Real cowboys did not pick fights. They--as their daily experience with Mother Nature taught them--were non-confrontational and non-interventionist. Above all they would not interfere in feuds of which they knew nothing.
Contrary to urban myth, the best cowboys did not "break" horses. They persuaded them at critical moments. They respected the nature of horses and didn't engage in fruitless efforts to make that nature conform to their prejudices.
It was not cowboys who fought Indians. It was the US government in one of its many "regulation" and human improvement schemes--schemes which we conservatives know and love so well.
The "violence" practiced by cowboys was always strictly limited--except, perhaps, when drinking. And that is kind of a self limiting activity.
So we can clearly see why the myth of cowboys must reamain just that-a myth.
By the way, cowboys abhorred blowhardism. For example if a "cowboy" loudly declared: "Osama, wanted dead or alive," and then, several months later shrugged and said "We don't really care about Osama," that cowboy would be seen as a callow blowhard....
Oh, and a real cowboy would not concern himself overmuch with contemplation of Evil--especially the purported evil of foreigners in distant lands. There was too much work to be done on the ranch.
Maybe America declined into an Empire because we have waaay too much time on our hands.
Real cowboys did not pick fights. They--as their daily experience with Mother Nature taught them--were non-confrontational and non-interventionist. Above all they would not interfere in feuds of which they knew nothing.
In fact, unless they've changed the plots of the two movies referenced by the author (Shane, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), they would seem to work well with your stated premise. So what's the beef?
Contrary to urban myth, the best cowboys did not "break" horses. They persuaded them at critical moments. They respected the nature of horses and didn't engage in fruitless efforts to make that nature conform to their prejudices.
Contrary to revisionist myth, they hardly broke them at all. Not out of any genteel concerns for nature's feelings, but they had a job to do. If the horse would carry you, he was as broke as he was gonna get...
It was not cowboys who fought Indians. It was the US government in one of its many "regulation" and human improvement schemes--schemes which we conservatives know and love so well.
Again, what this has to do with the movies referenced is sketchy. However, I imagine you are taking a more general view. Okay. I'm trying to think of a movie in which I saw cowboys fighting indians, per se.
The Searchers, of course, comes to mind. Were there no skirmishes between settlers and Indians in the west? Amazing...
The "violence" practiced by cowboys was always strictly limited--except, perhaps, when drinking. And that is kind of a self limiting activity.
There is a book my father had, with a journal from one of the earlier expeditions to California (pre-civil war). It describes what these guys did for fun. From the description, it seems that boys will play with boy's toys (knives, guns, and fists) no matter what. Unless of course the journals writer was lying in his journal. I suppose that's possible...
See, this was before WWF. We of the XY chromosome need a bit of raw meet with our tofu, and we'll get it where we must...
So we can clearly see why the myth of cowboys must reamain just that-a myth.
In the first place, who's we?
In the second place, I'd tend to classify it as 'legend' rather than 'myth.' Oh, doubtless there's some embellishing going on. But myth says to me that they never existed at all.
Or, are you stating that there were no such men? Ever?
By the way, cowboys abhorred blowhardism. For example if a "cowboy" loudly declared: "Osama, wanted dead or alive," and then, several months later shrugged and said "We don't really care about Osama," that cowboy would be seen as a callow blowhard....
How did real cowboys feel about complaining about the job before it's done? What would a real cowboy say about someone who, let us say, heckled and annoyed the local sheriff over his apprehending the rustlers but not the gang leader? Especially if the job was in progress?
See, I'd buy your argument here if only someone had said "that's it; we're done, we've won." That hasn't been said. But stand fast, they could disappoint me yet. There's always hope...
Oh, and a real cowboy would not concern himself overmuch with contemplation of Evil--especially the purported evil of foreigners in distant lands. There was too much work to be done on the ranch.
Quite right. And, when the (Injuns, rustlers, outlaws, what have you) came by and killed his family, he'd ignore it. As you said, much work to be done. No time for 'justice,' and all that.
Actually, from all I've read, if you were on the frontier, you were pretty much the police force, fire department, et cetera. Courts, juries, police forces and such come with cities and more civil times. Why should a cowboy bring a man in who he just caught with a running iron, when that means he has to leave the ranch for court. Especially when there are a number of sturdy trees handy.
Maybe America declined into an Empire because we have waaay too much time on our hands.
What you mean 'we', paleface? (thank you, Bill Cosby)
And more to the point; maybe America declined into Empire because Empire is the natural state of man. And the natural action of an empire is expansion. So, if you're right, the next century or so should be interesting.