Even its critics must admit that Yellowstone was a cultural force. It drove a minor boom in “Western” clothing and aesthetics and more than one spinoff series. Several mainstream media outlets thought it was key to understanding American conservatives, especially the fantasy version of America they supposedly hold. The show’s popularity derived partially from its aesthetics: tough, all-American white guys with cowboy hats talking down to effete outsiders who try to boss them around. However, the aesthetics were a bait and switch. When it came to substance, the show offered the same “stolen land” foolishness you get in Northeastern universities.
The series finale ended with triumph over the whites. The ranch where audiences followed the Duttons is sold to American Indians for a song. Presiding over the sale is Kayce Dutton, who married a left-wing teacher, an Indian. The actress portraying the Indian is Chinese; there was a flap over whether she has any “Native” blood.
Yellowstone finale is just as horrible as I thought. White libtard guilt complex garbage pic.twitter.com/PGPMTuvhtL
— captive dreamer (@captivedreamer7) December 18, 2024
The Indians celebrate by desecrating whitey’s graves, though a patriarch gently rebukes this impulse and magnanimously decides to leave the dead in peace. Conservatives are cheap dates. Thus, conservative influencer Dana Loesch declared that it was a positive message. Do you disagree? Well, then you are part of the “woke right.”
The last episode of Yellowstone was great for the people who actually watched it. The tribal elders and the Duttons realized they were on the same side all along and Mo defended the family’s sacrifice for the land. pic.twitter.com/492khKVxBv
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 17, 2024
Because they’re the “woke right.” They want to be like the left and be offended over everything for influence.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) December 18, 2024
Dana Loesch too likes to cosplay as a cowboy.
Implicit in this ending is that the land itself is what matters, not who owns it. This is also the core meaning of “Native Americans.” Whites built America. Insofar as the Founders thought of Indians at all, they were the “merciless Indian savages” in the Declaration of Independence. To call Indians “Native Americans” is ridiculous, because they were never Americans at all. If “America” is just a geographic expression, there is little reason to care about it. If “Native Americans” have a blood-and-soil exclusive claim to North America, what about whites in Europe? Either way, it renders American identity ridiculous and incoherent.
The story is almost a perfect distillation of American conservatism. Traditional masculine norms and old-fashioned values have their place, but only in the service of handing over power to non-whites. It is weakness to fight for one’s own and strength to surrender. The final Dutton who hands over the ranch is a former Navy SEAL, but in the end, he not only surrenders but acts as if it is a moral triumph.
Some argued that the ending was still somehow right-wing because it was a protest against taxes that make it unaffordable to run a ranch. However, fans of the show noted that the ranch briefly seemed to have a way out of its financial difficulties if it started selling premium steaks. This idea disappeared. Co-creator of the show, Taylor Sheridan, is now in the steak business; surely a coincidence.
It is difficult not to see the parallel to the Clint Eastwood film Gran Torino. That film got a right-wing following because Clint Eastwood plays a grizzled veteran who tells racist jokes and complains about “zipperheads” moving into his neighborhood. But in the end, he sacrifices his life for a young Hmong and even leaves him his prized car. His wartime service dissolves into a confession of executing a child soldier who was trying to surrender. Before he dies for his new Hmong friend, he writes his biological family out of his will. His money goes to the church he probably does not believe in. The “Lutherans” are the ones bringing Hmong to America; his money will now presumably help resettlement efforts.
The bait-and-switch sometimes operates more subtly. Shows such as Peaky Blinders, which is about British interwar gangsters, draw much of their appeal from “tough guy” swagger and stylish, old-fashioned clothes. However, the story is mostly about outsiders (a predominantly Gypsie gang) triumphing over stuffy British conservatives. Naturally, the protagonist becomes an ally of Winston Churchill, who is worried about one of the show’s leading villains, Sir Oswald Mosley — so fearsome that he scandalizes even the murderers and gangsters. Mad Men also showcases old-fashioned masculinity and stylish clothes. The world that produced these characters was then dissected and disposed of by 1960s social liberalism. That doesn’t stop social media influencers from citing characters in both those shows as inspirations for how to talk or dress. Masculinity becomes a costume.
An actor is charged with taking on different personalities, which is why the Romans thought them little better than prostitutes. Similarly, actors who play “tough guys,” often try to parley that image into convincing audiences to adopt liberalism. Charleton Heston championed the NRA late in life, but in the prime of his career, he marched with Martin Luther King Jr. Robert DeNiro, in contrast, has turned his golden years into a sad spectacle of fighting with Donald Trump — and losing. Sam Elliot’s grizzled cowboy characters are occasionally used for memes by low-quality conservatives, but in the last election, he made an ad for Kamala Harris. Nick Offerman’s Ron Swansen character in Parks and Recreation became a libertarian icon, so has tried to make up for it by campaigning for Kamala Harris and playing a thinly disguised President Trump who gets killed in Civil War. Dave Bautista and Arnold Schwarzenegger also backed Kamala. Yellowstone star Kevin Costner campaigned for Liz Cheney during her failed re-election bid.
There is bait-and-switch in films, television, video games, and Intellectual Property generally. The world of J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings is now the scene for new movies and television series, with racial diversity and awkward egalitarian messages. Games Workshop’s Warhammer Fantasy and 40K brands moved into racial diversity, female elite warriors, and anti-fascist corporate announcements as it sought a new customer base. Even Civilization, the classic grand strategy game series beloved of history nerds, now stars Harriet Tubman as a leader of the new America.
Sometimes, people inside these companies try to build power and reputation by undermining a traditional brand so they can tell their own story and recast it in their own image. Some of this is pure political indoctrination. Celebratory confessions from those who produced everything from Sesame Street to Dirty Dancing make it clear that those who put messages into entertainment know exactly what they are doing. Much of it may be pure spite.
Is this what happened to Yellowstone? It had to humiliate its viewers precisely because it was seen as representing red-state America. Shows that highlighted rural characters, such as the Dukes of Hazzard, were wiped out in the “Rural Purge” of 1971. Yellowstone’s popularity showed there is still a big audience for such programs, but the series finale showed the creators’ contempt for its fans. Conservatives who continue to praise the show prove that the contempt was well deserved. The cattle on the Dutton ranch showed more independence.
