Persistent Myths IX: The D-Day Edition.

The D-Day Edition.

We just passed the 70th anniversary of Operation Overload, the Allied landings in Normandy during World War Two, popularly known as D-Day.

This major World War Two event has justifiably received a lot of attention over the years.  In the US, however, so much of the focus has been on the American effort, with that focus sharply on just one beach, Omaha  Beach, that there's a common misconception that the US had the predominant role in the landings. Actual figures, however, are a bit surprising.

2/3s of the troops who landed in Operation Overlord were troops of the British Commonwealth, i.e., British or Canadian.

2/3s of the air assets used on D-Day were British.

3/4s of the naval assets were British.

Amongst the senior level overall command, more officers at the very senior level were British than American.

The US was clearly in the ascendancy amongst the western Allies by June 1944, but it wasn't until later that summer that over 50% of the ground troops committed in France were Americans.  At the time of the landings, there were still more British forces in the mix of ground troops, and as these figures show, their role in other combat resources was also still predominant. 

The landings on the British and Canadian beaches went very well, in part due to good luck as to the choice of their locations, and in part due to the extensive use by the British and Canadians of special armor, which the US had largely rejected.  For that matter, American landings at Utah Beach went very well as well, with it really being Omaha Beach that was stoutly contested for a variety of reasons.  All the Allied forces committed to Operation Overlord performed brilliantly and this posts isn't made to suggest otherwise.  However, the English Commonwealth forces deserve their just attention for June 6 in which they had more men engaged in the operation than the US did.

Persistent Myths VIII: The Spanish Civil War Edition

The Spanish Civil War Edition

That Spain fought a tooth and nail civil war in the 1930s, leading up to World War Two, is of course well known, but the version of it remembered by most people, and even by quite a few historians, is mostly bunk.

The common popular view of the war is that nasty Spanish fascist in the Spanish army launched a war against the republican democracy loving legitimate government and squashed democracy in the name of fascism.

That didn't happen.

In reality, Spain's pre civil war government was extremely weak and unstable and was very obviously rocketing towards falling into Communism.  That instability wasn't novel for the time, there were a lot of European governments that were having trouble sustaining democracy, in part because their experiment with democracy was quite young and quite a few political parties had no real concept of being more loyal to the country and the system than themselves.  The more unstable of them tended to teeter between Communism and Fascism in the 1930s, with Italy and Germany of course falling into Fascism.  Other countries rocked back and forth, like France, but survived with democracies in tact.  Others fell into other forms of totalitarianism.  Poland fell into a socialist dictatorship, Austria into a right wing dictatorship, Hungary had a Communist uprising, and so on.  In Spain, it was pretty clear that it was reaching the end of its democratic days and was going to fall into some sort of left wing radical government.

The Army did revolt against the government, that's quite true, but contrary to myth it wasn't all Francisco Franco.  Franco wasn't even the most senior of the rebels, and he wasn't in Spain, but in Morocco, when the revolt broke out.  He did rise to leadership of it, however.

But, contrary to the common myth, he wasn't a Fascist and the war wasn't one between Fascism and democracy.  It was one between the hard right/military and Communism.

Spain had a fascist party, the Falange, but Franco never joined it.  It contributed members to his various governments over the years, but at no point did it ever dominate it.  Spain also had a monarchist party, the Carlist, that Franco was quite sympathetic with, but he never joined that either.  He was basically a military dictator of the Spanish type, but he used parties that were fellow travelers with him. Those groups had nowhere else they could go, as Franco was the only game in town.

As for the Spanish Republicans, there were no doubt some democrats in that movement early on, and some officers in the Spanish army went with the Republicans. But the Republicans were radical to start with and very quickly became more radical.  And when it appeared that they would win, the Communist took the opportunity to begin to eliminate other radicals within the movement, acting as it turned out prematurely.  That was to Communist type, as the Communist always wiped out competition once they'd won, and in Spain's case, they just acted too soon.

So why all the romance about the Republican cause and the common view of the war, when in real terms the Spanish Civil War belongs more to the revolutions of the 20s and 30s and is uniquely Spanish in nature?  Well, the answer is World War Two.

Because the Italians first, and the Germans, backed the Nationalist (with the USSR backing the Republicans), and because the Republicans lost, it's been easy and inevitable to recast the war as "a dress rehearsal for World War Two."  It wasn't in any way.  But it's been commonly viewed through the thick lens of the Second World War which has allowed people to grossly simplify the war and completely misunderstand it.  It's also let foreign volunteers to the Republican side off the hook, as they've been re-imagined as armed democrats, rather than Communist dupes, as they really tended to be.

Persistent Myths VII: The Roman Edition

The Roman Edition

I was reminded today of a couple of popular myths regarding the Romans.

I suppose it would be surprising if the Romans weren't subject to all sort of myths, after all, they were a major power forever.  Given that, some baloney is going to stick to them.  Let's take a look

A. The Romans Never Lost a Battle

There's apparently a popular myth that the Romans never lost a battle.  Oh yes they did.  You can't be a military power that long and not loose a few, that's for sure, and they lost their fair share.

What's more the like it is that the Romans had really deep military pockets, so they were able recover from their losses, but loose they did.

B.  Rome Fell because it was corrupt.  

This myth is extremely persistent, but completely in error.

Students receive this myth in some classrooms today, and its no surprise as it was a thesis advanced by Gibbons, who was the first really major modern historian (1700s) who addressed the topic of Roman history.  Gibbons, however, was not free from inserting his own beliefs and agendas into his writing, and while the world owes him a debt of thanks for tackling the topic, it is burdened by his outlook.  

Gibbons was English and living in an era when the ruling class of the United Kingdom was quite anti Catholic, as was Gibbons himself.  This is significant in that it seems to have colored Gibbons views of 5th Century Rome.  It doesn't seem to answer, however, why Gibbons went on in his work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, to cover the Byzantine Empire as well, which is typically forgotten about him.

Anyhow, the popular myth is that Rome had become debauched and was reveling in vice which is why the robust Germans busted in and shut the whole thing down.  In actuality, Rome had been pretty debauched since day one and was actually living at the height of its virtue at the time it fell.  The Romans did a fairly good job of actually cleaning up its early history, in terms of what it told about itself, but in reality the town had been founded by bands of roving, fleeing ,thieves and had at first been a pretty much all male criminal enclave.  It became a real town when it acquired a female population, but it did that by taking its female population by force, not a very admirable thing to do.  In its imperial period Rome did all sorts of nasty icky things, but that didn't cause it to fall.

With Constantine the  Great, who ruled from Byzantium, the empire became Christian, but retained a large pagan population.  But its character really began to change. By the mid 400s when Rome fell its official religion was Christianity and it was at an all time high in moral behavior.

Rome really fell because of a series of odd events, which is often how such things occur.  For one thing, Rome had overextended itself, which it knew.  It had withdrawn from its most northerly advances some time prior and was working on trying to consolidate its holdings.  Its grip on Britain was slipping.  Administering the Empire from Rome had proven too difficult and the administration of the Empire had been split in two.  It had suffered from internal armed strife since the time of Caesar which continually drug it down.  And, most significantly here, Germanic peoples from Eastern Europe were being driven west by invading Slavs, which caused them to push by necessity on Rome's northern and eastern borders. They were coming in no matter what, and there was little Rome could do stop that.  Having said that, the Romans botched it specifically by ineptly handling Germans crossing the Rhine, giving unnecessary rise to invasion, and the end of the Western Empire.

C.  The Vomitorium isn't what you've heard.

As a minor one, a Vomitorium wasn't where people went to throw up, in their debauchery.  It's a big exit.  That's because it derives from   a word meaning to spew forth, as to pour out, as in to pour out a lot of people.  Think stadium exist.

Persistent Myths VI: Hindus and vegetarianism

Hindus and vegetarianism

 Hindu wedding party. Chicken was probably on the reception menu.

Americans commonly believe that Indian is a vegetarian nation, because the largest religion in India is Hinduism.

Before we go on to that, we'll note that some Americans believe all Indians are Hindus.  Not hardly.  India is a "put together" nation of the former English colony variety, and not one single "nation".  It has a wide variety of ethnic identities and religions, including a Catholic population that dates back to the Apostolic age.  Islam and Buddhism are also present in India, and India still has a pretty large Communist Party, which of course is philosophically opposed to any religion.  But Hinduism is the largest religion in India.

Well, Hindus are all vegetarians, right?

Nope.  A minority of Indian Hindus are vegetarians. 

Hindus do have dietary restrictions, to be sure. The oldest one in Hinduism appears to be a ban on eating horses, cattle, or people, although this is debated.  It is thought that the ban might actually have applied to possessed horses and cattle, and any people.

Some Hindu sects are vegetarian, and these are well represented in India. But a majority of Indian Hindus are not members of those sects, and they do eat meat.  They do not eat cattle, but other meats.

This myth is interesting in that it at one time was a reason that Hindus were looked down upon, and now its a reason that some who come from outside Central Asia will point towards Hinduism, but it's simply wrong.

Page Updates 2015

This blog has "pages", other than this, the main page. Some of the pages were former trailing threads that simply grew to be too unwieldy as they grew too large.

Formerly, when the pages that were threads were updated, they were bumped up, and several of them were amongst the most read threads on the site.  Now, of course, there's no easy way to know when they're bumped up. so this thread will serve that purpose.

Recent Updates:

They Were Lawyers.

January 1, 2015:  Mario Cuomo.

The Were Lawyers.

February 23, 2015:  G. D. Spradin.


They Were Soldiers.

February 23, 2015.  G. D. Spradin, Michael Vincente Gazzo,

They Were Soldiers

March 2, 2015.  Leonard Nimoy

March 12, 2015:  Neal McMurry, Mick McMurry.

The Poster Gallery, WWI

U.S. Coast Artillery.

The Were Soldiers

March 15, 2015:  Demond Wilson

They Were Clerics

March 15, 2015:  Demond Wilson

They Were Lawyers

August 19, 2015:  Helmuth James Graf von Moltke

The Were Soldiers

September 6, 2015: Dean Jones.

They Were Soldiers

September 15, 2015:   David Janssen, Richard Long, Martin Milner

They Were Soldiers

September 22, 2015:  Lawrence "Yogi" Berra

They Were Lawyers

September 22, 2015:  Erasmus  Corwin Gilbreath

They Were Farmers

October 2, 2015:  Robert Burns. 

They Were Soldiers

November 5, 2015:  Toshiro Mifune

November 6, 2015: George Gobel, Johnny Carson, Walther Matthau, Steve Forrest, Paul Newman, Jonathan Winters, Kirk Douglas, Dale Robertson, John Carroll, Randolph Scott, Charles Bronson, Art Carney.

November 9, 2015:  Hans Christian Blech,  Oskar Werner (Oskar Josef Bschließmayer), Hannes Messemer, Robert Graf, Sig Ruman (Siegfried Albon Rumann).

November 10, 2015:  Conrad Veid, Wayne Morris, Tony Curtis, Larry Storch, Forrest Tucker, Robert Montgomery

They Were Farmers

November 24, 2015:  Union soldiers, Confederate soldiers.

They Were Soldiers

November 24, 2015:   Olivier Jacques Marie de Germay

They Were Lawyers

December 9, 2015:   Charles White Whittlesey

December 31, 2015:  Bernard V. Rogers

Lex Anteinternet: New Year's Resolutions for Other People

So, how did they do?

This past January I published this:

Lex Anteinternet: New Year's Resolutions for Other People: Yeah, I know its rude.  But if you are in the public eye, I guess you are open for public content.  So here's some resolutions for folks who might miss these obvious ones.

 So, let's look and see if they checked in here, read the resolutions, and adopted them.

Congress.  Let's just assume that your audience is intelligent and can follow an intelligent argument.  I bet it can. And after assuming that, whether you are in the left or the right, conduct your public debates that way.  If you can't do that, you ought to not be there.

Hmmm. can't say I grew more impressed with Congress over the year.  They mostly seem just to have sort of checked out, but maybe I just quit paying as much attention to them.  Maybe they weren't paying as much attention, oncoming Presidential election and all. . .

Congressional Judiciary Committees:  Avoid appointments to the bench from Harvard or Yale for the entire year.  Not a single one. Don't we have enough of them already?  There are lawyers from other places.

For that matter, how about not appointing any sitting or retired judges to appellate benches.  Branch out.  You'll be glad you did.

And put a retirement age on the Federal Bench.  These are public jobs for the American public, not jobs for life for one single benighted generation.  Appointments for life no longer make any sense.

Well, I can't say that I paid much attention to appointments this year either.  No big ones seemed to come up.  But I can say that this was not an impressive year for the Federal Judiciary in some ways.  A knowledge of the nature of the law seemed quite lacking.  So, to the extent that this extends out to the judiciary on a Federal national level, it wasn't a good year.

Country Music.  If you aren't actually from the country, please sit this one out or admit you are a "pop artist".  It's different.

And cut out the sap, too, will you?  

Obviously, there was no progress in "Country" music at all.

ISIL  Open your minds up, at least a bit.  And get a calendar and see what century this is.

This may have proven to be the year of the Islamic State.  That's who I'd put on the cover of Time, if I was doing the "Man of the Year".  The Islamic State has been on the rise all year long, and the results have been horrific.

Kim Jong-un.  Kim, you are on your way to being remembered as a complete clown.  You could be remembered as a hero.  Take the bold move, open the borders, and announce that you intend to peacefully reunite North Korea with the South by letting the Republic of Korea take over.

You could go into comfortable retirement in Switzerland within a year, and be a hero for life.  The way you are going, you are going to be remembered as one of the all time biggest doofuses ever.

Kim obviously didn't check in here.

People with the last name Bush or Clinton.  Enough already, the country can function fine without you as President.  Sit this one out, and the next several as well, and surprise people by not running for
President.

And people named Clinton or Bush didn't check in here either.

Barack Obama.  Go outside and see where you live.  You are not a law school professor anymore.  Yapping at people doesn't equate with action, and getting mad and assigning things to the class you can't deal with isn't going to work either.  Quit studying Wilson.  Study Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan, Bush I or Clinton and see how to get some things done.

It seems the President didn't get my reading list.

New York:  Hello New York and things New Yorkish.   We still love you, but you aren't "Number One" anymore, and you haven't been for a really long time.  Just because you pass a bill or collectively think something doesn't make it the up and coming thing, it probably is viewed by the rest of us as stale and a little moldy, which is how we also view New York.  You are going to have to get over yourself.  Your resolution is to have a little humility this year.  Think of yourself as, oh. . . Labrador.

Labrador, New York.  Look it up.

The People's Republic of China.  You can only pretend to be a "people's republic" while ignoring democracy so long. Read the history of your own country, and realize that China's always only a second away from a revolution, and take the next step to open the politics of the country up.  Your excuse for not doing so is long gone.  And stop acting like a 19th Century colonial power too.

Well, no huge reform in China in 2015, but  then its a huge country. 

Pop-Tarts You know who you are, you collection of women famous only for being famous, or for your appearance alone.  Stop acting like your for sale on the street and have a little big of dignity. Spend their year dressing modestly and really shock people. Read a book. Go outdoors with some outdoorsy close on.  Just be something, for goodness sake.

Nope.  They're still at it.

Television.  Hello television, you are stupid.  Get an education and quit broadcasting crap.

This is particularly the case regarding anything billed "Entertainment", or that appears on "TLC".  Enough already.  But it applies to the rests of television as well. Time for some remedial classes.

 If anything, this has gotten worse.

So, all you listed here, get to work.  You need to do your 2015 resolutions in 2016.

Persistent Myths V: Myths about religion in the Middle East

Myths about religion in the Middle East

LeAnn   at Ramblings of a Teacher, has a series of related "mythconceptions" that she's posted about, and she justifiably asks why, on her blog, do these myths persist.  It's a good question.  Indeed, it's one I pondered without really having a good answer to, but this week I was given a partial one.  In this case, some teachers (not LeAnn) fail to do their homework, and then teach their charges myths or errors.

The reason that I can say that, and I am, is that my daughter was studying for a test on the Middle East last night, and she had with her the supposed answers to the questions she will be tested on. Some of those answers were flat out wrong.  I discussed this as part of the family conversation, but quite frankly, as its her grade, she's learned the wrong answers to the questions.

This teacher is a popular one, and the kids like the teacher.  But at least on this subject, the teacher is pretty badly misinformed.

For example, one of the questions was what three countries in the Middle East are theocracies. As we know, a theocracy is a state ruled by a religion.  There are darned few of them, actually, in history at any one point, and there aren't really any in the Middle East today. The official answer, however, was "Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

Hmmmm.

Israel is a parliamentary democracy and always has been. It's a "Jewish state", but that doesn't make it a theocracy any more than Germany's status as a German state (like Israel, Germany has a "law of return) makes it a racial state of some sort.  Israel may have a law of return, extending citizenship by option to Jewish people who seek it, but it also grants full voting rights to its Moslem and Christian citizens, both of which it has and has always had.

Indeed, even its status as a "Jewish state" doesn't quite mean what people might suppose.  At its founding, the state of Israel had a fair number of influential secular Jewish people whom others might term as "culturally Jewish."  To be Jewish does not necessarily mean that a person is an observant person religiously, any more than to be Greek automatically makes a person a devout member of the Greek Orthodox Church.

Anyhow, Israel certainly isn't a theocracy.

But that wasn't the only error.

Well what about Saudi Arabia and Iran?  He was right there, wasn't he?

No, neither of those nations are "theocracies", although a person can make the case that Iran is a semi theocracy.

Starting with Iran, Iran calls itself an "Islamic Republic", but names do not necessarily mean all that much.  China, for example, calls itself a "People's Republic", whatever that is supposed to mean, and it isn't a liberal democracy by any means.  East Germany called itself the German Democratic Republic, with the only part of that name that was accurate being the German part.  To add to the problem, it isn't entirely clear what an Islamic Republic is even supposed to mean.

What it seems to mean is a government incorporating Sharia law, which Iran does.  And Sharia law does originate in the Koran.  Beyond that, Iran has a semi functional electoral system, which falls short of what we'd regard as a functioning democracy, but it does have some electoral process.

The country isn't actually run by mullahs, as some would assert, but its very clear that Shia mullahs have a huge, perhaps determinative, role in the governance of the country, together with the descendants of the 1970s Shia fundamentalist revolutionaries.  So what we have there is a heavily Shia influenced, less than fully democratic, quasi revolutionary state.  A person might compare it loosely with early post Mexican Revolution Mexico which had some sort of functioning deliberative body, but which only the PRI really mattered.  Or, a person might badly compare it with Imperial Germany, which had a democratically elected parliament, but the country was really governed and controlled by traditional forces outside of parliament.

Either way you look at it, it isn't truly a "theocracy", although perhaps it comes close.

Well, what about Saudi Arabia?  Not so much.

Saudi Arabia is truly one of the worlds sole surviving examples of a true monarchy.  It's a country basically owned by a single family.  Now, that family did rise to prominence in part through supporting a certain extreme Sunni group of Arabian mullahs, whose thinking is reflected in the state.  But the mullahs themselves never actually governed the country.  Indeed, as the branch of Sunni thought the Sauds espoused was so radical that it was questioned as heretical before their adoption of it and ascension to the crown (or rather creation of the crown), a person might argue that group is in debt to the Sauds.

Now, it is certainly the case that Saudi Arabia is unquestionably Sunni Moslem, and that it also applies Koranic principles to its law.  A person can criticize it, but it doesn't depart in this fashion hugely from other primitive monarchies, most of which have been associated with a religion their respective crowns adopted.  Queen Elizabeth I, for example, wasn't exactly tolerant of Catholics.  That didn't make Elizabethan England a theocracy, however.

And to be continued.

 Syrian Archbishop.  Syrian Catholics and Orthodox represent the second largest religion in the Middle East and the second oldest of the major religions in the Middle East.

Okay, well what else?

Another question asked the students to rank the three largest religions in the Middle East, with the provided answer, in order if number of followers, being Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.

Right?  Nope, that's wrong.

The second largest religion in the Middle East is Christianity. 

I guess I might give a person a bit of a pass on this one, as Middle Easter Christians are so ignored by the outside world, but they are the second oldest religion in the Middle East and they are spread throughout the Middle East.  There isn't a country in the Middle East that doesn't have some native Christians, save perhaps for the very small ones like Dubai or Kuwait.

That's right, some native Christians.

Christian populations in the Middle East range up to as many as 18,000,000 but may be as few as 16,000,000.  More than any other major faith, Christians have been targets of violence in the Middle East and they have accordingly opted for decades for emigration, if they could.  But they still outnumber adherents of Judaism by at least 10,000,000 people, if not more, and it probably is more.Some Middle Eastern countries have, or would have, extremely significant Christian populations but for their being the targets of increasing violence in recent years, making them a population that is essentially undergoing "ethnic cleansing" as we speak, with hardly anyone doing anything about it.  Populations of Catholics, Orthodox and Coptic Christians are under stress everywhere in the Middle East.

If immigrant populations in the form of temporary workers are included, some Middle Eastern countries, such as Dubai, would be regarded as having huge, mostly Catholic, populations.

Indeed, one of the myths of the Middle East, related to this story, is that Islam took the region by storm.  It didn't.  Islam didn't become the power in the region it became until Sulemon, but even at that the "Islamic" principalities he conquered often had Christian majorities.  It wasn't until tremendous force was brought upon these communities that conversions to Islam really began.  Islam wasn't even able to sweep the Arabian Peninsula without the help, ironically, of a tribe on the peninsula that was Catholic.  Christian populations hung on everywhere, in isolation, for a very long time, and in some ways what we're seeing now in regards to them has been a story that's been ongoing for over 1,000 years.

Persistent Myth IV: Being a law unto yourself.

You have a right to act like a member of the James Gang on your own property.

One I occasionally run into is the concept that a person has the right to shoot somebody on their land, if they're there without invitation.  No, there is no such right.  Never.

The point at which food paranoia crosses over the line

From NBC News on the net:

(CNN) -- There's so much to dislike about air travel. There are the long lines and the delays, and of course, there is the bad airplane food. A recent survey found that airlines have a long way to go in making their meals and snacks nutritious and low in calories.

"I don't think airlines are keeping up with the trends across the United States, the 'better for you' food trend, the organic trend," said Charles Platkin, nutrition professor at Hunter College and City University of New York. Most airlines are also failing to provide nutritional information about their menu items that would allow passengers to make the healthiest choices, he added.

Yeah, well get over it.

Shoot, people don't live on the plane.  A little "bad" food on the plane isn't going to kill you.

Wyoming Fact and Fiction: Old West Shootout

Wyoming Fact and Fiction: Old West Shootout: Anyone who has made a serious study of Western history knows that the middle of the street, showdown gunfight is mostly a creation of pulp ...

Mid Week at Work: Loading the plane in the rain.

The state's income increases in 2015 in spite of, and actually because of the decline of the price of oil. . .

because it raised agricultural profits.

Cheaper fuel, and high cattle prices at the start of the year, gave a big boost to agricultural income.  So the state's income actually rose.

This obviously isn't expected to last, but it's an interesting illustration of cause and effect in the economy.

The Bonnie Blue Flag?

In Moneta Wyoming?

The Big Picture: More southern Big Horns

Monday at the Bar: Courthouses of the West: Carbon County Courthouse, Rawlins Wyoming

Courthouses of the West: Carbon County Courthouse, Rawlins Wyoming:

This is the Carbon County Courthouse in Rawlins Wyoming.  This Depression era courthouse was built by the Works Project Administration, like the former courthouse in Casper, Wyoming.  It houses the Carbon County Court and also serves Wyoming's Second Judicial District together with the courthouse in Albany County.

This courthouse is unique for a classic Wyoming courthouse in that it sits on an entire city block in the center of town.  While not visible in these photos, due to the mature trees, the courthouse is also unique in that it was built with attached substantial living quarters which served the sheriff and his family at the time of its construction. The concept was that the sheriff would need to live there, as the jail was housed in the courthouse.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: First Christian Church, Tulsa Oklahoma

Churches of the West: First Christian Church, Tulsa Oklahoma:

Lex Anteinternet: Happy Boxing Day!

Lex Anteinternet: Happy Boxing Day!: Today, December 26, is Boxing Day in most English speaking countries outside the United States. Boxing Day is a legal holiday in most Engl...

Blog Mirror: Texas World War One Centennial

Interesting looking site, Texas World War One Centennial.

Movies In History: Three Godfathers

Three Godfathers

This 1948 John Ford western is one of my favorite Christmas movies.

Indeed, I actually don't like most of the Christmas classics for one reason or another, although I've just posted on another one of my favorites, A Christmas Story. 

This movie is a classic John Ford western featuring three of the best known actors who appeared in his films.  John Wayne, Pedro Armendáriz, and Harry Carey Jr. appear as three outlaws who ride into a small western town while on the lam, and then set out to make good their escape.  While in the desert they run across a dying woman and her baby, the only survivors of misbegotten effort to cross the desert.  The woman make the men the baby's Godfathers as she passes away and they then proceed to attempt to save themselves and the child.

Very well done, what is not evident at first is that this classic Ford western is also heavily allegorical. As the movie progresses we learn that it takes place near Christmas and the three Godfathers come to stand in for the Three Wise Men as they seek to rescue the baby and make it to the town of New Jerusalem.

The film is fantastically done, with rich color tones, and well worth seeing.  As a western movie, the film is typical of films of this period and attention to material details doesn't equal that of later films.  However, this film fares better in those details than some others as no date is given for the film, so it cannot be said that any of the physical items depicted in the film are done so incorrectly.  The clothing is typical for a film of this era and is not 100% accurate, but is not badly done either.

The film is well worth seeing and stands out as one of Ford's very good western movies, as well as being a unique Christmas movie.

Movies In History: A Christmas Story

A Christmas Story.

This 1983 movie committed to film a series of stories by Jene Shepherd and has become a beloved Christmas classic. 

Shepherd was a radio and television personality and writer whose storied varied wildly in terms of topic and quality, but who built a huge East Coast fan base that ultimately lead to a television series that was of more consistent quality than his radio shows.  At his best, he was extremely funny, and that often occurred when his stories focused on his youth in the Mid West.  Much like Patrick McManus, McManus' best stories tend to surround his childhood, and in his case, his service in the Army, although unlike McManus, Shepherd's youth was urban.  His written work tended to be much more consistent than his radio work, which was hugely ad libbed.

The only full length film every made from Shepherd's work was this one, A Christmas Story, which concerns the young Ralphie, a thinly disguised Jean Shepherd.  In his written and radio work many of the same characters appear, and it is clearer from those that Ralphie is the Shepherd character.  Here too he much resembles McManus, as many of the characters that appear in his work are in fact real characters from his youth.

Shepherd was born in 1921 and therefore old enough to serve in World War Two.  This is notable here as this story is set in 1940 when Ralphie is still in grade school, so unlike his radio and written works the movie Ralphie is a bit younger than the actual Shepherd was.  This doesn't matter too much in the context of this film, but the film does have late Great Depression feel to it, although that would not be inaccurate for the year it is set in.

A Christmas Story is not normally thought of as a period piece, and it remains hugely contemporary in spite of being set in the 1940s.  None the less, viewed as a film set in time, its remarkably accurate.  The film very accurately portrays the grade school experience that generations of Americans experienced, but which really basically started in the late 1920s and which ran through, in this form, the 1980s.  Clothing and material details are very well done.  The childhood focus on certain significant toys in any one Christmas is accurate.  The focus on a Red Rider BB gun in fact portrays a common Christmas gift that boys sought well into the 1970s. 

Even odd material details are well done. The role of the radio in the home, the appearance of the interior of buildings, the lack of electrical outlets, the nature of coal burning stoves, and servicemen in uniform, are all correctly done.

This movie deserves its place as a Christmas classic, and it stands up much better than many other period pieces filmed several decades after the events portrayed.  Given the prolific nature of Shepherd's output, it is somewhat ironic however that this really stands out by far as his work that's really well remembered as it was less satiric and had much less of a sharper edge than most of his other work.  Still, it's a good work to be remembered by.