Back to IndieWire

Why The Lone Ranger’s Anachronisms Make Its History Lessons Hard to Swallow

Why The Lone Ranger's Anachronisms Make Its History Lessons Hard to Swallow

They slaughter an entire tribe of Natives, and there is no discussion. Just an awkward joke and a cut to the next scene. What?

Over and above Depp’s performance, which the critic Tom Carson unfavorably compared to the notoriously racist caricatures of Stepin Fetchit, it’s the way The Lone Ranger deals with its actual Indians that’s the most troubling, and the hardest to swallow.

Read more: I saw The Lone Ranger so you don’t have to

This Article is related to: News and tagged , , , ,



You really weren't paying attention, were you? It's a tale being told in flashback to a little boy by an elderly Indian whose life is almost over and whose people and land have been taken away. So he would naturally alter the story to make himself the hero and the white man the goofball. As long as you keep that in mind, everything makes perfect sense, and anachronisms don't matter.

J Horton

Excuse me, Mr. Adams, but there's nothing about this movie that's supposed to be a history lesson. It's entertainment, that's it. I've read alot of history and I've never read anything about someone called The Lone Ranger or Tonto, or Butch Cavendish, etc. There are no historical events portrayed in this movie, other than the meeting of the two railroads at Promontory Point and that was at a different location in real life. This takes place in Texas. So, get off your soapbox and go find something else to complain about. You wouldn't know a good movie if you were in it.

Gerry Kachmarski


I agree 100%. The author of this risible article is a cretin who knows nothing about history, including the alliances the competing European colonial powers (France, England, Spain, and of course, the USA and Canada) made with various tribes in the Americas, which had their own shifting relationships of conflict and cooperation long before the arrival of these colonial powers. Of course, this history, i.e. interpretations of the past, are themselves the subject of debate, and change over time, the point being that to understand them you have to work up a considerable amount of intellectual sweat, something the cretin in question is clearly not interested in doing.

Svetlana Stepanova

it is fallacious to assume that Native Americans had a united purpose against White Men – groups were in constant warfare with each other and each group who had contact with the White Man chose their own direction in terms of their relationships – some assimilated – some co-operated – some resisted

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *