How the new view of the American Frontier is fueled by the cowardice of those who had to strike back
The fanatical movement...
"Now, both stories are being told." This is how the ads campaign for Spielberg's miniserie "Into the West" began. In the making-of, the producers insisted that the old westerns were biased, and that an entire chapter of American history had been wrongly depicted for decades. "Into the West" was on TV to change this awful situation.
However, after three minutes of the show, everyone could understand that "Into the West" was simply another piece of propaganda, dedicated to distort the truth and promote the "White guilt" mantra. There wasn't any respect for historical accuracy or attempt to do it right.
Like the producers of this show, many Americans are comfortable in saying that the old westerns were bogus. They are said to be racists, full of bigotry, naive and entirely against American Indians. Any pioneer who expressed his fear or hate of Indians in these movies is now depicted as the typical moron, driven by blind hatred rather than intelligence. It is said that if the pioneers hadn't racial bigotry (and feeling of racial superiority), they wouldn't have seen the Indians the same way (being scalped can be an exchange of cultures!). It is also said that pioneers weren't John Wayne, but warmongers who started wars and loved to exterminate Indians.
Were ancient westerns really that bad with Indians? Not all of them. Although they weren't as blindly negative about progress as the soap operas we watch today, old westerns often respected Indian chiefs. In "They Died with their boots on", which depicted General Custer as a great hero, Lakota Chief Crazy Horse was also shown as brave and noble. He was the enemy, but was respected by Custer. The US cavalry was even involved in the Little Bighorn affair because the government cheated with Indians. So much about hatred for American Indians!
Were ancient westerns really that bad with Indians? Not all of them. Although they weren't as blindly negative about progress as the soap operas we watch today, old westerns often respected Indian chiefs
But today, things are different. It's not only antiamerican feelings, but feeling against Whites in western democracies. We have achieved so much that we are now dreaming that we somewhat stole everything, that we are guilty of being successful. The westerns, which depicted the ultimate conquests for civilization, now seem to be the past we are ashamed of.
It's not a sole American problem. The majority of the men who built the Frontier weren't, after all, Americans. Like the Seventh Cavalry, whose 42% of troops were foreigners, the Frontier was full of European immigrants, as well as Asiatic and African Americans who succeeded in building the richest areas in the world. In the old westerns, we loved these men because we were struggling for survival. Today, we condemn them, because they gave us everything, and with the passing of time, we can profit from their amazing work while spitting on them. Like ungrateful, rich kids.
Today, we condemn pioneers, because they gave us everything, and with the passing of time, we can profit from their amazing work while spitting on them. Like ungrateful, rich kids.
Kids who write books and make movies. In the "both stories are being told" new gospel, the Whites are bloodythirsty bastards against noble, Gods-like Indians. Custer doesn't even deserve the respect that Crazy Horse had in a 1941 movie. Every fact is automatically driven by anti-Western propaganda. There isn't any fairness or intellectual honesty. Medias are counting on ignorance to rewrite the nation's past and many historians, not to say the National Park Service, are following the movement. In public schools, young children are taught that their nation was built on the blood of American Indians (talking about smallpox or war could be offensive for young people!). It is said that the real story of the West isn't important as long as everyone is conscient of the guilt we must carry. As Indian fanatic Vine Deloria Jr said, "Custer died for your sins", whatever these sins are (or if evidence of these sins exist). It's hasn't been noted that the "sins" theory was directly taken from antisemitic bigotry ("the blood of Christ is on the next generations").
It's not a matter of facts, but a matter of emotional manipulation and attempt of cultural suicide (targetting the roots of a country is the desire of its death, see how Israel is targeted today). We are not bringing more space to American Indian history (which would be a great idea), we are simply running away and leaving the radicals in command.
custerwest.org has been regularly criticized by Custer buffs who have a very long history of cowardice and preemptive surrender against radicals. Most of their comments have been defensive crouches and sorry offerings. There hasn't been any real offensive against radicals. Even historians are waving the white flag by fear of being accused of ignoring the sufferings of ethnic minorities. For these reasons, Custer continues to be accused of being a "brutal Indian fighter" (as it was written on Jeffry Wert's cover, even if there isn't any evidence in the book to support such an inflammatory statement). Yet radicals are saying that fighting Indians was a brutal act of its own because it was wrong in principle. The people who were advocating for letting the pionneers been murdered (such as Wynkoop and the infamous "Indian Ring") were much more moral persons, one said.
custerwest.org has been regularly criticized by Custer buffs who have a very long history of cowardice and preemptive surrender against radicals.
It is said that criticizing Indians is wrong in principle, no matter what the evidence say. Custer buffs and historians have left the building. The radicals are teaching the "new history" in schools, newspapers, TV shows and even in the core of the US history, the National Park Service. Cheyenne apologists such as Richard Hardhorff, who praised Black Kettle of being the most friendly Indian chief ever born (just after Little Crow, Geronimo and Inkpaduta, to name a few chiefs who peacefully cleaned up their areas of the bad, bad Whites), are on stage. There has even been a controversy on wether Buffalo Bill could be praised because he had killed... buffaloes.
And then, there're complaints on why US history is so badly taught to people. There're complaints on why General Custer is so tarnished. Well, take a look on message boards driven by Custer buffs. Take a look on what Custer historians said about him in the mainstream media. It is not surprising that the "no last stand theory" has had so many supporters inside the Custer community. They don't even know how it would look like to stand up tall.
It is not surprising that the "no last stand theory" has had so many supporters inside the Custer community. They don't even know how it would look like to stand up tall.
They just don't fight. Or so little. They even try to create a new fashionable Custer who wouldn't be "divisive" (which means accepting the agenda of the radicals and begging them, with tears in the eyes, to spare Custer in the process).
The Custer and the American West we see today are the sad result of the cowardice of those who had to take a stand, but who never did, and who continue their preemptive surrender.
... and the answer by Old West historians and buffs