Heroes
of the Old West
by
Ron Liebermann
When
I was growing up in Kentucky in the 1960’s, one of my favorite TV
shows was Davy Crockett.
As
the story went, Davy Crockett was the best hunter, Indian fighter
and politician of his time. He died in Texas trying to fend off
the invading Mexican army. The legend of Davy Crockett belongs
to a collection of stories that are intended to define America’s
national character.
Probably
the most famous American legend after Davy Crockett is Johnny Appleseed.
After Davy and the Pioneers had conquered the frontier, Johnny
set forth on an apple crusade armed with a Bible and cooking pot.
Johnny Appleseed was an actual man named John Chapman, he helped
settlers to comply with Federal law. You had to plant fifty apple
trees if you wanted a free homestead.
Then
there was Pecos Bill, the greatest cowboy who ever lived. Pecos
Bill rode a horse named Widowmaker; the two of them were best friends
UNTIL Sluefoot Sue showed up.
Sluefoot
Sue was a beautiful girl who came riding down the river on the back
of a fish. When Pecos Bill saw her, his belly did flip-flops. So,
he asked Sluefoot Sue for her hand in marriage, and she agreed.
But she had two demands.
First,
she wanted a bouncy bustle (It was the latest style). Second, she
wanted to ride Widowmaker. Unfortunately, things didn’t work out.
As soon as Sluefoot Sue was mounted in the saddle, Widowmaker started
bucking.
Sluefoot
Sue’s bouncy bustle caused her to bounce higher and higher until
the reins broke, and she was bucked into the sky never to be seen
again. Thus, she was punished for three separate crimes: vanity,
conduct unbecoming a lady, and getting between a man and his horse.
The
last of the State legends that I will include in this story is John
Henry, the steel-driving man. He was killed while attempting to
compete with a steam drill. Each of these legends is designed to
speak to some point in the nation's past.
But
State sponsored legends only tell part of the American story. To
really understand the broader sweep of American folklore, you must
also examine American film. Especially the Western as it began early
in this century, and especially the bad guys.
The
first bad guys appeared in a film called The
Great Train Robbery. The villains of this movie board a train
and kill the crew.
Ultimately,
they are destroyed, but at the end of the movie there is an important
scene. A tough looking desperado (played by George Barnes) fires
his six-shooter directly into the camera. This gunslinger would
become the model of masculinity upon which all future Western villains
would be based. And where you have villains, you must have heroes.
So,
let’s examine one of the most important heroes of American film.
The meanest gunslinger of them all: William S. Hart. Hart was a
Shakespearean actor, and a huge fan of Western culture. He brought
the frontier ethos to Hollywood: Solitary individualism and the
cowboy code of silence. Hart was actually one of two pre-depression
Western Heroes. The other was The
Virginian. Played by Gary Cooper, The Virginian was released
in November of 1929, only a month after the stock market crash.
The ruthlessness of both The Virginian and William S. Hart were
designed to reflect a change in values that Washington wanted to
impose on the American people in response to the terrible economic
conditions of the depression. (Never mind who caused the depression
in the first place).
In
particular, Washington wanted to promote the idea that fixing America’s
problems would require ruthlessness and direct physical action.
Now
we must briefly discuss two men who came before Hart and the Virginian:
Tom Mix and Douglas Fairbanks. Tom Mix was the nice guy cowboy.
He carried guns, but he didn’t use them. Instead, he used his lasso
to rope the
bad guys. He was often rescued by his best friend, Tony the Wondorhorse.
Mix represented a model of manhood that was based on strength and
kindness, and he shared the roaring twenties with another screen
hero: Douglas Fairbanks. Fairbanks was the ultimate Anglo Saxon.
He combined athleticism, charm, and good looks, but more importantly,
his characters always portrayed fully integrated men. Fairbanks
sense of humor and charm stood in direct contrast to most of the
other masculine heroes of the American screen that would come later.
Now
that we have discussed the nice guys and the not-so-nice guys, let’s
turn to the gangsters. At the beginning of the great depression,
millions of people were thrown out of work, and some began to feel
that the system of Capitalism had failed. Even though the Communist
party in America had never been strong, Washington launched an all
out anti-communism campaign to promote toughness, individualism,
and self-reliance. It is from these anti-communist roots that the
Gangster hero was born. The most important Gangster movie was called
Little
Caesar.
Hollywood
hoped that when people watched Little Caesar fight and win in the
struggle for money and power, they would be able to experience release
of their own frustrations. Little Caesar was an anti-communist.
So is Fifty Cent.
Thus,
an evolution of American masculinity emerged: The charm and integrity
of Mix and Fairbanks, morphed to become the ruthlessness of Hart
and the Virginian, and then morphed again to become the anti-social
viciousness of Little Caesar. While the story above is incomplete,
it illustrates the role that Washington and Hollywood have played
in shaping the American masculine worldview.
Along
these same lines, Washington constantly reinforces the image of
the frontiersmen because he forms a connection between the Virginian
and the Patriot.
Both are pro-state anti-intellectuals. Hart and the Virginian may
have been tough, but they were not thinking men. They knew instinctively
what was right and wrong and took action. This formula is repeated
again and again by modern actors such as Charles Bronson, Clint
Eastwood, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
To
better illustrate the relationship between the Virginian character
type and the Patriot, look at the two pictures. The picture of Mr.
T above left shows him as a Little Caesar/Virginian blend. The lower
right picture shows him as Patriot. In both images masculine identity
is equated with a lack of introspection. Both are tough anti-intellectuals;
real American men.
If
we use the history of the cinema as a guide, American masculinity
can be expressed through three primary character types;
1.
The Virginian 2. Tom Mix 3. Little Caesar
Hollywood
has actually summed up these character types in a movie called:
The
Man Who Shot Liberty Valence
Starring
John Wayne, this movie was an attempt by Hollywood to come to terms
with the closing of the frontier. It was intended to be a sad look
at the loss of the values of the old West. What makes this movie
special is that it clearly shows the conflict between the three
primary American masculine character types:
John
Wayne (above) as Tom Doniphon plays a ruthless frontiersman (The
Virginian).
Lee
Marvin (right) as Liberty Valence plays an outlaw (Little
Caesar), And
James Stewart (below) as Ransom Stoddard plays an effeminate intellectual
(Tom Mix).
The
premise of the movie is that after the American frontier had been
conquered, the gunslingers would have to be eliminated since their
services were no longer required. But who could get rid of these
bad men? In the movie, two choices are given.
The
first is that the conquered West will have to be civilized by Virginians;
men of action who can meet the bad guys blow for blow. The second
is that the West will be civilized by men of reason; The Mix’s.
In the end, the movie concludes that only Virginians are qualified
to do this job. Like another movie, The
Magnificent Seven, it was a sad farewell to the old West.
In
noting the passing of the men of the West, however, Hollywood created
two replacement heroes: James Bond, and Harry Callahan. Again, they
are extensions of the Virginian/Mix/Caesar formula.
Bond
was designed, above all, to be an employee of the government. In
fact, the central message of all Bond movies is that government
men have to protect the common people. Bond may be tough, but he
is always obedient. The message is clear: Real men follow orders.
And lesser men (non-government men) should never interfere.
The
other government hero was Clint Eastwood as Harry Callahan. But
before we cover Callahan in detail, it’s important to note why Hollywood
brought him into existence. Earlier in the century, two films had
been made in an attempt to address the growing alienation of the
American people from government: The first was Mr. Smith goes to
Washington, filmed in 1939 and the second was On
the Waterfront, filmed in 1954. The theme of both movies was
that government can still be reformed, if you just get rid of the
few bad apples.
When
it became obvious in the 1970’s that the Federal government had
become hopelessly corrupt, Washington responded by ordering Hollywood
to endorse all forms of government; especially law enforcement.
Hollywood
obediently responded by reverting yet again to the Virginian/Mix/Caesar
formula. They created Callahan. Silent, athletic, and willing to
break the law, Callahan became a government superhero. In reality,
Callahan had several roles to play. First, he was intended to send
the message that men of few words (like the Virginian) are necessary
to maintain the social order.
Second,
Callahan made it clear that breaking the rules (like Little Caesar)
is a necessary part of survival, especially for cops. Bond and Callahan
had another thing in common: Both of them were designed to promote
the idea that social unrest is never justified. True men, we are
told, place themselves under the control of government, which is
the only organization that has enough information to make wise decisions.
Thus,
Hollywood and Washington created a complete system of American masculine
mythology. But to understand this mythology you have to understand
the underlying character types.
The
Virginian – Tough, anti-intellectual, pro-state, silent, man of
action.
Tom
Mix – Sensitive, intelligent, honest, fully integrated, good guy.
Little
Caesar – Ruthless, independent, brash, competitive, fighter.
Actually,
The Virginian, Tom Mix, and Little Caesar are not character types.
They are archetypes. What is an archetype? Well, to answer that
you need to know about a psychologist named C.G. Jung. He was an
expert on mythology. Jung discovered that every culture has invisible
heroes. In psychological terms, these heroes are called archetypes.
They can be combined in different ways to create masculine role-models.
Thus, The Virginian, Tom Mix, and Little Caesar archetypes can be
combined to create men like Bond, Callahan, and even a President.
To
illustrate, consider all the recent talk about Ronald Reagan. The
federal government loved Reagan. In their view, he was a tough,
silent law-man, not afraid to stand down the evil Soviets. As a
result, he received the highest honor that the American government
could bestow. He wasn’t Sainted; he was Virginianized.
C.G.
Jung’s most important discovery was that archetypes are responsible
for character development. When he died, his work was continued
by another man: Erik Erikson. Erikson was an expert on the human
life cycle. He was fascinated with the invisible role-models that
Jung had identified. Erikson discovered that If the archetypes can
peacefully coexist within a man, he will reach a position of ego
integrity. If they cannot, the resulting internal conflict will
lead to neurosis.
Thus,
an epic struggle take place in the heart of every young man as he
struggles to achieve this position of ego integrity. In America,
it’s a battle between the three Anglo-Protestant archetypes: The
Virginian, Tom Mix, and Little Caesar. Ultimately, every young American
man must reconcile these three identities, and then choose one who
will serve as a role model for the rest of his life. In general,
Anglo Saxon boys favor the Virginian, Jewish boys favor Tom Mix,
and Black boys favor Little Caesar.
For
such an important life decision, one would think that the American
educational system would be right there, helping young men along
with information and good advice. Obviously, that is not the case.
Why not? Because the country is at war. With the Arabs? No. In the
eyes of Washington, war is a permanent condition. Although the total
number of wars are difficult to estimate, the most important ones
are probably the oil war, the intellectual property war, the currency
war, and the tax war. So, how do you win a war?
By
controlling as much information as possible.
This
leads to a question: What is more important: Giving young men the
knowledge that they need to reach a position of integrity as they
move through the stages of the life cycle, or protecting the State?
The answer, of course, is to give young men the knowledge. Young
men are real; the State is just a collection of special interest
groups, nothing more.
I’ve
already noted that boys who prioritize the Virginian or Little Caesar
archetype tend to become anti-intellectuals. This may explain to
some extent the huge drop in literacy and the low college attendance
of America’s young men. Many people believe that the source of America’s
masculine anti-intellectualism is unknown, but to a large extent
it’s the result of a policy decision made in Washington. In 1975
The DOD gave a $100 million grant to a think-tank called The Stanford
Research Institute, also known as SRI. In return, SRI produced a
flowchart of American archetypes. The report was called: The
Changing Images of Man. The purpose of the report was to
redefine Christianity and American Culture so that it could be analyzed
in terms of behavioral science. The flowcharts trace (among other
things) the stages of character development of young men and women.
The charts also show how particular types of character development
can promoted, or blocked.
And
in terms of character development, another issue related to SRI
has emerged: Mental illness among little boys. One of the most common
forms is called Attention Deficit Disorder. It’s a so-called mystery
disease that causes boys to misbehave for no apparent reason. I’m
willing to bet that many of these young men are simply trying to
reconcile their archetypes. It’s interesting to note that Anglo
Saxon boys comprise the majority of diagnosed ADHD cases, and there
is probably a good reason for that. As noted earlier, white boys
tend to become Virginians.
Teachers
in the feminized school system instinctively recognize the three
archetypes and respond to each in a different manner. The Tom Mix’s
are fully cooperative, and thus represent no threat. The Little
Caesars are completely outside the system, and thus judged to be
not dangerous. But the Virginians are a problem. These boys represent
independent masculine strength inside the system. To a feminist,
this is unacceptable. The teacher hates the young Virginian because
he is masculine, and he hates her because she is blocking his archetypical
fantasy. So what is the answer? Ritalin.
America’s
boys are being forced to internalize the worldview of The Virginian,
Tom Mix, and Little Caesar as a single unit; they are never allowed
to see the three archetypes separately, or to understand the separate
worldview that each archetype represents. As a result, the boys
suffer terribly in the attempt to reconcile forces that they can’t
understand. This leads to criminal behavior, and leaves many adults
wondering why America’s young men have so many problems. There is,
of course, a solution to all this: Tell them the truth.
All
young men should be thoroughly trained in the archetypes, and the
stages of the life cycle. They will be healthier and happier, and
everyone else will be too.
Bibliography:
July
26, 2004
Ron
Liebermann [send him
mail] is a contractor and manufacturer of Mylar balloons in
Louisville, Ky.
Copyright
© 2004
LewRockwell.com
Ron
Liebermann Archives
|