Beat Gangs – Follow The Eastwood Model

By: Bob Strodtbeck

Two movies, Taken and Gran Torino, are disturbing by the fact that both depict situations that are becoming increasingly common to all of us.

In Taken, Liam Neeson uses his CIA training to penetrate an Albanian gang that kidnaps young women visiting France to sell as sex slaves. It seems that the sex slave trade generates heavy interest throughout the world. A Bing search gathers nearly 300,000 sites for the engine “sex slave trafficking”.

Gran Torino found Clint Eastwood resurrecting his Dirty Harry character as a Korean War Veteran and retired auto worker holding his ground in a neighborhood somewhere in the mid-west that was besieged by unemployment and gangs. He becomes a hero to his Vietnamese neighbors, who he disdains, when he chases a gang from his lawn by aiming his loaded M-1 rifle at the gang leader, thereby thwarting the gang’s attempt to shanghai his neighbor’s son, Thao, into the gang.

The movies have three things in common; gangs, fathers, who, for various reasons, have neglected their paternal responsibilities, and the same fathers using their experiences to rescue a loved one from evil. Both stand on the principle that fathers are necessary to guard their families from the very real threat of gangs. A very concise list of consequences of fatherlessness can be found here, as well as information on gang culture.

In Gran Torino Eastwood seems to be dedicated to the mission of focusing on the significance of male role models. One of the most endearing scenes from the movie found Eastwood taking Thao to the neighborhood barber shop to, “Man him up.” Though not all men have the colorful vocabulary that is used in that scene, it provides an excellent insight of the unique quality of the communication between men and how it can be used effectively. After Eastwood “mans up” Thao, he takes him to a construction site managed by a friend to help him get a job. Thao effectively uses the art of male communication to earn the favor of Eastwood’s friend and secure employment.

Both movies show gangs to be unconscionably violent and bereft of any human compassion. They show gangs to be willing to use any means possible to get what they want-even working the political process. Before any hope be given to the ability of the government to break up gangs, keep in mind that the American Government has been warring against gangs in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Gangs are behind the drug wars in Mexico that are destroying the legitimacy of the government there. William Lind does an excellent job of explaining why gangs are so difficult to break up through military tactics.

Furthermore, to expect the government to rectify a problem which exists from our own neglect-largely from men who can make women pregnant but lack the character to make themselves fathers-will lead to more sacrifices of our freedom with nothing to show for it. Gangs and the threat they pose to us are social problems and it is up to society-especially the men-to correct it over time and through attrition.

The movies diverge with the way they deal with the threat of gangs. Taken is an action movie throughout which Neeson, the good guy, shoots up and destroys the assets of the bad guys. This is unrealistic as taking on gangs in this fashion will result in widespread destruction and the death of innocents we hope to protect. Neeson’s character is valuable in that it shows a man remorseful of his paternal neglect and dedicated to use all of his resources and put himself at risk to correct a situation which was of his making.

Eastwood’s method of affecting gangs was more effective. He wanted to see to it that Thao had a life of purpose and set about the task of teaching him the qualities that could mold that purpose. Although there were some violent scenes, Gran Torino effectively demonstrated that acts of violence begets more intense violence. That increased intensity always victimizes innocent people who deserve protection rather than the retribution of barbarians.

America is coming into a period of uncertainty and institutional erosion. To think that the national peril will be corrected by putting “liberals” or “conservatives” in the seats of power is foolish. Rebuilding the nation is a job best left to those with the desire to work and build. Both Neeson’s and Eastwood’s characters are such men of works. Both, too, were men of courage. More importantly, however, is that both were men. They weren’t perfect men, but they were both willing to answer when the call came.

The same will be needed as we go further into the abyss concocted by men of guile and politics.

“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”

Link to this page