Out to tame the West

Deadwood City - Edward Packard

Well, I gave this one a lower rating because it is a western and I never really could get myself into westerns all that much. Okay, they were sort of like the action movies of the 50s and 60s, but still, I always, and still do, find them quite boring. Not all westerns are bad though, there was one starring Johnny Depp called Dead Man, but that is an exception. I have also gone through and noted the ones that I do not believe I have read, namely because, as with most books that are released as a series, they tend to decline in quality simply for the sake of quantity, and unlike the Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks, these books are not really able to continually push the boundaries. The only real way to differentiate them is to explore new settings.

Now, I think I might use this as a time to discuss the concept of the western. In a way it is about civilising the wild. The concept of the West, while not unique to the United States, is a particular part of its culture in that as the nation expanded westward during the 19th century it would take its culture with it. The US had conquered (and bought) the entire continent by about the 1840s, but they still did not have complete control over it. The civilised part was generally along the Eastern seaboard, and the great plains, but the further west one went (that is until they hit the west coast) the wilder it became. The rule of law pretty much broke down to become the rule of the gun. While the traditional sheriff was present, in many cases, it was just one man (with his deputies) that would be responsible for enforcing the law over vast areas of wilderness, which meant that bandits could raid towns and caravans, and disappear into the wilderness with impunity.

The civil war also caused the rule of law to break down as many of the southern soldiers fled to the West after the defeat of the South, and in many ways they continued the war against the victorious North, simply acting as bandits and insurgents. However, as the railroad was laid down across the continent, and then as the gold rush brought people swarming over to California, many of these wilderness areas began to disappear. However, there were one group that steadfastly attempted to retain control of their land: the Native Americans.

Now, this is probably why I don't like westerns, and that is with regards to the treatment of the Indians. It is all well and good to have the sheriff and other law abiding citizens fighting bandits and ex-civilwar soldiers, but it is another thing to invade was it effectively sovereign territory. However 19th century America did not (and many argue still do not) recognise the Indian territories to be sovereign states. Many also argue that the United States does not actually have any concept of sovereign territory outside of their own territory. Sure enough they recognise and get upset if anybody dares to defile their sovereign territory, but nobody is allowed to bat an eyelid if they were to do the same to other countries. While this type of attitude has been the attitude of superpowers right back to the invention of government, it does not mean that it is right.

We have come a very long way since the days of Gilgamesh and the days when the Assyrians romped all over the Middle East claiming that everybody should be under their rule because there is no other rule that matters, however in many cases nothing seems to have changed. When the Cubans overthrew Batista and installed Castro as their president, the Americans threw a hissy fit and attempted to remove him. They did the same with Grenada and with Nicaragua. They even attempted it with Iran, and did the same with Iraq. It seems that the only legitimate government are the governments that the Americans approve of, and it does not matter whether these people are nice or not, as long as they support American interests then these people are okay (though this opens up a much bigger debate which I will not go into here).

Source: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/399771456