New Hollywood Film Casts Old West Cowboys as ‘Imperialists’
Posted on June 19, 2008
-By Warner Todd Huston
What’s history for if Hollywood and our other entertainment industries can’t take it and warp it to fit a current, partisan political agenda? In yet another example of Hollyweird’s foolishness, we have a new Robert Downey, Jr. vehicle that casts the American Cowboy as an “imperialist”. Of course, they will dress it up and try to hide this absurd message by having an alien invasion occur during a skirmish between Cowboys and Indians in the late 1800’s, forcing the two human enemies to unite to fight the aliens. This is supposed to be an “allegory.” Yes, with this “pulpy mix of the sci-fi and Western genres,” we have “allegory” in the fact that the space aliens are trying to invade and conquer the Earth just like the cowboys were doing to the poor, benighted natives. Just once I’d like to see a movie present Indians as real, three dimensional people instead of infantilized, victims.
After Downey’s great success with “Iron Man,” it is now reported that he is in talks to join “Cowboys and Aliens,” from Imagine Entertainment, a film based on a so-called graphic novel of the same name.
The story centers on an Old West battle between the Apache and Western settlers, including a former Union Army gunslinger named Zeke Jackson (Downey), that is interrupted by a spaceship crashing into the prairie near Silver City, Ariz.
Sounds “B” movie-like, but here is where we get the preachy “allegory.”
The story draws a parallel between the American imperialist drive to conquer the “savage” Indians with its advanced technology and the aliens’ assault on Earthlings, who must join together to survive the invaders’ attack.
Great, another example of a movie trying to be “relevant.”
I remember when the movie “Tombstone” came out there was an interview with the director that had me shaking my head, amazed at the blatant foolishness of Hollywood as they do their best to mangle real history so that they can “say something” about a problem we are having today.
In a radio interview in 1993, director George P. Cosmatos claimed that he was making another one of those pointless, Hollywood “allegories” by a costuming decision made for the enemies of Wyatt Earp and his brothers — those who stood as the law in Tombstone, Arizona. Director Cosmatos had all the cowboys wearing a red sash around their waist because, he claimed, this sash was an “allegory” to today’s “gang colors” and he was trying to draw a parallel between today’s violent drug gangs and the cowboys that faced the Earps in 1881.
It was all foolishness, of course. The so-called Cowboy “gang” that really faced the Earps in 1881 was hardly anything like a gang, even as gangs existed then, much less any sort of allegory to the sort of violent street gangs that infests our society today. Cosmatos even had several historical western figures involved in the Tombstone fight that had no role at all in the real event. Figures such as Curly Bill Brocius and Johnny Ringo made unnecessary appearances in Cosmatos’ film. The movie also completely ignored the fact that Wyatt Earp was a crook, card sharp and bunko artist or that Doc Holliday was likely responsible for a stage coach robbery that was blamed on the Clantons, an event that contributed to the two camps being angry at each other.
But, let’s not let reality and facts get in the way of a movie based on “history.” Just as this new movie mistakenly uses the “allegory” of “imperialism” as a way to illustrate what cowboys were doing during the great American westward expansion between 1850 and 1900.
It isn’t just the movie taking this silly so-called allegory track, either. The original comic book also had this simple-minded point to make.
Sporting some of the most primitive and child-like art I’ve seen in a comic for a long time, this book grandly labeled a “graphic novel” infantilizes the American Indian at the same time as it tries to elevate him to the heights of nobility, a fate all too often bestowed by condescending liberals on the many and varied cultures that constituted the native peoples of this continent.
Here are the first few lines of this comic:
Every conqueror believes himself moved by a higher power. Imperialist’s actions are always justified, by necessity, compassion, or divine providence.
For those who believed in it, Manifest Destiny was a noble endeavor — a God-given duty to spread the principles of the United States throughout the world in general and North America in particular.
For those who stood in the path of the expansion of the territory of the still young United States of America, it was something else altogether.
The European settlers had superior technology, but even more dangerous than that they believed they had the right — the duty, even, to bring these ‘merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions”*, to heel.
The American frontier was pushed ever westward with no thought of the impact this would have on the native population. Disease, displacement, slavery and warfare killed millions.
Entire tribes were wiped out and the survivors forced to bow to the colonists’ will.
Of course, nowhere is it mentioned that the “native population” did the very same thing — perhaps on a smaller scale, of course — to members of other tribes, who also constituted the “native population.” Wiping them out, chasing them from their homes and enslaving them as well as stealing from them. And they were doing this for thousands of years before America was founded by those eeevil white men from Europe.
Worse, this sort of Pabulum always treats all Indians as if they were mere Indians, as if there was no difference between the peoples. This uninformed take on the history of Indians also seems to forget that some tribes worked with Americans and worked with Americans against their own enemies in other tribes, at that! Yes, many Indian tribes worked with “whites” to wipe out other Indians.
On top of all of that, this sort of anti-intellectual, simplistic look at history gives short shrift to the real advances that is the United States of America and distills all the amazing things this country has done for the world to one, anti-American, and uninformed meme of hypocrisy and avarice.
In light of that, it’s no wonder that Hollyweird loves this badly drawn little comic book. It makes America a place of thieves, liars and murderers. Just the sort of thing that Hollyweird loves.
(Photo credit: www.guyville.com)
» Filed Under Education, History, Liberal Media/Bias, News, Revisionism
Trackback URL
Comments
15 Responses to “New Hollywood Film Casts Old West Cowboys as ‘Imperialists’”
Leave a Reply
I agree the director of Tombstone took several liberties with history, however I respectfully disagree with some of your assertions. First off, the only ‘evidence’ that Doc Holliday was involved in stagecoach robberies was rumor mill. It also helped that his ticked off, drunk girlfriend was talked into giving an admission by Johnny Behan. Second, Curly Bill was involved in the ambush/murder of one of the Earp Brothers. Wyatt may not have been angelic, and he did admit later in life he had an issue with gambling, however just dismissing him as a plain old crook is jumping the gun. In Dodge City he found a drunk with $500 in cash and was praised that the drunk kept his money. While I agree with you on most topics here, the Earp/Clanton has to be researched carefully because there is a lot of ‘word of mouth’ going around passing as fact.
There is also the evidence that Doc rode into town on a lathered horse just before news of the robbery hit town and he refused to tell anyone where he was!
As to Curly Bill, I was talking about all before the Tombstone fight at the corral. He really wasn’t much involved before then.
And I vehemently disagree that Wyatt is much else than a crook.In my estimation, his career as a “lawman” was nothing but a smokescreen to hide his criminal behavior behind. In fact almost every one of the Earps were little else but gamblers and crooks (Except Virgil who stayed a lawman and did well into his old age).
Dear Mr. Huston;
I don’t know who you are or what your background in the subject of Wyatt Earp and Tombstone is, but you obviously don’t know anything about it. Let me give you a little history lesson. My credentials are brief. I’ve authored 4 books about Tombstone and or the life of Wyatt Earp. I also happen to be friends with Jeff Morey, who was the technical advisor for the movie, Tombstone. He is probably the top expert in the field, and a very good Republican, as was Wyatt Earp.
One of the books I wrote, TRAVESTY: Frank Waters’ Earp Agenda Exposed, is based on the original manuscript of The Earp Brothers of Tombstone, which appears to be the source of your completely incorrect , liberal dis-information about Wyatt Earp. It took 517 pages and 2223 footnotes to debunk the very liberal Frank Waters, and the sort of mis-information you are penning.
Let’s start with Frank Waters. He was a liberal bastion. He never told the truth, basically lying about his whole life. He had an agenda against the Earps. I spent 10 years trying to discover what it was and have come to the conclusion he was jealous of Stuart Lake’s success with Frontier Marshal. If you are using The Earp Brothers of Tombstone for your facts, you are in deep trouble. It is basically one big shinning lie, the most inaccurate of all the books written about the Earps.
Wyatt Earp was a very good guy. He was a life-long Republican. He was a Christian. In his later life, when young writers would come to talk to him about his past, he would talk to them about “The Almighty” and their relationship with Him. Not long before his death in 1929, he and Tom Mix were making a list of the things he was going to ask The Almighty when he arrived in Heaven. I have spent the last 15 years of my life obsessed with Wyatt Earp. What I can tell you is that I suspect he was undercover Secret Service. He was a very good lawman with an excellent, world-class reputation. His reputation was not even disputed until Frank Waters lied about it in his book. His detractors all, each and every one of them, can be traced directly back to The Cowboys or their associates in Cochise County. Everything you have said about him is factually incorrect.
Doc Holiday was not involved in the stage robbery that cost Bud Philpot his life. John Behan and Milt Joyce managed to get Big Nose Kate drunk. When she was drunk she wanted to fight Doc. My nascent publishing company will be publishing a biography of Big Nose Kate in the near future. There is a possibility that she was having an affair with John Ringo at the time. The moment she was sober, she recanted the story and left town. The eye-witness Frank Waters uses to continue the story is to make up words and put them on the mouth of John Slaughter, another very bad guy. Years later, his wife, Viola, admitted the person they saw on the horse that had been rented from the stable there in Charleston, was in fact, Ike Clanton – not Doc Holiday.
The Cowboys were called The Boys in Lincoln County. The group, roughly made up of up to 300 or so outlaws was the first example of organized crime in the US. Actually, I think it is the 2nd, Quantrill being the first. In fact, a few of the Cowboys, John Ringo included, had roots that go back to Quantrill. It is as if there is this genealogical tree for outlaws. I’ve been trying to connect Old Man Clanton to Quantrill. To date, all I can come up with is antidotal evidence.
The outlaws known as The Cowboy basically had their genesis in Texas during the “Hoodoo” or Mason County War. Expediency required them to head farther west. Most gravitated to Lincoln County, where they were involved in the Lincoln County War. When John Slaughter was given the option of prison or leaving the New Mexico Territory, he chose the latter. As he left New Mexico he took with him the following drovers: Curly Bill Brocius, John Ringo, Charley Snow, Frank Stilwell, Billy Claiborn, Wes Fuller, etc. Get the picture. Outlaw activity did not really begin in Cochise County until after Slaughter arrived with these individuals.
At this time “Cowboys” were known as drovers. They were considered the lowest of the low. The only exceptions were the former Buffalo Soldiers who would be recruited to run the operations and as many former “Black African” slaves as possible. At least 60% of all drovers were Black. They were the good guys. The white drovers were some of the lowest forms of humanity in the Wild West. They were considered the lowest of the low classes. This myth of the “cowboy” comes out of Hollywood. There was a difference between drovers and ranch hands, which was an honorable profession.
Currently there are several dozen writers and researchers working on the “Cowboys”. To date we have about 150 names of men in and out of Cochise County who were involved in outlaw activity. They were aided and abetted by the corrupt Democratic political machine of which John Behan was the top cog. These men kept the outlying areas of Cochise terrorized. They stole from, bullied, and intimidated ranchers to the point where those who did not co-operate were murdered. Cochise County was in a state of armed insurrection when Wyatt wnt on his famous vendetta ride.
During the weeks leading up to the Gunfight at the OK Corral in October, 1881, there were at least 2 Secret Service agents in Tombstone. We know the name of one of them. I have evidence that the moment the Earps and Doc started “The Walk” to the OK Corral, this individual wired the President of the United States. Within five minutes following the incident he sent another wire, telling him the Earps were successful.
I have at least 100 pages of official documentation between the Mexican government, military and state department with our military and state department concerning the activities of The Cowboys. Their activities in Mexico had reached the point where Mexico was going to invade Cochise County and take them out. Wyatt was acting under orders when the eliminated most of the threat during his vendetta ride.
Cosmatos took a few historical liberties, but very few. In fact, aside from those ‘red sashes’ he did an excellent job. But then, Jeff had already done the groundwork before Cosmatos took over as the director. John Ringo and Curly Bill Bricious were integral parts of the story. I suggest you do not impugn Jeff Morey’s research or the history behind Tombstone, which is probably 95% correct. To do so is to make yourself look foolish.
SJ Reidhead
The Pink Flamingo
Author of:
TRAVESTY: Frank Waters’ Earp Agenda Exposed
A Church for Helldorado (Endicott Peabody’s 1882 Earp Era Diary)
The 2nd Mrs. Earp
Dust Devil
Numerous articles about Wyatt Earp
I simply do not buy your “Wyatt was a good guy” meme. As to “writing a book,” that is not necessarily any indication you are necessarily right about your assertions. I’ve read quite a bit about Wyatt, both his slavish supporters (like yourself) and his ardent detractors, and my opinion is that he was a crook and a thief.
I just don’t buy the Stuart Lake fantasy you are promulgating.
Oh, Geez, another anti-Earp person.
What books have you read?
Sorry, but I’m considered one of the top experts in the life of Wyatt Earp and Tombstone. It isn’t slavish devotion, just factually correct.
How can you claim to be “conservative” and be devoted to Frank Waters’ liberal lies?
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
I don’t know of a single reputable historian who still believes any of the many lies contained in the Frank Waters book. If you do the necessary original source material research on Earp, you would also know that his book is far more fiction than fact.
But there is an even easier way to discover the truth. Get a copy of the recently discovered original manuscript of Waters’ book – and then compare it with what he had published. Virtually all of the negative things Waters had Allie Earp saying, are NOT in the orignal manuscript written after he had interviewed her. All these lies were later added by him to make his book more saleable.
So before you repeat any more of the ‘liberal’ lies about Earp – which come from this one source – read what Waters really wrote before he fictionlized it for his publisher.
Warner,
I served as the historical consultant for the film TOMBSTONE. The red shash idea came from Kevin Jarre. Kevin wrote the script and served as the original director on the film. Historically, it appears some of the “cowboy gang” greatly admired Wild Bill Hickok. Since Hickok liked to wear a red sash, Jarre simply appropriated that fashion statement as a way to visually identify the cowboys. Modern gang colors had nothing to do with that decision.
As for your take on Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday, I would suggest you read: “WYATT EARP: The life Behind the Legend” by Casey Tefertiller as well as “DOC HOLLIDAY: The Life and Legend” by Gary L. Roberts.
Certainly, you are entitled to your opinion. However, you aren’t necessarily entitled to respect for your opinions. The Earps and Doc Holliday remain controversial figures in Southeastern Arizona. However, some claims you’ve made are completely unsupportable. For instance, Curly Bill Brocius was indeed arrested by Wyatt Earp for shooting Tombstone Marshal Fred White on October 27, 1880. Also, Doc Holliday and Johnny Ringo did indeed come very near to having a shootout on the streets of Tombstone in January of 1882. So, your statements that Brocius and Ringo had nothing to do with the Tombstone conflicts beg reconsideration.
My Best,
Jeff Morey
My book TRAVESTY: is the annotated version of that original manuscript by Frank Waters. Waters’ was so angry with Wyatt Earp and so full of hate that he allowed it to cloud his very reason. After awhile, footnoting the outright lies would make me so angry I would simply footnote with “That’s a lie”. Fortunately my editor would go behind me and tell me to either remove the sentence or document it.
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
Neither Ringo nor Brocius were in the gunfight at the OK corral. Are you saying they were?
My opinion of the Earps and Holliday were formed a while ago, of course. I have not read a book on either of them since the early 1980s. So, if new scholarship has revitalized their reputations, I would not be aware of it. So, I am open to admitting that I could be wrong in my opinion of them if new scholarship has been found on their lives and times to the contrary.
On the other hand, the era doesn’t interest me like it used to (hence why I haven’t read a book about the old west since the 80s), so thanks for the book referrals.
But, I will say this about my only real point made about the movie Tombstone. That sash idea was kitchy, nonsense. It was not based on FACT, it was not REAL, it did NOT HAPPEN. Maybe the cowboys were fond of Wild Bill as you say…. but to claim they wore “gang colors” in the form of a sash is Hollyweird license and NOT REALITY.
I don’t care what Kevin Jarre’s reasons were. It IS NOT HISTORICAL.It is junk history and it is typical of Hollyweird to do things like that.
Hollyweird is one of the reasons that few Americans know anything about history. That and our schools (the main culprit, naturally) don’t bother teaching it.
You have no support for the stupid sash idea. While you blast me for not knowing the “real” Earp and Holliday, you turn around and support the foolish sash thing as unimportant! Seems to me you are not as interested in a truthful portrayal of old west history as you are pretending.
Hypocrisy does not make for good advocacy.
…by the way, I have not read this “Frank Waters” book you keep pointing to. So, please stop with the strawman use of the book, setting up what you claim to be my position only to knock it down.
I never said a word about this Waters book, so your attempts to connect me with it are illegitimate.
If you’ve not read anything since the 1980’s, everything you read was tainted by Waters. The man was nominated 5 times for a Nobel prize in literature. He is a literary icon, so basically everyone took his word at face value. I’m wondering if you’ve not read Paula Mitchell Marks’ And Die in the West – a crock.
There has been some excellent scholarship in the past 15 years or so. Today, when we produce something about the west in general, we have very rigid standards for documentation of every fact we produce.
There was a serious changing of the guard in Earp/Tombstone scholarship in the mid-1990’s brought about by Jeff Morey, Casey Tefertiller, Gary Roberts, Allen Barra, Lyn Bailey, myself, etc. Quite frankly, with the exception of the “classics” by Lake, and that old group of writers, almost everything I use for sourcing has been produced after 1995 or so.
If you were to access one of the newer books by any of the writers above, you would discover well referenced, resourced history and biography with standards that hold up to anything a writer in another field will produce.
We are going back to old newspapers, archives, combing dusty libraries, uncovering microfilm that has long been ignored. Basically we’re leaving no stone unturned. We’ve become an annoying nuisance if you want the truth of the matter, debating the most intricate of facts. We’ve basically turned the life of Wyatt Earp and the Tombstone store into a science, with every fact documented.
Now as to attaching you with the Waters’ book, the very lines you are using to condemn Wyatt Earp and muddy the story are basically from Waters. Academic writers have used it to the point where it is almost laughable.
Sorry, but you are arguing with the very top people in the ‘field’. We know our subject. Since you admit not being familiar with the newer research and the newer writers, your entire argument is mote.
The problem is you are out of touch and know absolutely noting of the ground-breaking research that has been done to completely change the direction of tale. Heck, we now have a detailed study of the entire Spicer Inquest by a law professor from Northwest University.
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
Warner,
TOMBSTONE was not presented as a documentary. It was a fictional movie based on historical incidents produced as an entertainment. Yes, the red shashes were fictional…But, why should any adult get their shorts tied-up in a knot over this?
In the movie – TOMBSTONE, “Curly Bill Brocius” and “Johnny Ringo” were NOT depicted as participants in the O.K. Corral gunfight. Your imagination is getting the better of you.
My Best,
Jeff Morey
I do believe “And Die in the West” By Mitchell Marks WAS the last book on the old west I read, actually. It was one I’d read quite a while after I had stopped reading the latest old west history. I really enjoyed that book as I recall.
As to “arguing” with the “top researchers,” I am not saying you are all wrong. I am saying that my reading causes me to disagree with your claim that Earp was pure as the driven snow. I won’t take the word of a poster here at Stoptheaclu for the matter, but I have alreay said I might be wrong if new scholarship proves my feeling against the Earps wrong. To me, that is enough to close the issue.
Again, I have already said I have not kept up with current scholarship, so you are beating a dead horse there.
Lastly, the word you were looking for in your 7th paragraph above is “moot” not “mote.”
(And I like how you suddenly decided to drop the sash issue which was my main point against the movie all along. I see that you realize you have no leg to stand on with that so have conveniently tried to ignore it.)
I don’t care about the blasted sash. I’m more interested in the way you misrepresented Wyatt Earp and Tombstone history.
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
Once again, it isn’t MY “misrepresentation” if all the scholarship I was familiar with supported my view. It was the leading scholars’ viewpoint I was agreeing with!
If the new scholarship successfully corrects the old, then perhaps I might stand corrected. I have seen none of the stuff you claim successfully does that, though.
I may check out the books recommended above as it has been a long times since I read a book about the old west.
Until then, I see no more reason to carry on a discussion. I do see your passion on the subject. But, such passion just might indicate someone just as unwilling to see the warts in the Earps as those who you castigate for seeing nothing good in them might have had in the past. Until I have seen it, I cannot judge whether it is mere revisionism, or proper revelation.
So, lets just say that there are conflicting opinions with new scholarship currently having the upper hand. I have already said I am out of touch with what is going on in old west research to date. So, I’ll have to leave it at that.