The Mythical Frontier,the Mexican Revolution,and the Press: AnImperial SubplotMark Cronlund Anderson

Abstract: The frontier myth has served as America’s secular creationstory. As a result, it surfaces widely in popular culture and politicaldiscourse. It also resonates in news coverage. This paper exploreshow the American press framed the Mexican Revolution as a mythicalfrontier narrative by examining depictions of revolutionary Francisco‘‘Pancho’’ Villa. The news story that emerges bears close resemblance tothe frontier thesis, as articulated by historian Frederick Jackson Turner.

Keywords: frontier thesis, frontier myth and popular culture, frontiermyth and history, Mexican Revolution and media, frontier myth andPancho Villa

Resume : Le mythe de la frontiere a toujours servi de fond a l’histoirede la fondation de l’Amerique ; c’est pourquoi on le retrouve souventdans la culture populaire et dans le discours politique. On en trouveegalement de nombreux echos dans la presse. Cet article se penche sur lesfacons dont la presse americaine a presente la Revolution mexicainecomme un recit a caractere mythique, grace a une analyse des portraitsqu’on y faisait du revolutionnaire Francisco «Pancho» Villa. L’analyse quien ressort a de nombreux points communs avec la these de la frontieretelle que la presente l’historien Frederick Jackson Turner.

Mots cles : these de la frontiere, mythe de la frontiere et la culturepopulaire, mythe de la frontiere et l’histoire, Revolution mexicaine etmedias, mythe de la frontiere et Pancho Villa

The frontier Western, a cultural narrative that, to varying degrees,recapitulates the mythical frontier, has been central to the Americanimagination since the time of the Puritans.1 So strongly has itscultural weight been felt that scholars, not without controversy,

� Canadian Reviewof American Studies/Revue canadienne d’e¤ tudes ame¤ ricaines 37, no.1, 2007

have ascribed to the myth powers that have influenced everythingfrom cigarette advertising to US foreign policy; they haveeven identified imperial behaviour.2 It has been describedas America’s secular creation story (see Kenworthy). Popular film,in particular, has been singled out as the most common site forartistic presentation of the frontier myth over the past century.3

That said, one might then expect that the frontier Western wouldexpress itself in other forms of popular culture—news stories,for example.

Press reports emanating from Mexico during the fiercest hours ofthat country’s revolution, 1913–5, illustrate precisely this point. Therevolution unfolded in the US press in ways closely parallelingthose of a frontier Western. This is not to suggest that the revolu-tionaries themselves fought in ways commensurate with myth orthat the outcome of the civil war was in any way influenced bymyth; rather, my contention in this essay is that the US presscollectively cast and interpreted the revolution during this periodin ways that, for American newspaper audiences, resonated mythi-cally with frontier tropes, especially with respect to the mediatreatment of Francisco ‘‘Pancho’’ Villa.

Home on the Range

The frontier Western’s conventions are as common as those ofnursery rhymes and may include combinations of the followingelements: cowboys; Indians; sage brush; gun play; saloons;horses; corrupted lawmen; Mexicans; dark-skinned whores;white female virgins; various sorts of lascivious, savage behaviouron the parts on non-white males (especially Indians and Mexicans);and so on (Cameron and Pye; Grant; also see Bazin). Additionally,the frontier Western champions archetypal masculine Americana(honesty, bravery, cleverness, whiteness, Protestantism, selfcontrol, and the like), while decrying the binary oppositesof these characteristics (dishonesty, cowardliness, non-whiteness,paganism, lack of self control, and so on). ‘‘Others,’’ in thismythopoeic yarn, so reek of treachery and darkness as to inviteconquest.4

What distinguishes the frontier Western from a traditional Westernis that the former qua genre necessarily plays out in a mythicaldreamscape and, as noted, recapitulates some aspect(s) of the

Canadian

Review

ofAm

erican

Studies3

7(2007)

2

frontier myth. Conventionally, this occurs in the spatio-temporalsetting of the post-bellum, western United States but may also belocated in jungles, outer space, Vietnam—anywhere, in short,and in keeping with the mythical narrative, that a frontier maybe imagined to exist (see, e.g., Opt). The term ‘‘frontier’’ here isimbued with and delimited by special meanings, central amongthem, according to historian Frederick Jackson Turner, author of‘‘The Frontier Thesis’’—an essay of staggering historiographicalimport and historical influence, which presciently distilled andpoetically articulated the myth—a line dividing savagery (them)from civilization (us—in this case, mythical America).5 The experi-ence of life in that frontier zone effectively stripped whiteimmigrants down, wrote Turner, to the point of near death andnearer savagery. The result, for those who survived the encounter,was rebirth, from which a neoteric white man emerged, a maneffectively purged of European corruption and refashioned asquintessentially and mythically American, with the noted mythicalvirtues in attendance (think John Wayne). Wave upon wave of thisprocess, a sort of deterministic metaphorical tsunami, according tothe Turner thesis (an essay that ranks easily as the most importanthistorical essay in the study of American history),6 effectivelysettled the United States with hordes of reborn males, fashioningmythical America in its wake.

Turner referred to the process as a ‘‘perennial rebirth’’ (38). ‘‘Fromeast to west,’’ he averred, ‘‘we find the record of social evolu-tion’’(43). Further, he wrote,

The frontier is the line of most rapid and effectiveAmericanization. The wilderness masters the colonist. It findshim a European in dress, industries, tools, modes of travel,and thought. It takes him from the railroad car and puts him inthe birch canoe. It strips off the garments of civilization andarrays him in the hunting shirt and the moccasin . . . In short,at the frontier the environment is at first too strong for theman. He must accept the conditions which it furnishes,or perish . . . The fact is, that here is a new product thatis American. (39)

The personal characteristics required for American-style success—even, survival, on the frontier—honesty, a hard-work ethic,rugged individualism, cleverness, Protestant virtue, mental andphysical toughness, and so on—emerged spontaneously as the

Revuecanadienne

d’e ¤tudesame ¤ricaines37

(2007)

3

frontier worked its inexplicable deterministic magic. Accordingto Turner,

[T]o the frontier the American intellect owes its strikingcharacteristics. That coarseness of strength combined withacuteness and inquisitiveness; that practical, inventive turn ofmind, quick to find expedients; that masterful grasp of materialthings, lacking in the artistic but powerful to effect great ends;that restless, nervous energy; that dominant individualismworking for good and for evil, and withal that buoyancy andexuberance which comes from freedom—these are traits of thefrontier, or traits called out elsewhere because of the frontier.(61; also 46, 57)

A Triple Threat

The Turner thesis may thus be summed up in three acts. In Act One,civilization and savagery collide in a frontier dreamscape, set mosttypically (yet not necessarily) in the American West. In Act Two,a special man emerges from the conflict, a frontiersman, draped inmythical Americana. In Act Three, the frontiersman conquersbarbarism violently and keeps excessive civilization at bay, therebychampioning aggressive land seizure and distinguishing America’sunique mythical (that is, superior) status vis-a-vis Europe and theattendant dangers of over-civilization. The process of frontier (andthe place—qua verb and noun) revivifies America.

In practice, in popular culture, this foundational narrative maytake many shapes. For example, in Hollywood, this includesmovies about science fiction and outer space (e.g., Apollo 13,Alien, Star Wars), the Vietnam War (e.g., Green Berets, ApocalypseNow, Full Metal Jacket), the old West (e.g., Stagecoach, Shane, TheVirginian), comedy (e.g., Blazing Saddles, Big Lebowksi), and actionand drama (e.g., Raiders of the Lost Ark, River Queen, Dances withWolves). The common ingredients here include tensions that pitsavagery against civilization, where frontiersmen (e.g., the epon-ymous Shane, Alien’s Ripley, Indiana Jones, the Virginian himself)defeat the ‘‘savages’’ (as in Green Berets or nearly any Westernmovie), who assume the guise of ‘‘Other’’ (e.g., Indians, monsters,Vietcong, even Muslims—as in Raiders of the Lost Ark) (see Cawelti;Slotkin, Gunfighter Nation).

The US press replicated this utopian Turnerian vision closely in theway that it framed Mexico’s civil war and, in particular, its greatest

Canadian

Review

ofAm

erican

Studies3

7(2007)

4

revolutionary leader, Francisco ‘‘Pancho’’ Villa.7 First, press reportsinitially cast the revolution and Villa as explosively savage, asobering counterpoint to America’s civilization, thereby establish-ing behaviourally a mythical frontier zone separating civilizedAmerica from its antithesis. Villa served as an example. This tackresonated geographically, too, insofar as Mexico borders theUnited States to the southwest, an area clearly identified mythicallyas frontier country by Turner and by Westerns (Mitchell).

In this press story’s second act, a hero also emerged—Villa. Yet, inthe early days of the conflagration, it remained unclear whetherhe was on this (American) side or on that of the ‘‘Other.’’ Initially,the press tended to cast Villa as stereotypically Mexican, a well-established, pejorative construction, dating back more than a hun-dred years in American culture.8 Yet Villa proved to be different. By1914, via richly effective propaganda, he began to earn a framingconsonant with the contours of the mythical frontiersman—or asclose to them as the myth would allow a violent half-breed Mexicanto be. For not only did his propaganda sell him effectively as thepersonification of the many virtues of the frontiersman; it did nothurt his image that he was, in fact, an authentic vaquero, empiricallya cowboy.

In the third act, with Villa at the peak of his press popularityand the apex of its framing him as an Americanized Mexicanfrontiersman a la Turner (he was vanquishing savagery heroically),historical reality intervened. Villa lost badly on the battlefield andwas effectively wiped out as a military force. Ultimately, then, hefailed to live up to the advance billing—not because his imagelacked mythically but because actual historical events inconveni-ently edited his narrative and effectively spoiled what mightotherwise have made a great frontier Hollywood Western.9

In short, when Villa lost on the battlefield, the press had toresign itself to his failure. But rather than reframe the tale, theysimply dropped it, and Villa faded quickly from news reportsin 1915.10

Act One: Bordering Civilization and Savagery

Each of the three political candidates battling for victory in theMexican Revolution as it entered its most critical phase, 1913–5,sought crucial supports from the United States, including, mostimportantly, diplomatic recognition and access to financial backing,

Revuecanadienne

d’e ¤tudesame ¤ricaines37

(2007)

5

arms, and possibly the passage of troops for strategic purposesthrough the southwestern United States. These supports, the threeleaders calculated, effective propaganda would aid in delivering.As a result, dictator and general Victoriano Huerta, the formercommander of the Mexican armed forces, who had successfullyplotted the murder of President Francisco Madero in February 1913;‘‘First Chief’’ Venustiano Carranza, former governor of the northernstate of Coahuila, the haughty armchair general who claimedcivilian leadership of the revolutionary movement; and Francisco‘‘Pancho’’ Villa, a social bandit cum revolutionary hero who hadrisen from abject poverty to lead the nation’s greatest armeddivision, all organized and staged complex propaganda operationsin the United States.

After Madero’s death in February 1913, Villa, Carranza, and Huertaengaged actively and energetically in media self-promotion at thesame time as they attempted to denigrate their rivals in the UnitedStates press.11 Huerta’s efforts stumbled and then simply collapsedmonths before he fled the country in July 1914, mostly because hewas never able to overcome the label of murderer, tarred as he wasin the media (and by historians) with responsibility for the assassi-nation of Madero. Carranza’s operations met with modest success,but this occurred only well after his troops had soundly defeatedVilla in battle over the spring and summer of 1915. Villista propa-ganda, on the other hand, met with considerable success, both inshifting initially condemnatory American press opinion to congra-tulatory and in ably achieving similar results with US diplomaticpersonnel.

Villa effectively leveraged three propaganda elements to hisadvantage. First, he gained an earlier start than his rivals, whothen struggled to overcome a media frame at least partially ofVilla’s shaping. Second, the key thrust of Villista propagandachampioned Villa in terms of an American myth. In this way,Villa came to epitomize, insofar as a half-breed Mexican possiblycould, an Americanized Mexican frontiersman. Third, Villista pro-paganda energetically and ruthlessly Othered Carranza and Huertaas so many stereotypical savage Mexicans, the antithesis of thefrontiersman. The combined results helped deliver a knockout blowto Huerta and left Carranza, after the summer of 1914, with littlehope of winning the propaganda wars. In short, judging by the toneand content of the US press late in 1913, throughout 1914, until aslate as the summer of 1915, Villa won hearts and minds—even as he

Canadian

Review

ofAm

erican

Studies3

7(2007)

6

would come to lose militarily on the battlefields of the revolution(Anderson, Revolution by Headlines).

The military struggle notwithstanding, Villa had more thancompeting propaganda messages with which to grapple. He alsoconfronted a non-too-subtle predilection on the part of US pressoutlets to portray Mexico and Mexicans in stereotyped ways. In1913, Mexicans in the press tended to appear much like Mexicansin pulp Westerns and in the newly emerging movie Westerns,in fact much as Mexico and Mexicans had always appeared in theUS mass media and public mind.12

Three principle sorts of depictions prevailed: (1) that Mexico andMexicans were culturally retrograde, stuck in what was seen to bean earlier, backward stage of historical development; (2) thatMexico and Mexicans were racially inferior, on the assumptionthat a country of what were seen as half-breeds must necessarilybe lacking in civilizing tendencies; (3) that Mexico and Mexicanswere morally decrepit, savage in nearly every respect (Anderson,‘‘What’s to Be Done’’).

Attributing Mexico’s perceived sloth to the influences of geography,the Chicago Tribune opined, ‘‘On one side [of the Rio Grande thereexists] shiftlessness, poverty, slovenliness, laziness; on the otherside enterprise, energy, prosperity, and thrift. It is as if we werestepping from one century to another’’ (7 July 1914: 2). The LosAngeles Times agreed and added that ‘‘[t]he Mexican seems to havegained little or nothing in civilization in 400 years’’ (21 Oct. 1913:sec. 2, 4). Elsewhere a Los Angeles Times article warned Americans tobe wary of their southern neighbours because Mexicans ‘‘willhate . . . [and their] prisoners will be the prisoners of Indians nomore civilized than the Indians who tortured our grandfathersa hundred years ago or the Indians who spiked the heads ofour fathers and brothers in the Philippines’’ (3 Jan. 1914: 1).

Indians, the source of the allegedly inferior racial lines in half-breed Mexico, were viewed not simply as backward but as largelyincapable of ‘‘civilization,’’ as the term was used by the media. TheNorth American Review asserted, for example, ‘‘Mexico is not, in fact,a nation, but a country peopled by many tribes of Indians ofvarying degrees of development, none reaching what we wouldcall civilization’’ (July 1914: 46). With pronounced colonial chauvin-ism and echoing the policies of American President Woodrow

Revuecanadienne

d’e ¤tudesame ¤ricaines37

(2007)

7

Wilson, Everybody’s magazine confidently asserted, ‘‘We must teachthem how to respect us . . . Then we must teach them howto behave’’ (June 1914: 820). The Chicago Tribune, meanwhile,expressed horror at ‘‘the savagery of the hybrid Aztec-Indian-Spaniard race’’ (28 Apr. 1914: 4). A letter to the editor of theNation summed up the prevailing media sentiment this way:‘‘[t]he average [Mexican] peon is mentally a child andmorally a savage . . . Villa et al. are simply savages of superiorintelligence . . . [and] they take the field because it affords them anopportunity to murder, rob, and torture’’ (25 Dec. 1914: 615).

Put simply, ‘‘Brigandage is . . . in the Mexican blood,’’ offered aChicago Tribune editorial, as was an inclination for cannibalism(11 Jan. 1914: sec. 2, 2). American writer Jack London, reportingfrom Mexico for Collier’s, aptly expressed the prevailing Americanpress sentiment about the effects of mestizaje (racial mixing):

Mexico is an Indian country . . . Sixty-five per cent of theinhabitants are pure Indians; 15 per cent are pure Spanish,Americans, English, and other foreigners. The remaining20 per cent are mixed Indian and Spanish . . . And it is preciselythis 20 per cent half-breed class that foments all the trouble,plays childishly with the tools of giants, and makes a shamblesand a chaos of the land . . . The ‘‘breeds’’ are the predatory class.They produce nothing. They create nothing. (13 June 1914: 13)

Proffering an explicit comparison between Mexicans andAmericans, the Forum magazine typified the widespread mediajudgement. The magazine compared what were alleged to be thedefining racial elements of the two nations. Charging that Mexicanswere congenitally ‘‘inclined toward crime’’ and alleging that theMexicans’ ‘‘mixed’’ racial makeup predisposed the nation to civilstrife, it grumbled that the Indian component of Mexico’s ‘‘mixed’’blood had long washed away any of the beneficial effects of Spanishlineage—which was itself wan and insipid when compared toNorthern European bloodlines. Nevertheless, the six core featuresthat exemplified the Mexican were more cultural than racial inorigin. Mexicans were

1 Mainly of Indian type;

2 Illiterate;

3 Mainly of illegitimate birth;

4 Inefficient as workers;

Canadian

Review

ofAm

erican

Studies3

7(2007)

8

5 Intemperate;

6 Quarrelsome. (January 1914: 55)

Americans could be summed up in four lines:

1 Loyal submission to the will of the majority;

2 Candid recognition of the inalienable rights of the minority;

3 A cool, sober judgement;

4 A very high standard of education and morals. (January 1914: 47)

In short, Mexicans epitomized the antithesis of America.

On the whole, to conclude, press characterizations reminded onethat the frontiersman embodied democracy, fairness, honesty,decency, coolness, cleverness, and self control. Put this figure ona horse’s back and/or in buckskins, and you got a frontiersman(see Wills, ‘‘John Wayne’s Body’’; McDonald).

Act Two: Emerges a Man

Villa cannily employed propaganda to turn such depictions tohis advantage. He did so by promoting himself as the antithesisof US press characterizations of Mexico. In press releases, inter-views, and even in his dress, he sought to Americanize himself; andthe framing took on mythical contours. Compounding this effectivepublic relations ploy, he sought to frame his adversaries—Huertaand Carranza—as stereotypically, barbarously Mexican. In short,his propaganda message tapped into very basic American myths:he sought to portray himself as the embodiment of mythologizedAmerican virtues, reinforcing the message by presenting himself asthe antithesis of his Mexican rivals, whom he sought to portray asarchetypically savage. In short, Villista propaganda ably portrayedVilla in ways that core American culture had for many decadesliked to imagine itself—brave, trustworthy, strong, athletic, inde-pendent, self-reliant, clever, handsome, rugged, decent, honest, self-controlled, dangerous, and so on. Further, the propaganda playedup Villa’s humble origins. Moreover, the fact that Villa was anactual cowboy provided the nearly perfect packaging for the story.Finally, the tale unfolded in the southwest borderlands—a settingas rife with mythical possibility for Turner as it has been for acentury of Hollywood Westerns (see Tompkins).

To add insult to injury, Villista propaganda Othered Villa’sprincipal rivals, effectively casting Huerta and Carranza as Mexican

Revuecanadienne

d’e ¤tudesame ¤ricaines37

(2007)

9

savages, hurling what amounted to binary opposites of Villa’sconstructed media virtues. In short, Villa’s propaganda,from the death of Madero in 1913 till news that he had beensoundly defeated in the spring of 1915, attempted successfully toAmericanize him, while Othering his rivals. And it worked so longas Villa remained a viable military contender. In fact, it worked sowell that both the press and the US government proved loathe toreevaluate Villa even months after he was effectively eliminatedas a contender for the Mexican crown.

In 1913, negative Villa coverage typically began as did this reportfrom the New York Times:

[t]he career of Francisco Villa, a man who has been an outlawand murderer for many years, and who is now leading anarbitrary and despotic reign of terror over Northern Mexico ismore cruel and barbarous in his methods than any tyrant in theworld’s history. (21 Feb. 1914: 1)

In one sense, this passage may have excused Villa’s ‘‘savagery.’’After all, he was fighting, as Everybody’s magazine put it, a‘‘ruthless Indian war’’ (June 1914: 819). What would one haveexpected?

In the spring of 1914, the Chicago Tribune opined, ‘‘[T]he murderer[Villa] . . . is no better than Huerta, the murderer of PresidentFrancisco Madero . . . The everlasting issue of civilization versussavagery is joined. . . . The bandit leaders must all be reduced’’(20 Apr. 1914: 6). Here, the Tribune marginalizes Villa by lumpinghim together with the ‘‘savage’’ Huerta, who, like a Mexican half-breed, was antipathetic to the influences of civilization.

Yet Villa’s aggressive media savvy would turn the tide. Heemployed press agents and charmed, bullied, bribed, lied, cajoled,and otherwise behaved like a canny politician intent on self-promotion. All this began to pay dividends by the spring of 1914.For example, championing friendship with the United States whilesimultaneously damning Huerta as an inebriate, Villa explained—in a story in the New York Times titled ‘‘Villa Repudiates Huerta’sDefiance’’—‘‘Should the act of a drunkard and murderer be con-strued as an act of war and should war result, I can assure allAmericans living within the bounds of the Constitutionalist terri-tory that they will be protected . . .’’ (19 Apr. 1914: sec. 3, 1). In short,

Canadian

Review

ofAm

erican

Studies3

7(2007)

10

Villa was a friend of the United States—and no friend of a drunkenmurderer.

Villa, though a battle-tested warrior, also availed himself of suchrhetorical opportunities to play up his preference for peace andnon-violence and his bitter opposition to Huerta the ‘‘usurper.’’ Forexample, in April, the New York Times, on its front-page (which Villafrequently dominated), quoted the general:

Mexico has enough troubles of her own, and is not seeking awar with any foreign country, certainly not the United States.I have come to the border for the purpose of conferring andseeking advice from my good American friends. . . . Say for methat we want no war, are seeking no war, and wish only theclosest and most friendly relations with our neighbors of theNorth. (24 Apr. 1914: 1)

Days later, another Times dispatch reaffirmed these commonthemes and not so discreetly attacked Carranza, who bitterlyopposed American intervention at Veracruz during the civil war:‘‘Carranza’s message was a great mistake . . . My personal wishesare that the United States continue the blockade of the Huertaports . . . I will personally make Huerta offer a full and satisfactoryapology to the United States’’ (26 Apr. 1914: sec. 3, 1).

Villa’s makeover began prior to the US decision to occupy the portof Veracruz, an effort to force Huerta from power. For example, bymid-March 1914, the San Francisco Examiner, flagship of the WilliamRandolph Hearst media empire, which had hitherto expressedbellicose opposition to the revolution, had begun to championVilla. Headlines read, ‘‘Villa Takes Torreon’s Outposts in HardFight’’ (20 Mar. 1914: 1), ‘‘Villa’s Torreon Attack Scheduled forTo-Day’’ (20 Mar. 1914: 2), ‘‘Torreon Taken by Gen. Villa’’ (25 Mar.1914: 2), ‘‘Four Days Fighting Ends in Victory for Villa, Rebels Ledby Intrepid Chief’’ (28 Mar. 1914: 1), and ‘‘Final Assault Thrilling,Villa Indefatigable’’ (28 Mar. 1914: 2). Not only were these headlinesbased on Villa’s own claims (according to the stories’ attributions),but Villa’s image was becoming Americanized insofar as he wasnow identified as exemplifying American traits—he was brave,organized, tough, exciting, a winner, and tireless, and he tookinitiative. Remarkably, the Examiner had begun to cast him as afrontiersman: ‘‘General Villa, grimy with dust and sweat, a redbandanna handkerchief about his neck, participated. He rode up

Revuecanadienne

d’e ¤tudesame ¤ricaines37

(2007)

11

and down the lines swearing and cheering, cursing and callingupon the saints’’ (29 Mar. 1914: 1).

Villa’s own humble origins, his earnestness, and his integrity alsoearned accolades:

I am nothing but a plain soldier and the words you will hear meutter now will be the words of an uncultured man . . . Senors, forthe first time in my life I am going to propose a toast, and for thefirst time in my life I am going to drink a toast, and it will be thefirst time that I ever willingly let liquor pass my lips . . . Yougentlemen should be proud that you are Americans; that yourepresent the press of the greatest nation on earth, ruled by thegreatest man alive, President Wilson. (17 May 1914: 58)

The Chicago Tribune, too, began to recast Villa—first as a friend andthen as a frontiersman. And, the paper also allowed the general tospeak directly to readers in his own voice: ‘‘I didn’t want war, and Iam sure your people don’t. We have always been good friendshaven’t we? Why shouldn’t we continue that way. . . . Why does theUnited States want to pay any attention to that old drunken ass,Huerta, anyway. [Villa himself is a teetotaller.]’’

The Literary Digest, meanwhile, purported to speak for the entirepress of the United States. A headline announced, ‘‘The Rise ofVilla’s Star’’ (18 Apr. 1914: 889). The article championed his ‘‘borngenius as a strategist and commander’’ and emphasized how‘‘tremendous [was] the personal triumph of Villa.’’

Throughout 1914 and into 1915, Hearst’s San Francisco Examinerafforded Villa the opportunity to serve as choreographer of ownimage. For example, he cabled the paper in May 1914,

I have no aspirations. I will go back to work as soon as I driveout that drunkard, Huerta. I am only a poor man. I wish only tosee my countryman freed from tyranny. I am a patriot. Yet I amthe man whom they call the bandit Villa. If I wanted money Icould be the richest man in the world, for I have walked amonggold, silver, and jewels. (27 May 1914: 2)

Such presentations, full of images of honesty, abstinence, humbleorigins, the virtue of work, and a healthy suspicion of ill-gottengain, fit well with the Examiner’s sugared assessments, whichpraised Villa for his strength, his ‘‘genius,’’ his political

Canadian

Review

ofAm

erican

Studies3

7(2007)

12

acumen—and his ruthlessness. Suddenly Villa’s image vergedon Americana.

On 26 September 1914, the paper cited Villa as being the mostpotent, capable, and popular force in Mexico (17). In an instance ofexplicit publisher input into editorial affairs unique among thepublications examined here, William Randolph Hearst, ownerand publisher of the Examiner, also expressed a liking for Villa.He wrote,

The one man in this Mexican conflict and crisis who hasappeared to tower over all others in personal power andcapacity, in the magnetism to lead, the mastery to command andthe ability to govern, is Francisco Villa. There are many men inMexico more cultivated than Villa, many better educated, manymore trained in diplomatic services and in the gentler arts ofgovernment. But these qualities are not what is required. . . . Astrong hand is needed, a determined purpose, a masterful mind,an experience gained from personal contact with the mas-s[es]. . . . These qualities Francisco Villa possesses as no otherman in Mexico. (26 Sept. 1914: 17)

All this from a publisher who six months earlier had been callingfor aggressive US military intervention in Mexico to reinstate theneo-liberal rule that the revolution was determined to overthrow.

Like the Examiner, the Chicago Tribune’s framing of Villa wastransformed. And the publication, with no visible trace of irony,went so far as to express mild astonishment at it:

[i]t is not to be wondered at that the personality of ‘‘Pancho’’Villa, with its strange contradictions, is one that appeals to theimagination to a greater degree than any other man now in thepublic eye. . . . Perhaps it was this appeal that drew newspaperwriters around him and thus gave him a publicity which otherbig figures in Mexican affairs have missed . . . it is about him thatare woven the most romantic and fantastic stories, all interestingand some true. . . . He is good ‘‘copy’’ anyway you look at him.(21 July 1914: 1)

As ‘‘good copy,’’ Villa exhibited key mythical frontier traits. Forexample, he earned credit through January 1915 for disavowing anyinterest in becoming leader of Mexico, because frontiersman arenatural leaders and eschew election. All the publications examined

Revuecanadienne

d’e ¤tudesame ¤ricaines37

(2007)

13

for this study13 highlighted the story of Villa as politicallyunambitious yet politically savvy and a natural, dynamic physicalleader. Typically, such framing included references to his humbleorigins, his self-reliance, his commitment to formal educationand to uplifting the downtrodden, his love of the ideals of democ-racy, his bravery, his honesty, his decency, his admiration forWoodrow Wilson and things American, and his violent oppositionto unnecessary authority (that is, Huerta and Carranza) andauthoritarian rule (that is, Huerta and Carranza). Photographafter front-page photograph presented Villa as a cowboy, typicallyastride or in the company of a horse. In short, this violentcowboy was framed increasingly under the conventions of thefrontiersman.

Like the Chicago Tribune and the San Francisco Examiner, even thevenerable New York Times followed the general press reframingof Villa. On one of many occasions, in late September 1914, justdays after Villa formally disavowed Carranza and the civil warerupted anew, the New York Times reported, ‘‘Villa Won’t Run forPresident’’ (29 Sept. 1914: 1) And the Times lauded him as honestand reliable, exemplifying true grit. Distancing itself from anearlier tendency to stereotype Villa pejoratively, the paperadded, that he was ‘‘a Mexican of an unusual type’’ (15 Oct.1914: 10). The ‘‘savage’’ and the ‘‘murderer’’ had come a longway in six months.

The Nation expressed mild astonishment about Villa’s public trans-formation from Warrior–Villain to frontiersman:

[Villa’s] rapid and steady emergence from the reputation ofbeing the worst of cutthroats and patriotic leader, as well asa military captain of remarkable ability, is one of the mostextraordinary phenomena we can recall in the history of anypublic age. A year ago, if anybody had said that the people ofthis country . . . would be able to find in the doing of ‘‘Pancho’’Villa a bit of real comfort and solace amid the general gloom, hewould have been regarded as the silliest of jokers . . . [I]t seemsthat his [Villa’s] conduct ever since has been that of a loyalcitizen and a friend of peace and orderly government.(17 Sept. 1914: 336)

Additionally, this weekly publication argued that Villa’s popularityderived from ‘‘superior press facilities’’ (18 Mar. 1913: 293).

Canadian

Review

ofAm

erican

Studies3

7(2007)

14

Act Three: Return of the Native

Villa’s military and, hence, political fortunes declined sharply inthe spring and summer of 1915. He lost badly on the battlefieldto Carranza’s best general, Alvaro Obregon, who himself wouldgo on to replace Carranza as president in 1920. Yet curiously, Villa’spublic persona of Americanized Mexican frontiersman and theportrayal of the revolution itself as yet another instalment of theineluctable and timeless frontier struggle identified by Turnercollapsed rapidly, simply by being withdrawn from circulation.Villa suddenly ceased to be news. In effect, the frontier Western hadbeen badly plotted because Villa did not ultimately prevail, asTurner’s thesis would predict. And the myth offered no alternativeendings, not even martyrdom, because Villa remained alive,although significantly reduced in stature. To add insult to injury,Villa’s mythical nemesis, the effete Mexican Other, Carranza,prevailed and went on to secure de facto US diplomaticrecognition in October 1915. And so the news story of the MexicanRevolution lost its mythical resonance, at least insofar as Villa hadreoriented it.

Conclusion

Villa emerged in the press as a darkened shadow in 1913, thepersonification of Mexican Otherness, an inverted projection ofthe mythical frontiersman. Remarkably, within a year, this framinghad begun to reconfigure itself fundamentally, so much so that,within another year, in the winter of 1915, Villa had emerged in thepress as a thoroughly mythical American-Mexican frontiersman.In this latter guise, he was not so different from Natty Bumppoor Dirty Harry or Shane, other seminal American mythicalfrontiersman. And, in time, his perceived qualities came to mirrorclosely those Turner identified as commensurate with the mythicalfrontiersman. It is easy enough for us today to conjure up imageshere of John Wayne, a younger Clint Eastwood, Eastwood’s heroGary Cooper, even Ronald Reagan (at least, in the minds ofhis many admirers) or other Western stars—or Pancho Villa, inthe press; for not only did Villa exemplify in press reports allof the requisite characteristics but his propaganda also framedhim as the opposite of his rivals. In other words, if Mexico’sother leaders were the opposite of the frontiersman—as partiallyframed by Villista propaganda—and Villa was the opposite of thoseleaders, then Villa must, by default, also be a frontiersman.

Revuecanadienne

d’e ¤tudesame ¤ricaines37

(2007)

15

Trouble in Paradise

Problematically, however, the Turner thesis does not bear scholarlyscrutiny, despite its ongoing appeal in American mass culture.No concerted effort to take Turner to task for a whole series ofgroundless claims that were, nevertheless, supported and reflectedin popular thinking (especially in film and literature) for the last110 years began in earnest until the 1950s;14 and it was not untilthe 1980s that such work gained any significant support in theAmerican academic community.15 Today, principal guardian of thefrontier thesis and its occasional critic, historian Patricia NelsonLimerick, has likened it to the Pillsbury doughboy: you can poke itall you want, but it always resumes its cheery, resilient shape. Andthat is both the beauty and folly of myth: an unerring, maddeningplasticity.

The Turner thesis has been shown pointedly to be mistaken in allof its major points, several of which are highly relevant to the Villamedia case. For example, famously and mistakenly, Turner wrote,

. . . the most important effect of the frontier has been in thepromotion of democracy . . . As has been indicated, the frontier isproductive of individualism. Complex society is precipitated bythe wilderness into a kind of primitive organization based onthe family. The tendency is anti-social. It produces antipathyto control. The tax-gatherer is viewed as a representativeof oppression . . . The frontier individualism has from thebeginning promoted democracy. (Turner 56–7)

In reality, democracy in the West, such as it was, grew from Easternseeds.16 Still, one might argue that, as cultural history or mythicalhistory, the thesis is essentially accurate. Perception is the point, notphysical reality as such.

As well, the frontier was not unoccupied as Turner claimed it was.It belonged either to American Indians (see Seed) or, in the greatestland-grab in the history of the Americas (after initial Europeanconquests), to Mexico (i.e., Mexican–American War of 1846–8). Thispoint is crucial because the key foreign policy undercurrent of ‘‘TheFrontier Thesis’’ is its concurrent apology for and promotion ofAmerican expansionism, imperialism. The thesis sugars ManifestDestiny, the nineteenth-century idea that the United States had adivinely supported mission to expand its continental borders andto assimilate or, if necessary, to crush other cultures in its wake,

Canadian

Review

ofAm

erican

Studies3

7(2007)

16

all draped in a syrupy cloak of academic and intellectual legitimacy(see Williams, Empire; Kenworthy). In short, Manifest Destiny andthe premise upon which the frontier thesis was based—that is,imagined American exceptionalism and mythical virtue—are oneand the same. Given this, one can well envisage the scale of the taskfaced by a Mexican striving to gain a favourable framing in theUnited States press.

And herein lay the issue for Villa: his propaganda sought to portrayhim as a frontiersman and, at the same time, functioned to fight arearguard action against the knee-jerk reaction that Othered himas just another binary reflection of mythical America—and by thisI mean the cultural stuffing that gave shape to Manifest Destiny.

In circular fashion, the myth champions and rationalizes Americanexpansionism as unavoidably good because territorial expansionproduces and promotes Americanization, a self-evident good,according to the America myth (Williams, Empire). A Marinegeneral in film director Stanley Kubrick’s seminal Full Metal Jacket,put it this way while explaining why the United States wasinvolved in the war in Vietnam in the first place: ‘‘[i]nside everygook there is an American trying to get out.’’ US Indian policy fordecades followed a similar dictum in its efforts to ‘‘civilize’’ the redman: kill the Indian to save the man. This begins with land theft.In fact, as William Appleman Williams prophetically argued, thefrontier thesis, Manifest Destiny, and American-style imperialismare one and the same thing. The latter did not grow simply fromthe minds of policy makers but also closely reflects mainstreamAmerican cultural visions—myths. In this way, too, one might fullyexpect that the press should embody and promote the self-samemythical notions; and the press did exactly that in the case offraming Villa—on the one hand, initially, despite Villa’s remarkablyclever and effective propaganda, framing him as a ‘‘savage,’’ while,on the other hand, later, reframing him as a frontiersman, inconformity with Villa’s propaganda and battlefield successes.

Finally, Turner erred by suggesting that, once stripped down,white male immigrants to the frontier would participate in theirown rebuilding by adopting the ways of the Indian (forgetting, forthe moment, that Turner had already argued that Indians weresimultaneously both there and not there). So, what of the Indian?If the stripping-down process were universal, as Turner claimed,then surely Indians would have been reborn? But Indians did not

Revuecanadienne

d’e ¤tudesame ¤ricaines37

(2007)

17

really count. A paragon of Social Darwinist times, Turner vowedthat the land was, after all, there for the taking and more or lessempty to boot—which granted Native Americans existence but notownership. Turner argued paradoxically that the land both was andwas not occupied—empty of civilized beings is what you weremeant to understand (see Carlton Smith 1–3; also Rollins andO’Connor; Seed).

Here, as one approaches the darker reaches of the thesis, onediscovers a recipe for and rationalization of Manifest Destiny andUS imperialism in the twentieth century, again apropos, becausethey show the scale of the image problem Villa faced in 1913. Theresult, for Villa, comes as little surprise: at the peak of his presspopularity, Villa stood tall in the saddle; yet, inevitably, when hestumbled militarily, his house of cards crashed down around him—despite his remarkable abilities and hard-won successes.

As a case study, Villa illustrates the cognitive disconnect that hastypified analysis of US–Latin American relations on several counts.The frontier thesis, which builds monuments to mythical Americanmasculinity, just as readily augurs aggressive colonialism—in fact,Turner called for and sanctioned it. This warrants more study.Moreover, this paper suggests that popular culture, where evidenceof an American imperial project abounds, provides a most usefulcontext for understanding foreign policy actions as well as thedomestic political attitudes in and from which foreign policydecisions emerge.

Notes

1 The best work on this topic remains Henry Nash Smith, Virgin Land;also see Slotkin, Regeneration; Gunfighter Nation.

2 See Williams, ‘‘Frontier Thesis’’; Empire; Robinson 15–30; Limerick,Legacy; ‘‘Turnerians.’’

3 See Slotkin, Gunfighter Nation; Wills, ‘‘John Wayne’s Body’’; JohnWayne’s America.

4 See Pike; Harvey; also see Slotkin, Gunfighter Nation; Kenworthy;Williams, Empire; Limerick, Legacy; White.

5 The essay was originally delivered as a conference paper at the 1893annual convention of the American Historical Association. Since, ithas been published countless times. See Turner; also see Slotkin,‘‘Significance.’’

Canadian

Review

ofAm

erican

Studies3

7(2007)

18

6 See Limerick, ‘‘Turnerians’’; also see Hofstadter, who penned adevastating critique of Turner’s essay in ‘‘Frontier.’’

7 The literature on Villa is vast, reaching into hundreds of studies in theEnglish and Spanish languages. The best is still Katz.

8 See Berkhofer; Stedman; De Leon; Johannsen; Schoultz; also see Pike.

9 Villa has been immortalized on screen dozens of times, themost recent of which occurred in 2003, in an HBO production,And Starring Pancho Villa as Himself, that starred Antonio Banderasas Villa.

10 An epilogue to this frontier Western occurred when Villistas invadedColumbus, New Mexico in early March 1916 and shot up the town,killing a score of American citizens in an unprovoked attack. Thiswarranted a rewrite of the mythical yarn. In this version, whichfalls beyond the pale of the present essay, Villa was recast in the pressas an undistilled Mexican Other, and the meta-mythical narrativerepositioned Villa as a predictable sort of Mexican Other, whereUncle Sam was cast as a variety of avenging frontiersmen; seeAnderson, ‘‘Imperial Toons.’’

11 A second reason that the propaganda war was waged mainly in theUnited States is that the vast majority of Americans were literateenough to digest press reports, whereas Mexicans generally were not;see Knight.

12 See Britton; Anderson, Revolution by Headlines 117–45; also seeJohannsen; Pike; Schoultz.

13 Publications include Chicago Tribune, Collier’s, Everybody’s, LiteraryDigest, Los Angeles Times, Nation, New York Times, North AmericanReview, and San Francisco Examiner.

14 See Billington; Billington’s collection of essays usefully charts theemergence of scholarly opposition to Turner.

15 Patricia Limerick stands as the best example of such scholarship.See Limerick, Legacy; ‘‘Turnerians’’; also see Hofstadter; White.

16 See Hofstadter and Limerick for detailed presentations on thetopic of Turner’s many errors in fact and interpretation.

Works Cited

And Starring Pancho Villa as Himself. Dir. Bruce Beresford. Written by LarryGelbart. HBO, 2003.

Anderson, Mark Cronlund. ‘‘Imperial Toons, Pancho Villa in the AmericanPress.’’ Unpublished essay.

———. Pancho Villa’s Revolution by Headlines. Norman: U of Oklahoma P,2001.

Revuecanadienne

d’e ¤tudesame ¤ricaines37

(2007)

19

———. ‘‘What’s to Be Done with ‘Em? Images of Mexican CulturalBackwardness, Racial Limitations, and Moral Decrepitude in theAmerican Press, 1913–1915.’’ Mexican Studies / Estudios Mexicanos 14.1(Winter 1998): 23–71.

Bazin, Andre. ‘‘The Evolution of the Western.’’ Movies and Methods. Ed.Bill Nichols. Berkeley: U of California P, 1976. 150–7.

Berkhofer, Robert F. The White Man’s Indian: Images of the American Indianfrom Columbus to the Present. New York: Knopf, 1978.

Billington, Ray Allen, ed. The Frontier Thesis: Valid Interpretation of AmericanHistory. New York: Holt, 1966.

Britton, John A. Revolution and Ideology: Images of the Mexican Revolutionin the United States. Lexington: U of Kentucky P, 1995.

Cameron, Ian, and Douglas Pye, eds. The Book of Westerns. New York:Continuum, 1996.

Cawelti, John G. The Six Gun Mystique. New York: Popular, 1999.

De Leon, Arnoldo. They Called Them Greasers: Anglo Attitudes towardMexicans in Texas, 1821–1900. Austin: U of Texas P, 1983.

Grant, Barry, ed. Film Genre Reader. Austin: U of Texas P, 2003.

Harvey, David. The New Imperialism. New York: Oxford, 2003.

Hofstadter, Richard. ‘‘The Frontier as an Explanation.’’ The ProgressiveHistorians: Turner, Beard, and Parrington. New York: Knopf, 1968. 118–63.

Johannsen, Robert W. To the Halls of the Montezumas: The Mexican War in theAmerican Imagination. New York: Oxford, 1985.

Katz, Friedrich. The Life and Times of Pancho Villa. Stanford: Stanford UP,1998.

Kenworthy, Eldon. America/Americas: Myth in the Making of US Policy towardLatin America. University Park: Pennsylvania State UP, 1995.

Knight, Alan. The Mexican Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990.

Limerick, Patricia. Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of the AmericanWest. New York: Norton, 1988.

———. ‘‘Turnerians All: The Dream of a Helpful History in an IntelligibleWorld.’’ American Historical Review 100.3 (June 1995): 697–715.

McDonald, Forrest. ‘‘Rugged Individualism, Frederick Jackson Turner andthe Frontier Thesis.’’ World and I May 1990: 539–51.

Mitchell, Lee Clark. Westerns: Making the Man in Fiction and Film. Chicago: Uof Chicago P, 1998.

Canadian

Review

ofAm

erican

Studies3

7(2007)

20

Opt, Susan K. ‘‘American Frontier Myth and the Flight of Apollo 13:From News Event to Feature Film.’’ Film and History 26.1–4 (1996): 40–51.

Pike, Fredrick. The United States and Latin America: Myths and Stereotypes ofCivilization and Nature. Austin: U of Texas P, 1992.

Robinson, Cecil. With the Ears of Strangers. Tucson: U of Arizona P, 1969.

Schoultz, Lars. Beneath the United States: A History of US Policy toward LatinAmerica. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1998.

Seed, Patricia. ‘‘Houses, Gardens, and Fences: Signs of EnglishPossession in the New World.’’ Ceremonies of Possession in Europe’sConquest of the New World, 1491–1640. New York: Cambridge UP, 1995.16–40.

Slotkin, Richard. Gunfighter Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in TwentiethCentury America. Norman: U of Oklahoma P, 1998.

———. Regeneration through Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier,1600–1860. New York: Harper, 1973.

———. ‘‘The Significance of the Frontier Myth in American History.’’Slotkin, Gunfighter Nation 1–28.

Smith, Carlton. Coyote Kills John Wayne. Hanover, MA: UP of New England,2000.

Smith, Henry Nash. Virgin Land: The American West as Symbol and Myth.New York: Vintage, 1950.

Stedman, Raymond William. Shadows of the Indian: Stereotypes in AmericanCulture. U of Oklahoma P, 1982.

Tompkins, Jane. West of Everything: The Inner Life of Westerns. New York:Oxford UP, 1992.

Turner, Frederick Jackson. ‘‘The Significance of the Frontier in AmericanHistory.’’ Frontier and Section. 1893. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,1961.

Walker, Janet, ed. Westerns, Films through History. New York: Routledge,2001.

White, Richard. ‘‘The Imagined West.’’ It’s Your Misfortune and None ofMy Own: A New History of the American West. Norman: U of Oklahoma P,1991. 613–32.

Williams, William Appleman. Empire as a Way of Life. New York: Oxford UP,1980.

———. ‘‘The Frontier Thesis and American Foreign Policy.’’ Pacific HistoricalReview 24 (1955): 379–95.

Revuecanadienne

d’e ¤tudesame ¤ricaines37

(2007)

21

Wills, Garry. ‘‘John Wayne’s Body.’’ New Yorker 19 Aug. 1996: 39–49.

———. John Wayne’s America: The Culture of Celebrity. New York: Simon,1997.

Rollins, Peter C., and John E. O’Connor, eds. Hollywood’s Indian:The Portrayal of the Native American in Film. Lexington: U of Kentucky P,1998.

Canadian

Review

ofAm

erican

Studies3

7(2007)

22