The Magnificent Seven vs. The Historical Negationism of Westerns

Yesterday marked the North American premiere of The Magnificent Seven, a movie that I’ve been looking forward to ever since I saw the trailer some months back. The reason for that is far more simple than you might have guessed: I’m a sucker for Westerns. A large part of that can probably be traced back to my playthrough of Red Dead Redemption back in college-


-but even before that there had always been something appealing about the clink of spurs, the arid desert heat, and towns that weren’t big enough for two particular individuals. That being said, I did with The Magnificent Seven what I do with everything I’m excited about, which is research it obsessively.


Eventually my search led me to a thread in /r/movies sharing the new poster for the film, which you can see on the right. Clicking on the image should help you get a better look at the titular cast of characters, and reveal an additional reason for my interest you might have expected me to be more upfront about.

Of the seven men four are people of colour.

Denzel Washington, emphasized by the number that outlines him, is bounty hunter Sam Chisholm and leader of the group. On his far right is Martin Sensmeier, of First Nations descent, playing Comanche warrior Red Harvest. Skipping past Chris Pratt on his left are Byung-hun Lee as assassin Billy Rocks and Manuel Garcia-Rulfo as Vasquez, a Mexican outlaw.

Now if there’s anything enthusiasm likes it’s company, and as I scrolled down through the thread seeing if anyone else shared my excitement for the film I came across this comment:


Yes, “The Multicultural Seven”, three words that while not particularly pointed were written ostensibly to call attention to the fact that this was a Western with a higher than expected number of non-White characters.

To give credit to /r/movies, the most upvoted replies to said comment defended the film’s diversity, with one redditor pointing out that: “You say that like its a bad thing. It’s not the end of the world for Hollywood to have diversity.” It was a refreshing change of pace, to say the least. While my faith in a portion of the internet was restored, at the same time I came across a sentiment that resurfaced time and time again, namely that this diversity was “unrealistic”.


“period piece is unrealistically cast [. . . ] Would a black guy be leading a posse like that during that time period? Probably not.”


“this diversity is wholly inaccurate for the time period and setting. That makes me unable to suspend disbelief


“Movies being forced and unrealistic is a bad thing.”

At this point I could write a few paragraphs damning a subset of the moviegoing audience for being able to accept a movie that literally revolved around cowboys
fighting off extraterrestrial invaders


“The cowboys are White? Consider my immersion intact!”

-but not that people with different skin tones might be able to shoot bad guys side-by-side, but instead I’d like to focus on one particular qualm some had: the idea that a Black man might have authority on the American Frontier.

When first reading these complaints a single name came to mind, and thankfully there were others who were able to namedrop him before I ever had a chance to. The man I was immediately reminded of was Deputy U.S. Marshal Bass Reeves.


50 Cent: survived nine gunshots. Bass Reeves: literally never touched by a bullet he wasn’t loading into his own gun.

I first came across this legendary figure in a book I borrowed from Gordon entitled “Badass”, and the man pictured on the right lived up to that title and more. While you can read an excerpt from the book online, it’s almost more impressive to grab a pull quotes from the much drier Wikipedia article [all quotes having been properly cited]:

“Reeves brought in some of the most dangerous criminals of the time, but was never wounded, despite having his hat and belt shot off on separate occasions.”

“In addition to being a marksman with a rifle and pistol, Reeves developed superior detective skills during his long career. When he retired in 1907, Reeves claimed to have arrested over 3,000 felons. He is said to have shot and killed fourteen outlaws to defend his own life.

A Mental Floss article specifically notes that Reeves, as “the first black Deputy Marshal west of the Mississippi [. . .] was authorized to arrest both black and white lawbreakers”, which should speak for itself. The thing is, even without this list of incredible accolades Reeves’ very existence spits in the face of the idea that Black men were without an ounce of authority in the 1800s.

For the sake of the argument let’s agree for now that Reeves was simply one man and move on. Certainly most of the townspeople, and obviously the cowboys themselves, would have been White, right? After all:


“Seven white guys in a western [. . .] would be entirely reasonable.”

Enter the BBC Radio 4 documentary “The Forgotten Black Cowboys” and an article calling attention to the show that reports [emphasis added]: “It is thought that, on some Texas trails, about a quarter of cowboys were black.” Even taking into the account that this is simply based on the research of retired history professor Mike Searles, let’s posit that this may be grossly inaccurate. Maybe it wasn’t one in four cowboys who were Black, but one is six, or even one in ten. Is 10% a proportion that has ever been seen in entertainment before?

The cyclical relationship of art imitating life and life imitating art becomes terrifying when it leads to historical negationism, or the “illegitimate distortion of the historical record”. The blinding Whiteness of Hollywood during the turn of the 20th Century and beyond meant that for decades Western films presented a singular vision of what that era looked like. While heavily romanticized and sensationalized, the truth remains that this was an actual time and place in history where real men and women lived and died. And no, these people were not exclusively White.

In the BBC article Searles made an observation that to call insightful would be putting it lightly:

“If something is not in the popular imagination, it does not exist.”

When we as consumers of entertainment are presented over and over again with a picture of what our history looked like that image gains its own kind of reality. While there is definitely something insidious about removing portions of our population from our conceptions of the future [which is what led to such movement as afrofuturism], that goes doubly so for erasing and altering the past. While certainly not the first of its kind [which is something we can thank Quentin Tarantino for] and not even a film I can guarantee as being good, The Magnificent Seven is doing its part to ensure that the Old West we see on the silver screen looks a little more like it would have [numerous explosions aside].

7 responses to “The Magnificent Seven vs. The Historical Negationism of Westerns

  1. Forget Magnificent Seven. Now I want a movie based on Bass Reeve’s life.

  2. Can we also talk about how many of these historical cowboys were Latino? I love that one of the men is Mexican. The vaqueros were the basis of revitalizing Texan cattle ranges because they had the knowledge and skills to drive cattle over the increasing distances. Most of the technology adaptations cam from either Mexican or Texican riders who changed the saddles, lariats, and other implements to be more effective and comfortable.

  3. This is kind of the exception that proves the rule. Just commented on the piece about the Deepwater Horizon propaganda movie and then I read this piece that is backing a movement of historical revisionism that seems to be taking place in and through Hollywood. Now I understand that this is a piece of fiction but this is a mish-mash of cultures that would’ve been unlikely in the old west. It almost looks like this movie was cast out of fear of appearing racist.

  4. I guess there were some black lawmen, and Denzel does a great job as usual, but it is it realistic that no one in the movie mentioned his color – particularly given how close this was to the Civil War? Nope.

    And yes, there were Chinese in the American West (ignoring the fact the fellow in the movie was clearly Korean) but – coming from such a different culture and appearing so different to the average American of the time – they understandably led quite different lives to the average inhabitant. This Chinese fellow, with his stereotype kung-fu knife moves, was frankly ridiculous.

    Then you have the female character, who happens to be the only one in the village who can shoot. Spoiler: she even saves the man at the end (and sure, that happens in ‘High Noon’ and other films – but it was just a bit much in a film that seemed stuffed with diversity messages).

    Add in the rest of the ethnic casting and it just looked a bit too silly – like the modern Dr Who where we’re supposed to be in medievel Britain and villagers consist of the same mix of people we see in modern London (with the curious exception of middle eastern people – who for some reason seem pretty much absent from the show altogether)

    Having said all that the film is still okay. Sadly it suffers from the usual problem of writers muddying the theme by trying to make things ‘personal’ – hence we find Denzel is actually following a personal vendetta at the end of the film. Apart from detracting from the basic premise, it also makes him sloppy/stupid at the very end, where he needs to be rescued. It is all a bit of a downer. Despite the end voiceover – which desperately tries to tell us otherwise – he and his band just didn’t seem that ‘magnificent’.

  5. Pingback: What’s the 411? LinkSpam – Geeking Out about It

  6. Pingback: Weekend Reading: On History and Pop Culture – Geeking Out about It

Join the discussion-

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s