Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Why Cuba Was, and Must Remain, on State Terror List


Posted By Henry Gomez On April 14, 2015 @ 5:56 am In Uncategorized | 7 Comments

In this Saturday, April 11, 2015 photo, U.S. President Barack Obama, right, smiles as he looks over towards Cuban President Raul Castro, left, during their historic meeting, at the Summit of the Americas in Panama City, Panama. The leaders of the United States and Cuba held their first formal meeting in more than half a century on Saturday, clearing the way for a normalization of relations that had seemed unthinkable to both Cubans and Americans for generations. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)


On December 17, President Obama addressed the nation, explaining how the United States would be changing its policy toward Cuba. At the same time, Raul Castro, Cuba’s dictator, also addressed his country. His rhetoric was significantly different.

Using Orwellian doublespeak, Raul welcomed America’s opening — but only as long as Cuban “sovereignty,” meaning the Castro brothers’ ability to repress the Cuban people, would not be infringed. In other words, “don’t count on any changes from us.”

The State Department has recommended removing Cuba from the U.S. list of state supporters of terror. This is just one of the many steps that President Obama needs to take to achieve the full normalization of diplomatic and economic relations that he desires for reasons that are only known to himself.

Despite the recommendation, as a practical matter Cuba’s regime and its tactics have not changed much since 1982, when the country was first put on the list.

From the very beginning of his rule, Fidel Castro set his eyes on subverting other countries throughout Latin America and then, later, even Africa. By 1982, through his America Department, Castro was fueling wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador and revolutionary movements in various other countries [1].

In his State of the Union address that year, Ronald Reagan tipped his hand about putting Cuba on the terrorist list [2]:
To those who would export terrorism and subversion in the Caribbean and elsewhere, especially Cuba and Libya, we will act with firmness.
An earlier CIA report entitled “Patterns of International Terrorism 1980” warned:
Havana openly advocates armed revolution as the only means for leftist forces to gain power in Latin America, and the Cubans have played an important role in facilitating the movement of men and weapons into the region. Havana provides direct support in terms of training, arms, safe havens, and advice to a wide variety of Guerilla groups. Many of these groups engage in terrorist operations.
With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the ending of its subsidies to Cuba, the island’s economy collapsed. This era was dubbed “The Special Period” by Fidel Castro, and lasted until Hugo Chavez was elected in Venezuela. Chavez took over as the regime’s benefactor and strategic client. Cuba’s active role in subverting other countries shrank by necessity, and not surprisingly, democracy finally began to take hold throughout the region.

In the intervening years, the Castro regime has made removing the U.S. trade embargo a primary goal, and has thus ramped up propaganda efforts to rehabilitate its image. The regime wants to give the impression that it is moderating to breathe dollars into Cuba’s still fragile economy, while in reality they are moderating as little as possible.

But is Cuba still a state sponsor of terrorism? Have the Castro brothers changed their minds about the role of violence in bringing about the Latin America they’d like to see?

During the 2000s, the State Department has continually renewed Cuba’s status as a terrorist state on the basis of some unchallenged facts [3]. The Castro brothers continue to harbor international terrorists from Spain’s Basque separatist group ETA and Colombia’s Marxist rebels FARC, as well as American domestic terrorists from groups like the Black Liberation Army.

Nothing has really changed on this front. It’s estimated that 70 U.S. fugitives are being harbored by Cuba, including Joanne Chesimard (AKA “Assata Shakur”), a convicted cop killer.

Apologists for the Castro regime try to argue that Cuba does not meet the criteria of state sponsor of terrorism via technicalities. They insist that the Basque terrorists in Cuba are a matter for Spain to resolve bilaterally with Cuba, and that the FARC terrorists don’t count because Cuba is hosting peace talks between FARC and the Colombian government, and that Chesimard doesn’t qualify as a terrorist because she didn’t kill a civilian, conflating a police officer with a member of uniformed armed forces in a declared war.

Needless to say, the straws they grasp at paint no more of a flattering picture of the totalitarian dictatorship they defend, which is in its sixth decade.

Let’s examine what Cuba’s role in Latin America and the world is today. Venezuela’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Diego Arria, was quoted as saying [4]:
Venezuela is an occupied country. The Venezuelan regime is a puppet controlled by the Cubans. It is no longer Cuban tutelage; it is control.
The Cubanization of the Venezuelan government reached a grotesque zenith last year [5] as government troops beat, shot, and killed pro-democracy protesters.

In July of 2013, a North Korean vessel was intercepted carrying Cuban weapons and military aircraft bound for North Korea in clear violation of UN sanctions [6].

And just a few weeks ago, a Chinese ship carrying undocumented weapons to Cuba was detained by Colombian officials [7].

And that’s without even mentioning the standing indictments of Cuban Air Force pilots for their role in the premeditated shooting down of two American civilian aircraft [8] over international waters, resulting in four deaths.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Even if Cuba is removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism on a technicality, even if Cuba’s tactics these days are less obvious, the uncomfortable fact is that neither the Castro regime’s ideology nor its goals nor its leaders have changed since they day the Reagan administration put them on the list.

Why the Obama administration is so desperate to make nice with these bad actors who are sworn enemies of the U.S. and democracy worldwide is beyond me.

Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com


URLs in this post:

[1] Castro was fueling wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador and revolutionary movements in various other countries: http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/rex-hudson.htm

[2] Ronald Reagan tipped his hand about putting Cuba on the terrorist list: http://issuu.com/uscuba/docs/cuba_and_state_sponsors_of_terrorism_list-crs_2005

[3] the State Department has continually renewed Cuba’s status as a terrorist state on the basis of some unchallenged facts: http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2008/122436.htm

[4] Venezuela’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Diego Arria, was quoted as saying: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/14/one-of-the-greatest-ironies-of-the-late-strongman-/

[5] reached a grotesque zenith last year: http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/12/world/americas/venezuela-protests/


[7] a Chinese ship carrying undocumented weapons to Cuba was detained by Colombian officials: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-31723157

[8] for their role in the premeditated shooting down of two American civilian aircraft: http://www.americasquarterly.org/why-cuba-remains-state-sponsor-terrorism

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

We must revisit how Marathon bombers became extremists


By Ayaan Hirsi Ali  
ASSOCIATED PRESS/FILE 2013
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (second from left) was found guilty of all 30 counts stemming from the Marathon bombings. His brother, Tamerlan (third from left), was killed during a shootout with police in Watertown.

Now that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been found guilty in the Boston Marathon bombing, we need to revisit a key issue — understanding why he and his brother became radicalized exponents of jihad.
Western commentators sometimes blame harsh economic conditions, dysfunctional family circumstances, confused identity, the generic alienation of young males, a failure to integrate into the larger society, and so on. None of this is convincing, as the Tsarnaev case shows.
Born in the former Soviet Union to a Chechen father who had sought asylum in the United States in 2002, both Dzhokhar and his brother Tamerlan had received the gifts of free education, free housing, and free medical care from various US governmental agencies.
Their paths to becoming US citizens could scarcely have been smoother. So why did the brothers feel compelled to build two explosive devices and detonate them in a crowd of spectators?
Growing up, the Tsarnaevs were typical examples of what I call “Mecca Muslims,” meaning that they were not raised to be zealots. The parents — at least in their early years in the United States — do not seem to have been very devout. The brothers rarely observed Islamic strictures: one had dreams of becoming a boxing champion and spent most of his days training while the other had a busy social life, dated girls, and smoked pot.
Yet when Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wrote a bloodstained note in the final hours before his capture, the first words he used were: “I believe there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger.” That is the Shahada, the Muslim profession of faith, and it is the most important of the five pillars of Islam. Today it is also the banner of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Boko Haram.
What he wrote next made it clear that he was no naive dupe but a fully-fledged “Medina Muslim” — that is to say, a committed believer in the literal application of the teachings and practice of the Prophet Mohammed after his move to Medina and adoption of jihad — holy war — as a method.
“I’m jealous of my brother who ha[s] [re]ceived the reward of jannutul Firdaus [the highest level of Paradise] (inshallah) before me. I do not mourn because his soul is very much alive ... I ask Allah to make me a shahied (iA) [a martyr] inshallah to allow me to return to him and be among all the righteous people in the highest levels of heaven. He who Allah guides no one can misguide. A[llah Ak]bar!” He also offered this explicit account of his and his brother’s motivations: “the ummah is beginning to rise/ [unintelligible] has awoken the mujahideen, know you are fighting men who look into the barrel of your gun and see heaven, now how can you compete with that[?]”
When people commit violence in the name of religion, we must consider the possibility that they mean what they say. As I argue in my new book, which calls for a reformation of Islam, jihad in the 21st century is not a problem of poverty, insufficient education or any other social precondition. It is embedded in some of the key teachings of Islam itself.
If Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were the only homegrown jihadists on record, it might be possible to dismiss them as mentally disturbed. But they are not. The Islamic State’s social media mastermind is believed to be Ahmad Abousamra, a dual American-Syrian citizen, who grew up in Stoughton. He attended the private Xaverian Brothers Catholic high school in Westwood before transferring to Stoughton High in his senior year, when he made the honor roll. He also made the dean’s list at Northeastern University.
If this sounds like a privileged upbringing, that’s because it was. Yet, according to the testimony of FBI agents, Abousamra “celebrated” the 9/11 attacks and, while in college in the early 2000s, expressed his support for murdering Americans because “they paid taxes to support the government and were kufar [nonbelievers].” Abousamra worshipped at the same Cambridge mosque — the Islamic Society of Boston — as the Tsarnaev brothers and five other high-profile terrorists, among them Aafia Siddiqui, an MIT scientist turned Al Qaeda agent who was sentenced to 86 years in prison for planning a chemical attack in New York.
These jihadists are hardly uneducated, unskilled, or impoverished. That they have nevertheless committed themselves to holy war against the West is deeply perplexing to those of us who cannot imagine anything being more attractive than the Western way of life. That is why we cast around desperately for explanations of their behavior — any explanations, other than the obvious one.
As the Tsarnaev trial heads toward its denouement, with the only remaining question whether or not the death penalty should be imposed, many Bostonians are hoping for closure — above all those families who lost loved ones so cruelly when the brothers detonated their bombs. Unfortunately, we need to face the possibility that this is just the opening of a new and worrisome era.
Since 2013, 29 people in the United States have been charged or detained as juveniles on allegations of seeking to join the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. About 24 other Americans are believed already to be with the the Islamic State or to have been killed fighting for it.
The case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a warning to America about the deadly danger posed by Medina Muslims. We must heed it.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s new book is “Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now.’’ She is a Fellow of the Future of Diplomacy Project at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, a Visiting Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, and founder of the AHA Foundation.

SNL - Hillary Clinton Election Video Cold Open

Monday, April 13, 2015

Spieth shifts spotlight of American golf


Gene Wojciechowski, Columnist / College Football reporter
April 12, 2015
Jordan Spieth celebrates after winning the Masters golf tournament Sunday, April 12, 2015, in Augusta, Ga.
Chris Carlson/AP Photo

AUGUSTA, Ga. -- What is it like when the dream grows up to become reality?Jordan Spieth can tell you, now that his reality, years in the making, includes a 42-regular green jacket.
Spieth didn't just win the 79th Masters, he took it out behind Butler Cabin and knocked it silly. He led from Thursday start to Sunday finish. He tied a Masters scoring record -- you know, just for fun.
So final-round drama took a vacation day. Big deal. That's the trade-off for watching Spieth leave tank tracks over the rest of the field. History doesn't always require a cliffhanger ending.
Spieth won by 4 strokes and was never truly threatened. Justin Roseand Phil Mickelson made their little runs, but it was like watching two guys try to scale a 20-foot wall with a 5-foot ladder. They tried, but they needed help -- and Spieth never lowered them a rope.
"This is arguably the greatest day of my life," Spieth said.
If you're looking for the next great American player, Spieth is a nice place to start. Soon, he might be a nice place to finish -- if he isn't already.
The search has gone on for years. From Arnie to Jack to maybe Tom Watson to Tiger to ...?
Let's see. It was going to be Hank Keuhne, Ricky BarnesCharles Howell III,Rickie FowlerDustin Johnson -- the list goes on. But none of those guys has won a major. Not even Arnie or Jack left Augusta National with a four-round total of 18-under. It was, as Mickelson put it, "just astounding."
It was, wasn't it? Everything about Spieth's 2015 Masters (sure, you might as well include his T-2 in his Masters debut last year too) was beyond amazing.
Spieth actually stepped to the 18th tee box at 19-under (the first player ever to do so here) but bogeyed the final hole. That meant he tied Woods' 72-hole Masters scoring record -- a record many thought would never be matched or broken.
The list of his early career accomplishments is beginning to stretch longer than the flagstick Spieth's caddie, Michael Greller, kept as a keepsake. Spieth has already won more than $14 million in his brief professional career. He has three PGA Tour victories, but in his past four tournaments, he has gone win, second, tied for second, win. He has played in the Ryder Cup and the Presidents Cup.
Did I mention he's only 21?
"Obviously, you could put him in that classification of phenom," said Zach Johnson, who won this tournament in 2007. "But given that, I don't think you want to ordain him anything yet."
Fair enough. It's one major, but what a major. Spieth is only the fifth Masters winner to go wire-to-wire and the first to do so in 39 years. With the win, he moves to No. 2 in the world rankings, behind Rory McIlroy.
The truth is Spieth and his game are easy to like. He's 21, but you wouldn't know it by the way he plays. He thinks older. He carries himself older. Even his hairline is older. If you're American golf, you want him on that tee box. You need him on that tee box.
There's a reason there was a conga line of players and caddies waiting to congratulate Spieth as he made his way to the scorer's room. Jim Mackay, Mickelson's caddie, hugged him and said, "I'm happy for you, buddy." Johnson told him, "I'm so proud of you, man. Well done."
On the CBS broadcast, three-time Masters champ Nick Faldo told viewers, "America wanted its superstar, and it got one very quickly."
Actually, it didn't happen that quickly. Spieth has been dreaming of this since he was a kid in Dallas, when he would go to the golf course with his buddies and spend time on the practice green.
"This is to win the Masters," he would tell them as he lined up a long one.
If he made it, he and his friends would yell loudly enough to cause some of the club's members to shush him.
This is the same guy who years later would be allowed to take a quick tour of Augusta National's Champions Locker Room -- where only Masters champions are allowed entry. He gazed at the room and said to himself, "This is where I want to be. This is the pinnacle of golf."
On Sunday, he made the putt to win the Masters for real. His name will be engraved on one of those lockers. Dream, let me introduce you to Reality.
Tiger Woods turns 40 in December. He remains the face of golf, but even he would say he isn't the future of golf. That title belongs to McIlroy.
But for now, in this country, Spieth is the present and future. Of course, Johnson respectfully disagrees.
"I think that's an embellishment," he said.
His point: There are other young American golfers in the superstar pipeline.
"I think American golf is outstanding," he said.
He'll get no argument here. But Spieth is the only young American golfter to move from the pipeline to Butler Cabin for the green jacket presentation. He's the only one to thank the food and beverage people at Augusta National during the awards ceremony. He's the only one to say, without reservation, that he wants to win another Masters and unseat McIlroy as world No. 1.
Is he the next great American golf hope?
Nope.
He's already there.

60 Minutes: Rush to Judgement in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Scandal

Former Duke lacrosse coach discusses his forced resignation during the 2006 Duke rape scandal and his hard road back to coaching


Sunday, April 12, 2015

Justifying Raylan: The Importance of the Elmore Leonard Character


April 10, 2015
There's a great scene about two-thirds of the way through a recent episode of the current and final season of "Justified."
In it, Deputy U.S. Marshal Raylan Givens, skillfully played as always by Timothy Olyphant, has just pulled up to a house where his series-long nemesis (and occasional ally) Appalachian outlaw Boyd Crowder, equally deftly portrayed by Walton Goggins, is staying. Crowder rushes out to meet Givens and the two quickly begin a verbal sparring match (fueled mainly by Crowder's desire to keep Givens from finding a wanted fugitive hiding inside) in which Givens reveals that the only thing keeping him from moving on to live with his ex-wife and baby in Florida is his vow to finally bring Crowder down.
"This is one of them classic stories where the hero gets his man and he rides off into the sunset," Givens says.
"Or maybe it's like that other classic, where a guy chases a whale to the ends of the earth only to drown for his trouble," Crowder shoots back.
After a pause, Givens smiles and declares: "I gotta admit, there's a small part of me that's going to miss this when it's over."
It's a fantastic moment in a cable series full of fantastic moments. For the past five years, "Justified" on F/X has been offering a guaranteed reoccurring dose of satisfaction for those in need of smart television crime-drama - with a neo-Western twist of course.
It's also become the premier entry in Elmore Leonard's pop-culture footprint, which is no small feat when you realize he wrote more than forty novels and there are more than two dozen screen versions of his work. And it's really surprising when you notice just how slight Raylan Givens originally was in the library of Leonard's work.
Elmore Leonard was always particular about the names of his characters. He openly admitted to struggling to find a character's voice until he'd changed their name to something that was more befitting. And the story goes, at least the one Leonard told, that he knew he was going to name a character Raylan as soon as he heard the name at a book distributor conference in Texas during the summer of 1991.
Two years later, Leonard introduced Givens in his novel Pronto, but as a minor character. The book's focus was middle-aged bookie Harry Arno, who managed to escape from the cowboy hat-wearing Deputy Marshal and flee to Italy with Givens and a host of bad guys in hot pursuit. Givens, along with Arno, would return in Leonard's 1995 follow-up, Riding the Rap, but again not as a main character.
Five years later, Leonard finally revived Givens for a novella, Fire in the Hole, and even gave him the main spotlight. The story banishes Givens from Miami following a shootout with a mobster (after giving him twenty-four hours to leave town) to Harlan County, Kentucky, where he grew up and runs headlong into Boyd Crowder, an old buddy he spent part of his teens working alongside in a coal mine and who now operates on the other side of the law as a white supremacist. The tale climaxes with Givens, Crowder, and the wife of Crowder's late brother (whom she killed) in her dinning room and Givens is forced to shoot his onetime friend. If any of that sounds familiar to you fans of the show that's because the pilot for "Justified" is pretty much a word-for-word adaptation.
Of course, series creator and show runner Graham Yost tweaked some things when bringing the story to TV, trimming the ages of Givens and Crowder, creating Givens' criminal father, Arlo, and filling out the supporting cast (especially on the law enforcement side of things). All those changes were fine with Leonard, who was given an executive producer credit, although he did famously feud with Yost and the producers over the show's choice for Givens's trademark hat - Leonard had always envisioned Givens wearing a smaller businessman's Stetson as opposed to the one used in the show.
But most important of all, what the producers and writers of "Justified" did was choose not to just use Fire in the Hole as a springboard for a larger serialized story but an exploration and continuation of Leonard's style and tone. Books from throughout his bibliography, not just the ones featuring Givens, were read and studied and writers were even reported to have worn blue wristbands stamped with WWED for "What would Elmore do?"
Even less purposeful adjustments helped "Justified" flesh out and incorporate the Leonard style. Groogins's insistence to play Crowder more as an intelligent manipulator versus charismatic racist when it was decided to bump the character up to a series regular instead of a one-off villain for the pilot fit perfectly with Leonard's habit of creating clever criminals with mouths full of brainy dialogue. And Olyphant's experience playing real-life frontier sheriff Seth Bullock on HBO's "Deadwood" undoubtedly helped him in some way get into the role of a modern-day lawmen created by a writer that started out penning westerns. Leonard often said that Olyphant "plays the character exactly the way I wrote him."
Leonard himself so loved the series that the last book he finished before his death in 2013 was a whole novel centered around Givens, Raylan, which the author shared with the show's writers before publication and several elements were used as plot points for the third season.
In his last interviews, Leonard was often asked what he was working on. A writer as prolific as him often had another book in progress, even while he was promoting his most recent release. Leonard described a novel about a private prison in Arizona, far from the backwoods of Harlin, and a story about a prize-winning bull rider who runs afoul of a crooked immigration officer. And yet somehow he was still drawn to Givens and mentioned how he wanted to put the Marshall in the piece.
"I need Raylan in this one," he told one interviewer, almost as if after a near-sixty-year career he'd finally found his ideal character.

What ‘Justified’ Really Says About Modern Manhood And Westerns


The FX series 'Justified,' like Westerns themselves, is not about personal morality. It's about the kind of men who civilize barbarism.

March 31, 2015
Timothy Olyphant as Raylan Givens  (FX)

Rachel Lu thinks heroes of the western genre like John Wayne embodied a noble vision of American manhood as honorable, reliable, and self-sacrificing—everything a good American man should be.
Understood in that light, Lu argues that the FX series “Justified,” although it has elements of the western genre, is thoroughly modern, its characters “infused with far more moral ambiguity than John Wayne typically faced.” The show’s protagonist, Deputy U.S. Marshal Raylan Givens (played by Timothy Olyphant), might dress like a cowboy, but “as a family man, he leaves much to be desired”—because he sleeps around with strange women and refuses to join his wife and baby in another state. By contrast, the show’s villain, Boyd Crowder (the excellent Walton Goggins), is devoted to one woman and his “devotion even inspires dreams of respectability.”
In other words, the moral complexity of these characters has chiefly to do with their sexual fidelity. The good guy isn’t faithful to his woman but the bad guy is. For Lu, that places “Justified” outside the traditional western genre—it feels like a western, with marshals fighting outlaws in a wild country, but its hero doesn’t really fit her mold of the honorable American man. She goes on to suggest that, despite Raylan’s failings, if the series ends with him going back to be with his family, “Justified” will prove to be a “brilliant renewal of a classic genre,” presumably because the hero will wind up being honorable and “manly” in an American, John Wayne kind of way.
The trouble with this reading of “Justified” is that it reduces the western genre to nothing more than an extended sermon on the virtues of personal morality and manliness, which it decidedly is not, and in the process it totally misunderstands the show itself.

Westerns Aren’t About Personal Morality

Perhaps John Wayne’s greatest role was that of Ethan Edwards in John Ford’s 1956 epic film, “The Searchers,” widely considered to be the greatest western ever made. The film chronicles the search for a young girl, Debbie, after a band of Comanche massacres her family in 1868 and takes her and her sister captive. Ethan, the girl’s uncle, and a man named Martin Pawley set out on a years-long quest to find her.
Ethan’s character is dark, vengeful, and violent, nothing like the paragon of honorable manhood Lu imagines. Shortly after they set out to find Debbie, Ethan mutilates the corpse of a Comanche they killed in a raid, and for much of the film he intends not to rescue but kill Debbie when he finds her, reasoning that during her years of captivity she’s become a savage and would be better off dead. Indeed, when they finally find Debbie she tells them she is Comanche now and wishes to stay, whereupon Ethan tries to shoot her. Later, after Martin kills the Comanche chief, Ethan scalps the corpse—a blatant act of savagery. In the film’s famous last scene, after delivering Debbie to her family Ethan doesn’t step inside but turns to leave alone, a wanderer unfit for civilization.
A 2013 book about “The Searchers” by Glen Frankel made the mistake of thinking the film was all about race. Ethan was a racist and his hateful racism forced audiences in 1956 to confront their own racism and so on. Douglas Jeffrey, in a piece published last year in the Claremont Review of Booksdemolishes this misreading and explains that the film, like all true westerns, is an American variation on the epic form: it is chiefly concerned with “the virtues required to defend civilization.”
That is, the film isn’t concerned with manliness or even with America as such. “The Searchers,” after all, is the quintessential western, and the western is at heart about the tension between civilization and barbarism—and the interplay between the two. Its heroes are often savage anti-heroes, as in the Greek epics. Here, it’s worth quoting Jeffrey’s use of an essay by Paul Cantor, “The Western and Western Drama: John Ford’s The Searchers and the Oresteia,” in which Cantor “discusses the film as a classic revenge story in which the ‘revenge ethic is characteristic of pre-political situations’ at a moment of transition to civilization.”
‘Cowboys versus Indians in Ford,’ Cantor writes, ‘turns out to be a reprise of Greeks versus barbarians in ancient epic and tragedy and involves a similar degree of complexity.’ He cautions critics to ‘pause and reflect before condemning either Homer or Ford as racist,’ pointing out that neither constructs a simple opposition between Greek/cowboy and barbarian/Indian. Indeed, both Homer and Ford suggest that something grand is lost in the transition to civilization, represented in the savage heroes—Achilles and Ethan Edwards—who alone possess the virtues to make the transition possible but who are left behind.
During World War II, Ford worked as documentarian in the Office of Strategic Services, filming major battles in every theater of the war. He was among the first to see the German death camps, an experience that doubtless impressed upon him the tenuousness of civilization and imbued his films, as Jeffrey notes, with “an element of pessimism about the endurance of the virtues required to defend civilization.” Ford’s films, like the Greek epics from which they’re drawn, portray civilization as a fragile thing, always under threat and always in need of protection—a task that often falls to those willing to step outside of civilization and into a state of nature. Hence, heroes like Ethan.

What Kind of Man Defends Civilization?

That brings us back to Raylan. In discussing “Justified” and the western genre, Lu conflates the virtues required to defend civilization with the virtues required to be a good husband, which she considers essential to honorable manhood. And perhaps they are. But that has little to do with the western hero. Lu faults Raylan for sleeping around, neglecting his wife and baby, and having a fascination with violence and danger. He’s not the honorable American man she imputes to the western genre but a thoroughly modern man—undisciplined, unfaithful, and, at least to Lu, dishonorable.
In this, Lu misreads Raylan’s role in the world of “Justified”. Whether he decides to be with his wife and child at the end of the series has nothing to do with whether “Justified” is a western in the epic tradition of Ford. In fact, the show would hew much closer to the western genre if Raylan doesn’t return home but remains a kind of outcast, seeking justice and vengeance among the lawless. (It also has almost nothing to do with what makes the show a compelling drama, but that’s a different essay.)
True western heroes defend civilization, inhabiting the frontier that protects the civilized world from the barbarians beyond its borders. The man with the character to sacrifice the comforts of civilization for the sake of preserving it might have many other fine qualities. He might love his wife and children. He might be good neighbor and citizen. He might even pay his taxes and sit on the school board and sign peace petitions.
But he also might be a man like Ethan Edwards, unfit for civilized society and unwelcome in it. He also might be a lot like Raylan Givens.

John Davidson is a writer in Austin, Texas. Follow him on Twitter.