clarence said

Huck Riley said In any event, where “your” history is proven to be FOS, and the re-writing of history is designed to do exactly what is alleged to have happened here, I would place the burden on you to prove Reeves wasn’t the man behind the idea.  Why is that reasonable?

 

    

It isn’t. Not one scintilla of evidence that the creator had ever heard of Reeves, but an entirely logical explanation for the creator’s inspiration in the combination of the well-known story of Zorro, a masked crusader for justice, with that of the Texas Rangers, another legendary story known to all.  A “burden” requiring one to prove a negative is one easily dismissed.  

The inspiration of Zorro, Texas Rangers, and any others, is not mutually exclusive.  Stories are often compilations.

As to burdens of proving negatives, that’s rich coming from one the very basis of who’s argument is against historical revisionism.  If someone is written out of history, the vacuum pulls in the negative.  That’s not on Reeves or Johnson or any of their ilk.  Nor is it unreasonable for someone like Morgan or Burton to come forward with some evidence, and then shift the burden to you to refute it.  But typical of your PC, you call it “not one scintilla” and “historical revisionist”.  Sounds like O.J. Simpson.   

Finally, I can’t believe you haven’t grasped the absurdity of objecting to a claim of PC in support of a fictional character like the Lone Ranger.  Yeah, the Lone Ranger and other Golden Age white men were not PC for their times.  Right.  Where is my rolling eyes icon?  You defend your old PC movies like they weren’t PC.  What you fail to understand here, is that which is “PC” is relative to the subjective view of the observer.  The movies you love are PC.  It’s just your PC.  And it’s no less offensive to historical accuracy than Django.  The point is, if you can’t sit down of your own volition and watch a movie without feeling like something is being shoved down your throat against your will, then, well, you must be feeling defensive or guilty about something.

How’s about you try watching a movie and invoke your willing suspension of disbelief, and enjoy it?  No?  Okay, be angry, and pine for Mayberry RFD.  Now there’s a historically accurate representation of “the good old days.” 

OOPS!  Obviously I didn’t recall correctly. Agreed it was a masterpiece of a comedic western. Sorry for the error. Pryor helped write the sceneplay.

clarence said

It’s absurdly unreasonable.  When there’s not “one scintilla” of evidence that the Lone Ranger creator was aware in 1932 of the Reeves story, but refused to acknowledge it (for racist motives, naturally), how can that “burden” exist?   Had any biography of Reeves been published by 1932?  Had his story been made the subject of any popular novel or magazine story?  The existence of some such general public source wouldn’t prove that Trendle had himself encountered it, but it would raise the possibility.  You being the expert on this subject, please explain how an ordinary person living in 1932, not an historian (he was a Detroit lawyer before he found the movie business to be more profitable), would have become aware of the Reeves story.  

No, it’s not unreasonable.  The (more than a) “scintilla” is the fact that 1. the broadcast came out of the same town where most of Bass’ prisoners were imprisoned, 2. combined with Bass’s conduct and personality fitting the character that your own sources say the writer was trying to create, 3. along with the absence of other, or even any real-life law officers that fit that mold.  Indeed, for you to suggest the that the author was not aware of Bass for any reason is absurd.  These people and their stories were all much closer in time, too.  Hell, I suppose the author never heard of Billy the Kid and Jesse James?  Doh! 

As a lawyer, you damn well know he’d heard of Hanging Judge (Isaac Parker) who’s number one man was Bass.  And everyone knew it.  We even learned a little about Parker in Law School in 1987, for Christ’s sake.  The Bass attachment to the court has only faded due to your flavor of PC writing of him out of history.  In fact, I’d be willing to bet Bass was more well-known the further back you go, for precisely the reasons you worry about: PC re-writes history.  Remember the vacuum I wrote about?  So you make my point for me.  He was on the radar from 1875 up until 1907.  So, less than 30 years is to the author what 1990 is to us.  You can’t remember back that far?

Anyway, Bert dropping into this thread reminded me of how far off topic we are getting from Winchesters, which so often happens whenever you decide to share your flavor of politics.  So out of respect for him and the others, I cede the floor to you.