I don't know if this theme is universal or not, but Americans seem to like the Old West tale of the Marshal shooting it out with the desperadoes and, of course, killing the bad guy[s] in a fair fight.
That's the original story told of the death of William Henry McCarty (aka Billy the Kid). However, later historians now believe he was not holding a gun and was ambushed by Pat Garrett in the dark. In other words, the Kid never had a chance.
It is the same basic story told of the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral in Tombstone, Arizona. The popular version is that the Earp brothers (Marshal Virgil Earp and his deputized brothers) and Doc Holliday went to disarm a group of roughnecks (known as "The Cowboys") and were fired upon by the bad guys. The lawmen returned fire and three of the "outlaws" were killed.
Many historians now dispute or, at least, question this rendition of the event. (One book that thoroughly examines this famous episode is Wyatt Earp: The Life Behind the Legend.) While no one questions the fact that The Cowboys were armed to the teeth, many now believe that the lawmen opened fire on them without any direct provocation...sort of like preemptive war.
I bring up these two examples (there are plenty more) because we now have a present-day case of the American love for a shootout. As most of you know, when the President and administration officials announced that Osama Bin Laden had been killed in Pakistan, the initial story we were told was that he had died in a "firefight" and that he had attempted to use a woman as a human shield.
As it turns out, neither of these parts of the story are true. The woman was shot while running towards the soldiers and, as Press Secretary Jay Carney revealed, Bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot and killed.
This admission is troubling, at best. It would seem to indicate that apprehending Bin Laden was not part of the plan; killing him was. If he was not armed, then the "firefight" turns into a summary execution. Executions don't play as well in the public imagination as a gunfight.
That's the original story told of the death of William Henry McCarty (aka Billy the Kid). However, later historians now believe he was not holding a gun and was ambushed by Pat Garrett in the dark. In other words, the Kid never had a chance.
It is the same basic story told of the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral in Tombstone, Arizona. The popular version is that the Earp brothers (Marshal Virgil Earp and his deputized brothers) and Doc Holliday went to disarm a group of roughnecks (known as "The Cowboys") and were fired upon by the bad guys. The lawmen returned fire and three of the "outlaws" were killed.
Many historians now dispute or, at least, question this rendition of the event. (One book that thoroughly examines this famous episode is Wyatt Earp: The Life Behind the Legend.) While no one questions the fact that The Cowboys were armed to the teeth, many now believe that the lawmen opened fire on them without any direct provocation...sort of like preemptive war.
I bring up these two examples (there are plenty more) because we now have a present-day case of the American love for a shootout. As most of you know, when the President and administration officials announced that Osama Bin Laden had been killed in Pakistan, the initial story we were told was that he had died in a "firefight" and that he had attempted to use a woman as a human shield.
As it turns out, neither of these parts of the story are true. The woman was shot while running towards the soldiers and, as Press Secretary Jay Carney revealed, Bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot and killed.
This admission is troubling, at best. It would seem to indicate that apprehending Bin Laden was not part of the plan; killing him was. If he was not armed, then the "firefight" turns into a summary execution. Executions don't play as well in the public imagination as a gunfight.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.