Epic battles, "Son of the Morning Star" (1991)

We hear today about "the problem" at the southern U.S. border, and we all seem to acknowledge that some unpleasant things might have to happen down there. The Democratic Party follows the impulse of wanting to be more humanitarian. Great in theory, problematic in practice, as the current news suggests. 

The indigenous people of the West, including the Plains Indians, once presented a profound problem. "The Indian problem" seems a pejorative term, inducing a wince by today's standards. Again, the most laudable attitude is one of wanting everyone to get along. 

Shall we assume that "Manifest Destiny" was an inevitable and unstoppable force? Was the advancing European civilization ever going to countenance an actual chunk of the U.S. West to be reserved for the natives? To allow the natives to keep living as per time immemorial? To live off herds of buffalo? 

No, it was going to be a matter of nudging the proud natives into "reservations." The natives with some exceptions to be sure, were not wired to live like the Europeans. The Europeans' concepts of property and law were alien to how the natives had established their standards. 

Primitive? Is that pejorative too? 

Man, I can remember anthropology instructors from my college years who were revulsed by anything judgmental. I live in a college town and so I recently asked a friend of mine from academia: "Are anthropology teachers still so intransigent, not wanting to budge from the totally non-judgmental stance?" I was told "yes." The beat goes on: a tribe in the South American jungle is not to be judged as inferior to our own American people. 

And I suppose the academic world applies this template at any time, anywhere, certainly to the American frontier of the late 19th Century. I would demur from the party line: The natives lacked science and medicine that would promote everyone living a reasonably long and healthy life. 

We just assume our standards represent "advancement" and to that I say "aye." So I guess I plug on without regard to a chorus of disapproval from academia, those anthropologists. 

So easy to say today, how the natives were treated as the Europeans inexorably moved westward. Some here in Minnesota have suggested we stop recognizing Ford Snelling as a historically significant place, to commemorate it, to upgrade what's left for "interpretive" purposes. Some suggest we are signalling approval for how our authorities in territorial times treated the indigenous folk. And on the surface, there is so much sobering background. 

A letter writer to the Star Tribune pushed back, saying that if we promote the study of history at all, we are shedding light on how "the strong have oppressed the weak." Because when you get right down to it, this is what history is. The prevailing culture/system wants standards and laws that are bad news for those who diverge, those "left behind." And that is just the way it is. 

The indigenous people were headed to reservations, hopefully to be treated in some sort of humanitarian way. But life was indeed tough on reservations. We can joke that the Indians of today are getting "revenge" with their casinos. Still, I think the lives of natives are held back by a perception of being "the other." They were torn from their preferred way of life in the 19th Century. But weigh that against how their former life, however romanticized that has become, was bereft of any real science or medicine. And surely the natives fought among themselves. 

 

Flashpoint with Custer

The inevitable clash from long ago is nowhere better represented than in the 1991 made-for-TV movie "Son of the Morning Star." Here we're getting into Custer. Last name alone suffices for that historical figure. It invokes an immediate response: the image of a cavalry commander who shall we say bit off more than he could chew. 

Gary Cole played Custer in the movie. I personally found the movie riveting, fascinating, if incredibly sad, I mean to see so many human beings get cut down in battle. 

The Indians won overwhelmingly. After watching the movie - the zillions of bullets flying around - I had to wonder how many Indians died in the following weeks from blood poisoning. Every shot fired from a gun poses extreme danger for someone. 

Crazy Horse memorial (wikimapia image)

Did the American public find the movie disturbing? Even though "Son of the Morning Star" seems very well made, it got low ratings. That failure had consequences for another war epic that was in the works. The execs at ABC decided to turn thumbs-down on the grand civil war epic about the battle of Gettysburg. The movie's tentative name was "The Killer Angels," the name of a historical novel. ABC turned away from the movie but Ted Turner picked it up. So it got the new name "Gettysburg" and was released into theaters. 

"Gettysburg" had a flavor exactly like "Son of the Morning Star." It pulled no punches showing the violence of war. I have a theory that both movies got drawn out too long. Some of the audience may have drifted away before the "action" really set in. I put "action" in quotes because it's ironic how we are entertained by "action" that shows so many human beings dying. We understand it's history, of course. But we can appreciate history through poring over books, n'est-ce pas? 

I am able to "compartmentalize" and realize we're just seeing actors (or "re-enactors") on the screen. Still, rows of combatants firing off "volleys" against the foe? Entertainment? WCCO Radio had a popular personality, Ruth Koscielak, who was concerned about watching 3-4 hours of the big screen showing "men shooting at each other." She was talking about "Gettysburg." 

And then "Gettysburg" begat "Gods and Generals," another Turner project that tragically tried to raise the moral component of the Southern cause. "Gods and Generals" failed so badly, the third movie in the planned series of three has never been made. It was turgid. 

So, "Son of the Morning Star" stumbled in gaining an audience despite artistic pluses, and yet "Saving Private Ryan" came along and was quite successful. Lessons to be gained? Surely there are some. 

Such movies have value if only to remind us of the huge clashes of the past that help explain who we are today. So, will we see movies about the January 6, 2021, clash at the U.S. capitol? Oh, I think most surely. Didn't both sides lose on that?

- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com