There's nothing new under the sun - Part 2

I enjoy watching westerns, those Hollywood films about so-called cowboys and baddies, that introduced me at a  young age to concepts of good and bad, black and white, right and wrong as seen through a film director's camera.  Life was uncomplicated then and the goodies always won. Hurray!

Then came gritty westerns like 'The Unforgiven', starring Clint Eastwood.  Last week I caught up with 'Wyatt Earp' as portrayed by Kevin Costner.  There was nothing of the Saturday morning children's matinee about that film and I must have been in a receptive mood to tune in to some of the more subtle undertones in the story.  I spent quite a long time thinking about it afterwards.

According to the film, Wyatt Earp and his brothers just wanted to earn a living for themselves and their families. They chose to do that by changing from gunslinger to lawmen (poacher to gamekeeper) by becoming representatives of the law in a largely lawless territory even as they held simultaneous positions as saloon workers and brothel owners in rough 'n' tough towns where 'might is right'.

They could make up the law as they went along, it seemed, because their main function was to maintain order.  If order was maintained they could get on with making money and otherwise mind their own businesses and the townspeople could do the same.  Simple. And all of us want the simple life and be left alone to create our particular version, don't we?

Apparently not. The 'law' decreed that wearing firearms in town was not to be permitted. Failure to comply with that particular law could result in the transgressor being pistol whipped by one of the Earps, who were permitted because they represented the law. Eventually the townspeople themselves feared the self righteousness of the sheriff and his brothers even though he was acting on their behalf.  The transgressors grouped and regrouped until the inevitable stand off was staged in the OK Corral where almost everybody died with their boots on, except Wyatt, who married his Jewish dancehall girl friend and lived for years more until he died in Los Angeles on January 13, 1929 at the age of 80.

Subtle undertones? What subtle undertones? Bully boys in charge more likely.  A dynasty based on nepotism and a willingness to kill so the status quo could be maintained and a 'because I say so' approach to local law and order. Does any of this seem vaguely familiar?  Of course it does, because there isn't anything new under the sun and all this is just part of the illusion we happily accept as truth, the way things are, the natural order of things, because it is easier to accept than it is to think.

The film caused me to think about the foundations of my country going back to 1066 and all that.  The ruling kings were heads of tribes. They held their positions by force, largely, and nepotism, some bribery and convenient alliances and marriages.  Rulers weren't necessarily nice people.  They defended what they had and tried to increase their holdings by taking from others who had.

When they fell out with other tribe heads (or even with their own kin) they appointed reliable supporteers to collect taxes from the peasants to pay for an army, and then rewarded the tax collectors and surviving army commanders with land and titles and a share of the plunder.  After a victory the troops were paid and sent back to their fields and trades until they were needed again in support of the status quo.  The army commanders and other favourites were appointed as nobles who were expected to continue their support for the king.

And then came Magna Carta in 1215.

According to an introduction in the British Library "Magna Carta is one of the most celebrated documents in English history but later interpretations have tended to obscure its real significance at that time. This iconic document was not intended to be a lasting declaration of legal principle, it says. It was a practical solution to a political crisis which primarily served the interests of the highest ranks of feudal society by reasserting the power of custom to limit despotic behaviour by the king".

According to the British Library  "Despite what many people expect, Magna Carta includes very few statements of legal principle. In fact, the majority of the 63 clauses in the charter deal with the detail of feudal rights and customs, and the administration of justice. It was King John’s excessive and arbitrary exploitation of his feudal rights, and his abuse of the justice system, which more than anything else had fuelled the barons’ rebellion in the first place. So it isn’t really surprising that the regulation of feudal rights and the justice system dominate the content of Magna Carta".

I don't suppose Wyatt Earp had even heard of King John, let alone Magna Carta but he and his brothers defended the status quo (meaning service to those in authority until they became the authority) . . . for money, as has been the system since the year dot.

Now think of current events in Syria. There, Assad is surrounded by acolytes and relatives determined to maintain the status quo.  The same is true in most of the Middle East, throughout Africa and major tranches of Asia.  Thinking is feudal.  Even the religion is feudal. And the only real difference between now and 1215 is that these feudal rulers today have 21st century weapons at their disposal. And we in western democracies thank our lucky stars that there, but for the Grace of God, go we, five or six hundred years ago.

And we feel so superior about it that we'll go to war to enforce our views of the world and how we think it should be, just as all our forefathers have done for centuries. Truly, there is nothing new under the Sun.

I'll explore some other thoughts around the subject at a later date.

MD