Westerns and America's fractured culture
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
Who is online
102 visitors
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you not write this sentence?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Actually knowing something about Comanches would sure help credibility.
The US Army slaughtered all the Comanches horses to defeat them.
But don't point that out, Kavika. Why bother with actual history/ sarc.
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?
don't be teaching none of that woke CRT american history here........... /s
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just pointed out facts to you, Sean. I didn't in any way justify the killing of children by anyone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Great!!
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]
And Jimmy Stewart.
Good for the actor and white supremacist
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...
Yes, facts are always good!
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...
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."
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...
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?
His own words are "twisted history", eh?
Defending racism. Nice.
Says the party of the proud boys, the oath keepers etc...
Ignoring context and labelling dead people.
Nice.
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.
It would seem that your inability to recognize the truth and spew nonsense is still intact.
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.
Of course you are. And you are attacking those calling out racism.
We all know exactly what you're saying, Tex. We just expect you to own it.
No, it isn't but in 1971 there were plenty of educated blacks and other minorities. That BS excuse doesn't fly.
Typical liberal response here---tell people what they say and do, no matter what the fucking facts are.
Piss poor way to 'debate'.
Not one thing in your posts to me indicate that to me.
Nobody needs to tell you what you're saying. It's all there for us to read, Tex.
Really?
Blacks and Education: What We Learn (theroot.com)
And yet, you and others persist in doing exactly that.
AND there to comprehend.
We comprehend just fine. And we expect you to own your words, which seems to upset you.
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.
Not a thing indicates that is true.
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.
You can keep saying it, Texan. Doesn't make it true.
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.
Apparently, it is completely necessary to keep saying it until it sinks in.
Your denials are pathetic.
That doesn't make him a racist.
My denials are pathetic? That's hilarious. Your comments are a study in apologetics for bigotry, but you object to somebody saying as much.
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.
Yes.
Your projections are duly noted and summarily dismissed as worthless.
About one quarter of one percent of the population of the US at the time.
By the guy whose comments are apologetics for racism.
Well, that holds any weight at all.
TO someone who has exhibited they clearly don't understand.
At least as much weight as some liberal telling others what they feel, say and do!~
Black and white, Tex. Your own words, defending racism. Everyone here can read and know them for what they are.
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.
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...
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.
Claiming this statement is not racist is living in denial.
Which is exactly why your obtuseness is so startling.
Your own mind, inventing what you wish to see!
The first part is undoubtedly true, the second part is yet to be decided. No posts here indicate that part to be true.
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.
Yup, facts are difficult to dispute.
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.
And yet there were people at the same time frame that didn't say things like he did.
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.
Obtuse enough to continue to project and ignore what is written.
You let me know when you accomplish something when you rehash old stuff.
And there are people who disagree with you right now.
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.
Really?
Tell us Sandy: are Native Americans morally superior to all other Americans?
Yes, really.
No, nor have I seen anybody make such a claim.
Did you read the article?
What was the theme of "Dances with Wolves?"
"The article" is your opinion, Vic. Unless there's another source we don't know about?
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....
So in essence you are stating an opinion, an opinion that is factually unsound.... what does that make you?
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.
How on the world is it unsound going by the man's own words....
[deleted]
Excusing racism is excusing racism, Vic, whether I call it out or not.
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)
In your opinion... an opinion that is not shared by everyone...
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.
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?
[Deleted]
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...
Actually, much of it isn't old stuff and can be seen in recent court cases that returned land to tribes.
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 .
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.
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.
Spanish was always considered more acceptable than black. And that comment had nothing to do with Latinos. And he used those words himself.
That the US government mistreated Indians, which they did. It doesn't imply anything more than that.
Who are they being bigoted to? Themselves? These are white people who know when something is off. 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...
I'd like to see that poll. I think most people would recognize that it is not in their self-interest.
That reads an awful lot like a threat, Vic. Not that it would be the first one you've made aimed at me.
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
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.
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 .
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.
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 .
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.
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 .
I thought it was a good review.
As was Joe Biden.
I was hoping that you would at least think about what I am asking.
But of course. Liberals are becoming famous for that.
They are kind of like Matthew Harrison Brady. God talks to them and they talk to us!
the duke was a draft dodger, racist, womanizer, republican...
gee, that's starting to sound familiar....
Hooray for Hollywood
That is an outright lie.
Did he run to Canada when he was a married father of 35?
so was Bill Clinton, so I guess you hate Bill just as much correct?
it's as close to the truth as any alt-media citation you have ever linked ...
... so I guess you agree that the duke was all of those things, correct?
another comment that is an outright lie.
2 for 2.
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.
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
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.
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.
Angela Davis was radical pond scum.
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.
Were Black people denied a quality education?
Answer truthfully...
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.
Sorry you didn't like it. Did you read the rest of the article? Hope so.
Yes they were.
Which would tend to support Wayne's statement.
Most blacks were not. if they were, it is highly, HIGHLY doubtful that bussing would have been upheld nationwide.
Not that I am aware of.
Well, I don't like defenses of racism, so...
There you go. He was an early propagator of "Replacement Theory", which is an ideology based in racism and fear.
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 -
The End.
Ah, yes, a transparent attempt at plausible deniability.
Yeah, good luck on THAT!
That is freaking hilarious!
So people purposefully held Black people back from getting an education then use that as an excuse to deny them any leadership roles....
I'm sure you'd like to think so, but his words are exactly what "Replacement Theory" tells white bigots to fear.
It seems to me rather a reason to deny leadership roles to those who oppose an educated populace.
uh huh sure it is!
SMH and LOL.
By Jove, I think you got it!
Except Wayne did neither.
Wayne was using education as an excuse
So you claim.
And all you have is claims. I am going by actual statements made.
Me too, but I take into consideration the context and times.
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.
Yet Wayne did, it is in black and white.
Not in living color?
So this is about John Wayne?
How about me calling you out....Can you answer Post # 3.1.54 ?
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.
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.
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!
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?
Have you heard of context?
All I hear is excuses.
Yet further proof you hear what you want to hear.
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...
Attempting to explain context to people who refuse to see any.
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.
In other words, you have noting to back up what you are supposedly arguing...
No, in these very precise words which you chose to edit:
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.
A fair assessment of the old west?
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...
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.
How have Western movies influenced gun control?
Who said they have?
Sorry, I thought that the topic was Western movies.
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...
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...
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...
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.
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...
What horseshit.
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.
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...
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.
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....
So you want to complain about hatred while simultaneously saying things like this...
Exactly, why would anyone complain about hatred here?
Why complain about something when they actually engage in it...
What hatred did you see?
Is there something in conversation that you miss?
I don’t think so, can you point it out?
Can you?
For now on I am just going to ask you off the wall questions.
Ok.
Great post.
And the correct answer to that baited hook.
Entertaining... thank you for the seed.
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?
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.
I didn't know who Woody Strode was.
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.
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 Wayne, Ward Bond, Maureen O'Hara, Preston 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)
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.
True enough, but that is the premise of this article.
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?
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.
The best Western of all, Little Big Man, came out 52 years ago in 1970.
I loved Little Big Man.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.