"The Searchers," One Of The Best Films Ever

If you are a person to scoff at movies of the "Western" genre, please do not do so with this movie. This is a typical Western with cowboys and Indians, but it isn't a typical Western with just cowboys and Indians. The story is much deeper and it was directed by prominent American director John Ford, the son of Irish immigrants to the United States. Ford directed many movies, and two other great ones were "Stagecoach" and "The Grapes of Wrath," which was adapted to the screen from John Steinbeck's famous novel. John Ford also had much to do with putting actor John Wayne into the public mind, and keeping him there. For those unaware, Wayne was a super box office draw for decades, even in the last few years of his life. From various interviews and stories I've read about John Wayne and John Ford, it seems it was Ford who got Wayne to walk with that swagger he became known for. Wayne also eventually became the main spokesperson and symbol for the Republican political side of the acting profession, which also included James Stewart, Fred MacMurray, Maureen O'Hara and a number of others, although being a Republican in those days was not the same as being a Republican today, since there were actually liberal Republicans back then, and conservative, even downright reactionary, Democrats too. John Ford had been a big supporter of Franklin Roosevelt, although he also later supported Richard Nixon, but Nixon was no Ted Cruz, either. I'm uncertain about Ford's political affiliation, but he could have been a Democrat or a liberal to moderate Republican.

"The Searchers" was released in 1956 and I don't believe I saw it at the theaters back then, although my father, or sometimes my older brother, took me to see movies in those days, especially Westerns, which were very common and popular. I remember first seeing the movie on television back in the 1960s, but I'm uncertain of the year, and thus I also don't recall if I saw it in color, as black and white televisions were very common in the 1960s, and indeed, most regular television shows were still filmed in black and white until 1965 and 1966.

The movie is set a couple of years after the end of the Civil War and it involves Ethan Edwards, a bitter and unrepentant returning Confederate soldier, played by John Wayne. Shortly after his return to his brother's home, Indians attack the home when Ethan and Martin Pawley, played by Jeffrey Hunter, are away with other ranchers who have gone looking for some cattle thought to have been taken by Comanches. Pawley had been raised by Ethan's brother and his wife after the boy's parents had been killed in an Indian attack several years before. The two Edwards' girls, one essentially in her mid teens and one younger, are missing from the smoking ruins of the Edwards' farm, and Ethan and Martin set out to find them; thus they become, "The Searchers."

The picture deals with racism as the Americans view the Comanches as about as low a life form as one can go. Even the "good" characters are tainted by it, as Laurie, played by Vera Miles, says the girls should be killed, if they are found, because of their having lived with the Comanches. The main "hater" is Ethan, and the sad thing is, the ideas represented in a film from the mid 1950s could still be put into a film today, with some prominent Republicans in the real life Ethan role, and with the target being black or Latino Americans, instead of Comanches. When the head of the local rangers asks Ethan to swear an oath of loyalty so he can deputize him, Ethan refuses, saying he already took an oath to the Confederate States of America. Of course, a little fact like there was no entity called the Confederate States of America after the Civil War didn't trouble old Ethan any, he was going to stay the course. Do you see some parallels to some Republicans today? And Democrats should cringe too, because when "The Searchers" was released, people like Ethan were largely in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, but at least Democrats changed, ceding many of their racists and haters to another political party, the  .... well you know.

Ethan and his type are trying to stop change, including change that involves accepting people who are different from themselves. Ethan has contempt for his "adoptive" nephew, Martin, because he is part Cherokee. Ethan's bitterness and anger are so intense, he is bound and determined to kill his niece if he finds her, because, "she's been sleeping with a buck," a "Comanch," as he angrily and contemptibly calls the Comanches. Of course, the Comanches too were trying to halt change, to keep change from sweeping them and their way of life away, so they share a sort of common thread with the Ethans of the world, but the exact goals are competing, not common to the two sides.           

The picture is absolutely stunning in its breathtaking scenery. In my opinion, John Wayne should have gotten an Academy Award nomination for his performance as Ethan, while although the film certainly has some of his Wayne persona, the character of Ethan is much deeper than Wayne's usual tough guy mannerisms and his no holds barred flag waving. If you haven't seen this film, I hope you'll watch it. It is on many lists as not only one of the greatest Westerns ever made, but also as one of the greatest films ever made.

Picture is from Warner Home Video, 50th Anniversary Edition

WORD HISTORY: 
Search-This word, closely related to both "circle" and "circus," goes back to Indo European "sker," which had the notion of "curve, bend." This gave Ancient Greek "kirkos," which meant "circle," and it was borrowed by Latin as "circus," which meant "circle." This produced the verb "circare," which literally meant, "to go around in a circle," but the actual meaning of which was "go about, travel about." This gave Old French, a Latin-based language, "cerchier," which meant "travel about looking for something." The word was taken to England by the Normans where it became "sercher," and it was borrowed into English in the early 1300s as "serchen," before it assumed its modern form. The noun "searcher" was derived from the verb seemingly a bit later in the 1300s. 

The American Melting Pot and The Electorate, Part Three/Final

First published in March 2013

See NOTE at bottom of article for an update


The U.S. Constitution is a wonderful document, but the Founding Fathers weren't "omnis... omnic...omni," ah ... they didn't know everything, and the constant modern refrains about "the Founding Fathers said," or "the Founding Fathers meant," mainly by some on the political right, but also at times from the political left, is nonsense. After all, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, "the Bill of Rights," which contain Americans' most cherished protections, were not in the original document, but rather they were added by the amendment process a couple of years later. Yes, the Constitution is the law of the land at any given moment, but it is subject to amendment, a relatively difficult process,* the difficulty of which is naturally dependent upon the issue at hand. The idea that a document written in the 1700s will provide the everlasting guiding principles in every detail ("can't discuss it, that's it, no change"), is nonsense. I'd rather have my life guided by updated and modern principles and considerations, thank you; after all, not only the Founding Fathers, but leaders since those times, could not envision the technological changes that have come about since their times, just as we today cannot envision how things will be even a couple of decades from now, let alone a couple of hundred years from now, assuming we don't blow up, or in some other way destroy, the planet before then.

The early to mid 1800s brought many an Irish immigrant to America, and many of these people were not from Ulster, which had produced the American-English term, "Scotch-Irish," generally in reference to Protestants from the northern part of Ireland, but rather they were from the rest of Ireland, and they were thus Catholic, and more often than not, they were poor. To some of the conservative Puritanical elements of New England, these new immigrants were a threat. Forget the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence or any other ideas that might protect or welcome such newcomers, they had to be held in check, lest their religious beliefs contaminate these Puritans (the "Pur[e]" part of the word wasn't there without reason). Literacy tests were used in Connecticut and Massachusetts to prevent poor Irish Catholics from voting and it took some time for Irish immigrants and their descendants to be assimilated into American society, but, unlike with race, distinguishing a Protestant from a Catholic of any ethnic background is not so easily done, and as Catholics from other nations came to America, the process of assimilation quickened, although it took until 1960 for the country to elect a Catholic president, as fears persisted among some Protestants that a Catholic would give his (in those times, there was really no chance of a woman be elected) allegiance to the Vatican.

Chinese immigrants began to come to America in large numbers in the mid 1800s. They were often treated terribly, and it is not without reason that "Chinatowns" grew up in many cities, as Chinese immigrants and their descendants were more or less forced by circumstance to live in close community with one another. American citizenship was denied them, and thus they could not vote. Chinese immigration was actually made illegal towards the latter part of the 1800s and into the 1900s! In the midst of World War Two, Congressman Warren Magnuson (later a senator) proposed a bill to repeal all of this nonsense and it passed, but it took further legislation in the 1960s to really permit more Chinese immigration and voter participation.

In today's world of technology, keeping tabs on specific voting groups is easier. The conservative movement, and I would say especially the ultra conservative part of that movement, has run up against the reality that their ideas do not appeal to several key demographic groups, thus making their attempts to win a majority of the vote very difficult, if not impossible. I've made no attempt in recent articles to call many in the ultra conservative movement "fascists," and that's what they are. Like their fanatical, furious "Führer" of old, they want to practice, "if you can't beat 'em, exclude 'em." When black athletes did well in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, Hitler told some associates that blacks shouldn't be allowed to compete in the Olympics, as they had an unfair advantage over whites because of their "jungle" heritage. This from the spokesman for the "master race." The American fascists are trying their damnedest to exclude voters unfavorable to them from voting. Limiting early voting times, requiring government issued photo identification, and prohibiting voter registration by non governmental groups is just part of the effort to curtail votes by poorer or disabled voters of all races and ethnic backgrounds, all under the cover of preventing voter fraud. The Supreme Court is in the process of deciding the validity of part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which has been renewed several times since 1965 in a bipartisan manner. The act provided for the exclusion of special qualifications to vote (like literacy tests or having to know the names of the governors of each state, for example) and it gave a major role for federal supervision of elections in areas where voter suppression had been prevalent historically, mainly, but not exclusively, in the South. This part of the law provides that the covered areas must get a clearance by the Justice Department or by a panel of judges of the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia before they implement any changes to voting procedures to be sure those changes won't act to deprive people of the right to vote in that area. This is the part under review by the Supreme Court. Some argue that the areas covered by the act should be expanded to the entire nation, or be done away with as discriminatory toward the more narrowly defined areas. The entire act was renewed in 2006 and signed into law by President George W. Bush. If the law is struck down, even with a recommendation that it be applied to the entire country, it will undoubtedly set up one massive battle in Congress, which can't function now, as sensible Republicans (and there are some) will be terrified to vote to expand the law for fear of the fascists they have in their party. Without such a law at all, if you think attempts to suppress the vote have been nasty, we haven't even begun to see the end of such tactics.

* To amend the Constitution, both Houses of Congress must pass the amendment by two-thirds vote, or two thirds of the state legislatures must request that a Constitutional Convention be held, which then recommends an amendment. After either case, the amendment must then be approved by three-quarters of all states in order to become law (again either by state legislatures or state conventions called for the purpose of deciding on an amendment). Only 27 amendments have been made to the Constitution, the first ten of which were the Bill of Rights, so it is not easily done. Six other proposed amendments were not ratified.

NOTE: Since I originally wrote this article, the Supreme Court, in June of 2013, voted 5 to 4 that an important section of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional. That section, Section 4 (b), tied in with Section 5, which mandated certain states and local governmental entities to get any changes to their election laws approved by the federal government. Section 4 (b) laid out the particulars to determine which states and local governments would have to abide by Section 5. The majority opinion in the Supreme Court held that Section 4 (b) was unconstitutional because it was based on data from decades before and that the feeling was that times had changed (this was the Court's CONSERVATIVES saying this!!!). I guess we should all have screamed, "Hallelujah, racism is dead!" But we know better!!! (Section 5 was left untouched)

WORD HISTORY:
Me-This word goes back to Indo European "me," and it has retained its meaning throughout the centuries. This gave Old Germanic "meg/mek" and "miz/mes." These gave Old English "mec" and "me," depending upon usage in a sentence. English and the other Germanic languages once had extremely complex grammar. Over the centuries English gradually simplified to the point where English speakers did not have to change forms of words as often as many speakers of closely related languages did, and as some still do. Modern standard German, a close English cousin, has retained a good deal of complex grammar. As noted above, English once had both "me" and "mec" to mean "me," depending upon usage in a sentence, but eventually settled on only "me." German still has (and uses) the closely related "mir" and "mich," depending upon usage, although in some cases even German speakers use the two improperly, and Berliners are sort of known for using "mir" when the correct form is "mich." Anyway English speakers, be thankful English simplified many complex grammatical procedures long ago. Forms of "me" are common throughout the other Germanic languages: besides standard German "mich/mir," Low German Saxon has "mi/mik," Dutch has "me/mij," West Frisian has "mi/my," Danish has "mig," Icelandic has "mig/mér," Norwegian has "meg" and Swedish has "mig."