after the treaty of Laramie in 1851. In 1866 the Red Cloud war started and the US lost the most men on the plains wars at the battle of Fetterman until Greasy Grass (Little Big Horn).

The Sioux wars are generally said to be from 1851 to 1890 at Wounded Knee.

The Battle of Sugar Point, Leech Lake MN in 1898 is generally considered the last battle of the Indian Wars. The Pillager and Red Lake Bands of Ojibwe defeated the US 3rd Infantry.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.85  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Kavika @3.1.84    one month ago

if i remember right , wounded knee 1 was pretty much the last gasp, and that the people had already been on the reservation system for about 10 years , for those 10 yrs ,80-90 it was more of pacification action and the running down of those that left the reservations  and getting them back. i think that was a shitshow period of US history personally . To me , niether side at that time has clean hands , by trying to tell me one or the other side had the moral high ground , that person is basically trying to tell me to pick up a turd , and which end is the "clean " end . for what happened , there is no excuses for either side .

 daughter currently lives about 5 miles from old ft kearnyand the wagon box battle site  her and SIL are trying to talk me into selling out down here , and moving up there . I can take it up there in small doses , besides , thats their home , not mine .

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.87  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.79    one month ago

I thought it was a good review.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.88  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.8    one month ago

As was Joe Biden.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.89  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.74    one month ago

I was hoping that you would at least think about what I am asking.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.90  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.66    one month ago
In other words it is you who defines who is racist? 

But of course.  Liberals are becoming famous for that.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.91  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.90    one month ago

They are kind of like Matthew Harrison Brady. God talks to them and they talk to us!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.92  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.90    one month ago

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @3    one month ago

the duke was a draft dodger, racist, womanizer, republican...

gee, that's starting to sound familiar....

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.2.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @3.2    one month ago

Hooray for Hollywood

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.2    one month ago
the duke was a draft dodger,

That is an outright lie.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.2.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @3.2    one month ago

Did he run to Canada when he  was a married father of 35?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.2.4  Nowhere Man  replied to  devangelical @3.2    one month ago
the duke was a draft dodger, racist, womanizer

so was Bill Clinton, so I guess you hate Bill just as much correct?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.5  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.2    one month ago

it's as close to the truth as any alt-media citation you have ever linked ...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.6  devangelical  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.2.4    one month ago

... so I guess you agree that the duke was all of those things, correct?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.2.5    one month ago

another comment that is an outright lie.

2 for 2.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.2.5    one month ago
it's as close to the truth as any alt-media citation you have ever linked ...

If you actually believe he dodged the draft, then you clearly can not tell fiction from your fantasies.

You know, just typing doesn't make your wild, silly claim true.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4  pat wilson    one month ago

Do you miss John Wayne ?

“I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility,” the actor said. “I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.”

                                                                                                                                                   John Wayne

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
4.1  Jasper2529  replied to  pat wilson @4    one month ago
“I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility,” the actor said. “I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.”

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. Just offering a broader perspective. Maybe reading and understanding that selective racist comment (and others) should be read within the contexts of Playboy's 1971 interview.

Playboy: "Angela Davis claims that those who would revoke her teaching credentials on ideological grounds are actually discriminating against her because she's Black. Do you think there's any truth in that?"

Wayne: "With a lot of Blacks, there's quite a bit of resentment along with their dissent, and possibly rightfully so. But we can't all of a sudden get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the Blacks. I believe in white supremacy until the Blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don't believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people."

 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.1    one month ago

Yeah, the context is that, in answering a question about one Black woman, he expressed racist views about all Black people.

The context isn't really a good excuse for the racism.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.1    one month ago

Angela Davis was radical pond scum.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.2    one month ago

And he decided that the best way to say that was to give a racist answer encompassing Blacks in general.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.3    one month ago
And he decided that the best way to say that was to give a racist answer encompassing Blacks in general.

Okay, were blacks receiving quality educations in the 1960's and before?

Answer truthfuly.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.4    one month ago

Were Black people denied a quality education?

Answer truthfully...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.4    one month ago
Okay, were blacks receiving quality educations in the 1960's and before?

Some were, and some weren't.  And the same could be said of many whites.

Now, you answer truthfully.  Was anybody suggesting that we "suddenly get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the Blacks"?  Because that's what he was claiming.

Were Blacks in general irresponsible?  Because that's what he claimed, too.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
4.1.7  Jasper2529  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.1    one month ago

Sorry you didn't like it. Did you read the rest of the article? Hope so. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @4.1.5    one month ago
Were Black people denied a quality education? Answer truthfully...

Yes they were.

Which would tend to support Wayne's statement.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.6    one month ago
Some were, and some weren't.  And the same could be said of many whites.

Most blacks were not. if they were, it is highly, HIGHLY doubtful that bussing would have been upheld nationwide.

Now, you answer truthfully.  Was anybody suggesting that we "suddenly get down on our knees and turn everything over to the leadership of the Blacks"?  Because that's what he was claiming.

Not that I am aware of.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.1.7    one month ago
Sorry you didn't like it.

Well, I don't like defenses of racism, so...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.9    one month ago
Not that I am aware of.

There you go.  He was an early propagator of "Replacement Theory", which is an ideology based in racism and fear.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
4.1.12  Jasper2529  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.10    one month ago
Well, I don't like defenses of racism, so...

I'd really like you to stop accusing me of defending racism. Perhaps you missed this part of what I said in comment 4.1, sandy - 

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. Just offering a broader perspective.

The End.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.1.12    one month ago

Ah, yes, a transparent attempt at plausible deniability.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.1.12    one month ago
I'd really like you to stop accusing me of defending racism. Perhaps you missed this part of what I said in comment 4.1 , sandy - 

Yeah, good luck on THAT!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.11    one month ago
There you go.  He was an early propagator of "Replacement Theory", which is an ideology based in racism and fear.

That is freaking hilarious!

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.16  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.8    one month ago

So people purposefully held Black people back from getting an education then use that as an excuse to deny them any leadership roles....

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
4.1.17  Jasper2529  impassed  sandy-2021492 @4.1.13    one month ago
✋🏼
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.15    one month ago

I'm sure you'd like to think so, but his words are exactly what "Replacement Theory" tells white bigots to fear.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.19  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @4.1.16    one month ago

It seems to me rather a reason to deny leadership roles to those who oppose an educated populace.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.18    one month ago
I'm sure you'd like to think so, but his words are exactly what "Replacement Theory" tells white bigots to fear.

uh huh sure it is!

SMH and LOL.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @4.1.16    one month ago
So people purposefully held Black people back from getting an education then use that as an excuse to deny them any leadership roles...

By Jove, I think you got it!

Except Wayne did neither.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.22  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.21    one month ago

Wayne was using education as an excuse

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @4.1.22    one month ago
Wayne was using education as an excuse

So you claim.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.24  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.23    one month ago

And all you have is claims. I am going by actual statements made.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @4.1.24    one month ago
I am going by actual statements made.

Me too, but I take into consideration the context and times.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.26  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.25    one month ago

So in that time frame, all people talked and said they were white supremacists?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @4.1.26    one month ago
So in that time frame, all people talked and said they were white supremacists?

Odd question, I never have heard anyone ask that or even think something like that.

Of course not is the answer.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.28  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.27    one month ago

Yet Wayne did, it is in black and white.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
4.1.29  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @4.1.28    one month ago

Not in living color?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.30  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.1    one month ago

So this is about John Wayne?

How about me calling you out....Can you answer Post # 3.1.54 ?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.31  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.19    one month ago

The educated people might just get their due tomorrow when the SCOTUS decides if Harvard Univerity and other University's discriminated againat Asian-Americans.

That is why I did this little article. It is because of the so-called educated asses.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.32  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.31    one month ago

Boy, that's a real stretch, Vic.  Woke Hollywood daring to recognize that Native Americans are humans has a whole hell of a lot to do with Harvard admissions.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.33  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.32    one month ago

First of all Sandy, woke Hollywood did what I said it did. What Harvard did was more egregious because, as you will find out, it violated the Constitution. You see, Sandy the tribalism and real rascism is coming from the woke left.

I'm calling it out!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.34  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.33    one month ago
woke Hollywood did what I said it did.

Portrayed Native Americans as human beings?  Well, yes, it did.  The question is, why should that bother anybody, and what does it say about those bothered by it?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.35  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @4.1.28    one month ago
Yet Wayne did, it is in black and white.

Have you heard of context?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.36  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.35    one month ago

All I hear is excuses.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.37  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @4.1.36    one month ago
All I hear is excuses.

Yet further proof you hear what you want to hear.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.38  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.37    one month ago

Then exactly what are you doing here if not defending Wayne?

Just pretending? Holy hell some of you all cannot even admit what everyone can see you are doing...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @4.1.38    one month ago
Then exactly what are you doing here if not defending Wayne?

Attempting to explain context to people who refuse to see any.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.40  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.39    one month ago

And what the fuck is your context?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.41  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @4.1.40    one month ago
And what the fuck is your context?

get one of your genius liberal friends to explain it to you.

I am out of fucks to give.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.42  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.41    one month ago

In other words, you have noting to back up what you are supposedly arguing...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.43  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @4.1.42    one month ago
In other words

No, in these very precise words which you chose to edit:

I am out of fucks to give.

There is no need for you to try to rewrite my post, just as there is no need for you to tell me what I think.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5  Ender    one month ago

A fair assessment of the old west?

Ok, how about some towns banned guns from within the town limits.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
5.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Ender @5    one month ago
Ok, how about some towns banned guns from within the town limits.

A few, where the unruly were out of control, and as soon as the real law based upon the constitution had established it's jurisdiction, such ordinances were struck down as the improper avenues of government control they actually were...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.1    one month ago

As soon as real law? So you are saying no one in the old west followed 'real law' or the constitution...

Funny freedom from guns is a big no no is some people's world.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @5.1.1    one month ago

How have Western movies influenced gun control?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Ender  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.2    one month ago

Who said they have?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @5.1.3    one month ago

Sorry, I thought that the topic was Western movies.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
5.1.5  Nowhere Man  replied to  Ender @5.1.1    one month ago
Funny freedom from guns is a big no no is some people's world.

Funny, I am free from dealing with guns in my world cause everyone who knows me would not be foolish enough to bring a gun into a disagreement...

I have sufficient physical possession and knowledge and experience to deal with most gun issues that arise in my life...

AS far as following the "Law" in some of the small hamlets and towns in the old west? Yes, the locals exerted local control until the territories were organized and law circuits were established, federal marshals were assigned...

At that point law was established and the issue became what the person does with his firearm, not about his right to possess one....

Western history clearly supports the ideal that a person is responsible for what he does with his weapons, and doesn't support the notion that the mere possession of or presence of weapons in society is the problem... 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.1.5    one month ago

Someone that is not allowed to carry a weapon in a certain place or area, does not deny them ownership.

Just because I cannot drive my car on a sidewalk doesn't mean I cannot have a car...

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
5.1.7  Nowhere Man  replied to  Ender @5.1.6    one month ago
Someone that is not allowed to carry a weapon in a certain place or area, does not deny them ownership.

That's correct and any private citizen can effectuate that right to limit possession or demand exclusion on any property he owns and has rightful control of...

He can't do it on public land or spaces open to everyone...

Your rights only extend to the tip of your nose.... beyond that, everyone has the equal right to do as their rights allow... In response to your car argument?

I can own any vehicle I have a legal right to own without any government involvement, no licensing to drive, no registrations etc, etc... But as soon as I take that car off my private property, I am subject to the law about licensing and registration... Just like everyone else....

There is no absolute right to possess and operate a car in the public domain enshrined in the document that guarantees everyone's rights like there is for guns....

And there is nothing in the constitution that exempts people that possess firearms from being responsible for what they choose to do with them, anywhere.... Same as there isn't for vehicles....

Your argument is nothing but a personal opinion which only has the value that you ascribe to it, others have the same right to hold different opinions...

The law is the big balance in our system, one has no more rights than anyone else...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.8  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.1.7    one month ago

You are basically stating that gun ownership has special privileges.

Everyone has a right to own a gun just like everyone has a right own buy a car.

It has been ruled that gun ownership can have regulations, just like other things.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
5.1.9  Nowhere Man  replied to  Ender @5.1.8    one month ago
You are basically stating that gun ownership has special privileges.

And you are saying that non-gun owners/possessors should have special protections above and beyond what the constitution guarantee's to everyone...

That is the base political argument of liberals today, and the foundation of the democrat party...

It is also what is dividing this nation and it's society, the ideal that some select people are more worthy than others...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.10  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.1.9    one month ago

What horseshit.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6  Sean Treacy    one month ago

The politicization of tv and movies has made many unwatchable.  Famously, if you watch Law & Order, you'd believe 90% of the murders in New York are committed by rich white people or are directly caused by them.  Racialism dictates stories and it makes them too simplistic  to succeed.  

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
6.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    one month ago

It is a perfect representation of how far racialism has embedded itself in our media today.... Law & Order SVU has become so political now that it is essentially unwatchable... Several of the actors have left the show cause of it...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7  Drinker of the Wry    one month ago

I love stories like this here.  We have a short OpEd about Western movies and how they have changed over time.  That's a topic with 120 years of history that could be commented on.  Numerous actors, plot lines, good guys, outlaws, a legacy of reflections on our culture.  While some tried to stay on topic, we usually go to our favorite spaces - racism and today's politics and the proud boys.

I don't really care about John Wayne's politics or racial thoughts, I liked him in some movies The Quiet Man, The Shootist, Sands of Iwo Jima, Red river, etc and not so much in others, The High and the Mighty, Blood Alley, The Barbarian and the Geisha, ect.  

I can appreciate or dislike an artists work based on their work, not their personality.  As a kid and young adult, I read virtually every Charles Dickens' books, I liked the stories and the period history described.  He was able to make me feel the emotions of his characters.  As excellent an author that he was, he was a complete shit as a husband and father.  

Surprisingly, people are complicated and are capable of good and bad facets simultaneously.  

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
7.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7    one month ago
Surprisingly, people are complicated and are capable of good and bad facets simultaneously.  

That is a truth that is universal...

It is sad that so many want to ignore it for the sake of their own bigotry in the attempt to deny or mask their own from plain view... Political hatred rules the day today, and far surpasses that expressed in the '60's... Today's hatred is palpable....

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.1    one month ago
You know, I don't believe there is a non-bigoted democrat/liberal in this country right now... they reveal it every time they open their mouths...

So you want to complain about hatred while simultaneously saying things like this...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @7.1.1    one month ago

Exactly, why would anyone complain about hatred here?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.1.3  Ender  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.2    one month ago

Why complain about something when they actually engage in it...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.1.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @7.1.3    one month ago

What hatred did you see?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.1.5  Ender  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.4    one month ago

Is there something in conversation that you miss?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.1.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @7.1.5    one month ago

I don’t think so, can you point it out?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.1.7  Ender  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1.6    one month ago

Can you?

For now on I am just going to ask you off the wall questions.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
7.1.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @7.1.7    one month ago

Ok.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7    one month ago
 don't really care about John Wayne's politics

Great post.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.2    one month ago

And the correct answer to that baited hook.

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
8  GregTx    one month ago

Entertaining... thank you for the seed.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9  JohnRussell    one month ago

I started reading this seed and the comments with some interest until I realized it was the same old repetitive stuff. Skipped over a lot of it. 

I'm not sure if John Wayne was racist or just mind numbingly patronizing. His idea about blacks not being educated enough to hold any power in society is silly, but may reflect a popular opinion at the time. Still, it is incredibly offensive. 

As far as Wayne in WW2 goes, he was 34 1/2 years old with children when America entered the war and was not classified 1-A for the draft. Wayne tried to join the military unit that his friend John Ford was in , making documentary propaganda movies for the Defense Dept. but never did because of a mix up in the notification. His first wife said he felt guilty about not serving during the war for the rest of his life. 

-

I saw the seeded article make derogatory comments about Little Big Man, saying it was unAmerican. What was unAmerican about it?  Because it showed US Cavalry committing atrocities? Should Custer be papered over with happy talk? 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
9.1  mocowgirl  replied to  JohnRussell @9    one month ago
I'm not sure if John Wayne was racist or just mind numbingly patronizing.

I agree.  John Wayne was probably his own greatest fan if the truth was known.

For some reason, this seed reminded me of Wayne's film "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" so I googled for some background on it.

The director, John Ford, sounded like a world class tyrant and bully on the set. It seems that Ford tried to incite trouble among his actors during this movie in many ways.  I googled for info on if Wayne or Strode ever interacted off the set in a peaceable manner but did not find anything.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance - Wikipedia

Another condition imposed by the studio, according to Van Cleef, was that Wayne be cast as Doniphon. Ford resented the studio's intrusion and retaliated by taunting Wayne relentlessly throughout the filming. "He didn't want Duke [Wayne] to think he was doing   him   any favors," Van Cleef said. [10]   Strode recounted that Ford "kept needling Duke about his failure to make it as a   football   player", comparing him to Strode (a former   NFL   running back), whom he pronounced "a real football player". (Wayne's football career at   USC   had been curtailed by injuries.) He also ridiculed Wayne for failing to enlist during   World War II , during which Ford filmed a series of widely praised combat documentaries for the   Office of Strategic Services   and was wounded at the   Battle of Midway , [11]   and Stewart served with distinction as a bomber pilot and commanded a bomber group. "How rich did you get while Jimmy was risking his life?" he demanded. Wayne's avoidance of wartime service was a major source of guilt for him in his later years. [12]   Another credible explanation is that Ford kept Wayne off balance to intensify the focus and power of his performance.

Stewart related that midway through filming, Wayne asked him why he, Stewart, never seemed to be the target of Ford's venomous remarks. Other cast- and crew-members also noticed Stewart's apparent immunity from Ford's abuse. Then, toward the end of filming, Ford asked Stewart what he thought of Strode's costume for the film's beginning and end, when the actors were playing their parts 25 years older. Stewart replied, "It looks a bit   Uncle Remussy   to me." Ford responded, "What's wrong with Uncle Remus?" He called for the crew's attention and announced, "One of our   players   doesn't like Woody's costume. Now, I don't know if Mr. Stewart has a prejudice against Negroes, but I just wanted you all to know about it." Stewart said he "wanted to crawl into a mouse hole", but Wayne told him, "Well, welcome to the club. I'm glad you made it." [10] [13]

Ford's behavior "...really pissed Wayne off," Strode said, "but he would never take it out on Ford," the man largely responsible for his rise to stardom. "He ended up taking it out on me." While filming an exterior shot on a horse-drawn cart, Wayne almost lost control of the horses and knocked Strode away when he attempted to help. When the horses did stop, Wayne tried to pick a fight with the younger and fitter Strode. Ford called out, "Don't hit him, Woody, we need him." Wayne later told Strode, "We gotta work together. We both gotta be professionals." Strode blamed Ford for nearly all the friction on the set. "What a miserable film to make," he added. [14]

I didn't know who Woody Strode was.

Woody Strode - Wikipedia

Strode was born in   Los Angeles . His parents were from New Orleans; his grandmother was African-American and " part Cherokee " and his grandfather was an African-American who claimed his own grandmother was   Creek . [2]

He attended   Thomas Jefferson High School   in South East Los Angeles and college at   UCLA , where he was a member of   Alpha Phi Alpha   fraternity. His world-class   decathlon   capabilities were spearheaded by a 50 ft (15 m) plus   shot put   (when the world record was 57 ft (17 m)) and a 6 ft 5 in (1.96 m)   high jump   (the world record at time was 6 ft 10 in (2.08 m)). [3]

"I got a cultural education—majored in history and education," he said in a 1971 interview. "Never used it, but I could walk into the White House with it now." [3]

Strode posed for a nude portrait, part of   Hubert Stowitts 's acclaimed exhibition of athletic portraits shown at the   1936 Berlin Olympics   (although the inclusion of black and Jewish athletes caused the   Nazis   to close the exhibit). [4] [5]

After the war, he worked at serving subpoenas and escorting prisoners for the L.A. County District Attorney's Office. [10]  Strode and Kenny Washington were two of the first African-Americans to play in major college programs and later the modern  National Football League  (along with  Marion Motley  and  Bill Willis , who signed with the contemporary rival  All-America Football Conference ), playing for the  Los Angeles Rams  in 1946.

When out on the road with the team, Strode had his first experience with racism, something he wasn't aware of growing up in Los Angeles. "We were unconscious of color. We used to sit in the best seats at the Coconut Grove (a nightclub in the  Ambassador Hotel ) listening to  Donald Novis  sing. If someone said, 'there's a Negro over there,' I was just as apt as anyone to turn around and say 'Where?'" [12]  He also said, "On the Pacific Coast there wasn't anything we couldn't do. As we got out of the L.A. area we found these racial tensions. Hell, we thought we were white." [13]

While making  Pork Chop Hill  he became a close friend of director  John Ford

During Ford's declining years Strode spent four months sleeping on the director's floor as his caregiver, and he was later present at Ford's death. [22]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  mocowgirl @9.1    one month ago

I'm pretty sure that Wayne and Ford were actually good friends.  John Ford was apparently a very demanding director with an authoritarian streak, but John Wayne admired John Ford very much. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
9.1.2  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.1    one month ago

They were very good friends, in fact such friends that Ford would lend his yacht, (the Araner formerly the IX-57 USS Araner (ex Faith)) to Wayne for vacations... (Ford was forced by the IRS to sell the yacht by the IRS after using it in the movie Donovan's Reef) she is still homeported today in Honolulu... He often sailed it down Mexico way with a boatload of movie stars, (including John WayneWard BondMaureen O'HaraPreston Foster, Gregory Peck and Wingate Smith for example) on board for vacations....

Ford's directorial style was to imbue the characters with emotion and then have them do the scene, he did it with everyone he worked with and spared nobody when doing it... Nobody liked it but everyone wanted to make movies with John Ford....

Wayne developed the same technique for movies when he was working with young actors like in the Hell Fighters to get the guys to really get into the parts they were trying to depict...

Everybody wanted to do a movie with Wayne, even Clint... (which Wayne refused)

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Quiet
10  squiggy    one month ago

Arguing, or even caring, about an actor's personal, political opinions is what must give rise to to the endless pontifications from Hollywood asshats.

As a kid, I thought Bonanza was pretty good but came to realize that HopSing jusssst might not be a real name.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
10.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  squiggy @10    one month ago

True enough, but that is the premise of this article. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
11  mocowgirl    one month ago

The entire recorded history of our species is filled with endless brutality and atrocities of men banding together to build and topple empires regardless of skin color or region.

Why?

Is this mindset inherent in the male gender of our species to subjugate or be subjugated?  To endlessly compete for power, wealth and territory?  To compete for desirable mates in a rutting season that ends with their last breath?

Can the males of our species ever evolve beyond this primitive, animalistic mindset or will the males continue to wage endless wars and play an endless Game of Thrones?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
12  mocowgirl    one month ago

As far as westerns go, I was raised watching them.  Not only are they racist, but they are also sexist.  The male lead can be shot to Hell with a broken leg, but he has to do the heroic thing to walk 10 miles to get help for the perfectly healthy woman/women who could have done the same thing in half the time. 

Also, John Wayne as McClintock cheating on his wife, allowing his ranch hand to spank his grown daughter and then humiliating and spanking his wife is an example of how little women and daughters were valued in Westerns and US society from the nation's conception through the 1960s.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
13  JBB    one month ago

The best Western of all, Little Big Man, came out 52 years ago in 1970.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
13.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JBB @13    one month ago

I loved Little Big Man. 

The best western of all time though is Lonesome Dove. Nothing compares to it. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
13.1.1  mocowgirl  replied to  JohnRussell @13.1    one month ago
The best western of all time though is Lonesome Dove. Nothing compares to it. 

Blazing Saddles.  

I'm including a reaction video because I thought it was good.  The comments on youtube are informative about today's attitudes about a 70s film that probably couldn't be made today.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
13.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  mocowgirl @13.1.1    one month ago

Great movie. It is a parody of a genre though, not of that genre. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
13.1.3  mocowgirl  replied to  JohnRussell @13.1.2    one month ago
Great movie. It is a parody of a genre though, not of that genre. 

True.  Rustlers' Rhapsody with Tom Berrenger is another favorite parody.

I own thousands of hours of western movies and shows - Hopalong Cassidy, Gene Autry, Roy Rogers, Tex Ritter, The Cisco Kid, John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Brisco County, Jr., etc.

Some I still enjoy, but I view them with a much more critical mind on how people are portrayed.

I read Lonesome Dove.  I found all of the characters pretty much disgusting.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
13.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  mocowgirl @13.1.3    one month ago

Never read the book. I dont read real long novels anymore. 

The movie is "macho" I suppose , which might offend some, but it is much more than that, it is about loss and gain, feelings of love and duty and honor, regret and exploration. In other words it is about life. 

Probably the best thing ever made for tv outside of Band Of Brothers. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
13.1.5  mocowgirl  replied to  JohnRussell @13.1.4    one month ago
The movie is "macho" I suppose , which might offend some, but it is much more than that, it is about loss and gain, feelings of love and duty and honor, regret and exploration. In other words it is about life. 

I don't find it offensive.  I just don't view the characters as having any positive societal value.

I agree it is about some men's lives. Lives that demean women and children and showcase men as unintelligent, clueless shells drifting through life mostly using others for self-gain.  

In today's world, these types of men are probably often known as incels.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
13.1.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  mocowgirl @13.1.5    one month ago

Gus McCrae was as far from being an incel as I can imagine.  

To me, a major strength of the book is the dialogue involving Gus McCrae; the very smart and savvy Clara who might have become Gus's wife and Wilbarger, the rancher that claimed to have gone to Yale. I also enjoyed Po Campo, the cook.

A major weakness was the mostly one-dimensional characters, excepting those I've mentioned. 

That said, an epic story that I greatly enjoyed on the page and on TV.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
14  mocowgirl    one month ago
The western was reflecting social changes and the way we, as Americans interpreted our own history. By the 1970's there were radical forces at play in our society.

In 1970, The Cheyenne Social Club was released.  A film about a cowboy inheriting a whorehouse from his brother.  The cowboy (Stewart) had a viewpoint that prostitution was wrong, but since the women enjoyed the lifestyle so much, he just didn't have the heart to put them out of work and signed the house over to them.  

So, while the Native Americans were finally being recognized as humans who had dignity and should be treated accordingly, women were still being portrayed as perfectly content being a man's toy.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
15  magicschoolbusdropout    one month ago

Today the values that were once celebrated in the American western are no longer part of the story.

Nope !

Brokeback Mountain !

In Wyoming in 1963, cowboys  Ennis Del Mar  and  Jack Twist  are hired by foreman Joe Aguirre to herd his sheep through the summer on grazing pastures on Brokeback Mountain. After a night of heavy drinking, Jack makes a pass at Ennis. While initially reluctant, Ennis becomes receptive, and he and Jack have sex in their tent.

Where Boys can be Girls, and Where the Men Aren't .

What more can you expect from a Grazer SHEEP HERDER

LOL !

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
15.1  Ender  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @15    one month ago

I have to ask...Do you think there were no gay people back in the old west?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
15.1.1  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Ender @15.1    one month ago
I have to ask...Do you think there were no gay people back in the old west?

Probably..... And Really don't give a shit !

Per the articles "Western Movies" theme scenario, "Today the values that were once celebrated in the American western are no longer part of the story" (which my comment was based on) !

Did you miss that part ?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
15.1.2  Ender  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @15.1.1    one month ago

What values were those? That men were men?

I didn't know the meaning of being a man was shooting people and fighting.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
15.1.4  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Ender @15.1.2    one month ago
What values were those? That men were men?

And Women were Women !

Tada !

I didn't know the meaning of being a man was shooting people and fighting.

Apparently... Back then it was. Didn't you take "American History" in School ?

Oh .... and Apparently... These days....it STILL means that.

Watch the Now News much ?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
15.1.5  Ender  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @15.1.4    one month ago

Like the women subservient barefoot and pregnant no doubt.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
15.1.6  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Ender @15.1.5    one month ago
Like the women subservient barefoot and pregnant no doubt.

Is that one of those ..... What they really Meant Response Comments, like the "Left" does for Their Loved Politicians too ?

You LOVE ME ?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
15.1.7  Ender  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @15.1.6    one month ago

What it meant was you could clear these things up very simply yet you would rather claim being a victim.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
15.1.8  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Ender @15.1.7    one month ago
yet you would rather claim being a victim.

You should really stop making stuff up.

Do tell where "I", Claimed to be a "Victim" !

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
15.1.9  Ender  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @15.1.6    one month ago
Is that one of those ..... What they really Meant Response Comments

Sounds like playing victim to me...

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
15.1.10  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Ender @15.1.9    one month ago
Sounds like playing victim to me...

hmmmmmm..... Sounds Like ..... or IS ?

What's your definition of IS ?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
15.1.11  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @15.1.5    one month ago

I enjoy woman's stylish footwear and my wife and I had no more children that our ages and income and desire could afford.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
15.1.12  devangelical  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @15.1.11    one month ago
I enjoy woman's stylish footwear

you must have small feet. please extend my condolences to your wife.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
15.1.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @15.1.12    one month ago

Good one, but why do you think my wife is sorry about my foot size?  Do you use your feet to mitigate other inadequacies?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
15.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @15.1.13    one month ago

Some dumbfucks think foot size and penis size are related.

Usually the same folks who claim they 'follow the science".

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
15.1.15  Ender  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @15.1.11    one month ago

There was a comedy about a couple going to have sex back in the day. I can't remember what the movie was but it took the woman an hour to take off all the clothes and accessories.

It might have been Victorian times but it was hilarious.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
15.1.16  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @15.1.15    one month ago

My wife and I have long enjoyed giving each other a foot massage. She also greatly enjoys me sucking on her toes.  If it feels good and is consensual, do it.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
15.1.17  Ender  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @15.1.16    one month ago

TMI !  Haha

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
15.1.18  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @15.1.14    one month ago

... while some dumbfucks are triggered by their insecurities and then reveal them publicly.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
15.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @15.1.18    one month ago
while some dumbfucks are triggered by their insecurities and then reveal them publicly.

Following the 'science', I see!

LMAO!

 
 

Who is online

Jasper2529
Ozzwald
Wishful_thinkin
Texan1211
magicschoolbusdropout
Trout Giggles
Kavika
Jeremy Retired in NC


28 visitors