I went to one of the best public school in Ohio and “Devinely heroic purpose” is what we were taught and I didn’t question it or learn it was false until a friend from Mexico told me. If it wasn’t...
and most Americans really do believe the fairy tale version of Texas, in which case its an important piece in informing that the Revolution was not some divinely heroic purpose.
I went to one of the best public school in Ohio and “Devinely heroic purpose” is what we were taught and I didn’t question it or learn it was false until a friend from Mexico told me. If it wasn’t for him I don’t know that any of us would have learned different, and I know from talking to people in college that this wasn’t unique to my state. According to my partner who grew up in Texas my education on the subject was comparatively unbiased. I would venture to guess that if you went around asking people on the street they’d either answer the fairy tale answer or they’d not know anything about it.
Oh yeah I completely agree. Even if the real story wasn’t more interesting I’d like to have learned something closer to the truth. It double-stings though that the real version is also much more...
Oh yeah I completely agree. Even if the real story wasn’t more interesting I’d like to have learned something closer to the truth. It double-stings though that the real version is also much more interesting
This article is rather bizarre. Loire has done an excellent job addressing its arguments. As Loire points out, the history here was not simple. Yet there is something about the article that...
This article is rather bizarre. Loire has done an excellent job addressing its arguments. As Loire points out, the history here was not simple.
Yet there is something about the article that strikes me as expressing that unusual sort of racism of people who want to expound on how their ancestors and others like them are uniformly horrible in all respects, but they are enlightened, and how these other peoples, whom they will then graciously proceed to speak for, are innocent and wonderful and injured, all have these views, should be seen in this way, and should change to have these views and do these things.
I don't think that white authors are unable to write about these topics well, but the article is promoting a book that seeks to tell us a better history of the Alamo—not the one presented in ‘Anglo¹-authored histories’—yet has, as authors, three middle-aged white American men, none of whom appear to be historians (two seem to be journalists, and the third a political consultant). Authors who, in writing this article, leap to tell us how ‘Latinos’ view the Alamo. Not some Latinos, not many Latinos: Latinos. Latinos who, even if the authors think they will soon be a majority of Texans, don't seem to be a large enough group to be included in the intended Texan audience of this article, given the way the language (‘for them’ vs ‘many of us’) and tone positions them. Latinos who, if they only realized that many of their ancestors fought and died ‘allied with the Americans’ at the Alamo too, would presumably feel more included as Texans in knowing that—if we combine what appear to be the two conflicting arguments in the article—their ancestors also fought for slavery, refused to pay legitimate taxes, killed soldiers, and ran away from battle like cowards? How fortunate that they should have Anglo journalists to help them learn about the hurtful tales they've learnt from Anglo historians.
¹ Is this term commonly used in Texas? The only person I've heard use it in this way before is an outright white supremacist.
Start with the Alamo. So much of what we “know” about the battle is provably wrong.
So why does any of this matter? What’s the harm in Texans simply embracing a myth?
Census data indicates that Latinos are poised to become a majority of the Texas population any year now, and for them, the Alamo has long been viewed as a symbol of Anglo oppression.
I went to one of the best public school in Ohio and “Devinely heroic purpose” is what we were taught and I didn’t question it or learn it was false until a friend from Mexico told me. If it wasn’t for him I don’t know that any of us would have learned different, and I know from talking to people in college that this wasn’t unique to my state. According to my partner who grew up in Texas my education on the subject was comparatively unbiased. I would venture to guess that if you went around asking people on the street they’d either answer the fairy tale answer or they’d not know anything about it.
Oh yeah I completely agree. Even if the real story wasn’t more interesting I’d like to have learned something closer to the truth. It double-stings though that the real version is also much more interesting
This article is rather bizarre. Loire has done an excellent job addressing its arguments. As Loire points out, the history here was not simple.
Yet there is something about the article that strikes me as expressing that unusual sort of racism of people who want to expound on how their ancestors and others like them are uniformly horrible in all respects, but they are enlightened, and how these other peoples, whom they will then graciously proceed to speak for, are innocent and wonderful and injured, all have these views, should be seen in this way, and should change to have these views and do these things.
I don't think that white authors are unable to write about these topics well, but the article is promoting a book that seeks to tell us a better history of the Alamo—not the one presented in ‘Anglo¹-authored histories’—yet has, as authors, three middle-aged white American men, none of whom appear to be historians (two seem to be journalists, and the third a political consultant). Authors who, in writing this article, leap to tell us how ‘Latinos’ view the Alamo. Not some Latinos, not many Latinos: Latinos. Latinos who, even if the authors think they will soon be a majority of Texans, don't seem to be a large enough group to be included in the intended Texan audience of this article, given the way the language (‘for them’ vs ‘many of us’) and tone positions them. Latinos who, if they only realized that many of their ancestors fought and died ‘allied with the Americans’ at the Alamo too, would presumably feel more included as Texans in knowing that—if we combine what appear to be the two conflicting arguments in the article—their ancestors also fought for slavery, refused to pay legitimate taxes, killed soldiers, and ran away from battle like cowards? How fortunate that they should have Anglo journalists to help them learn about the hurtful tales they've learnt from Anglo historians.
¹ Is this term commonly used in Texas? The only person I've heard use it in this way before is an outright white supremacist.
I recently learned that alamo is Spanish for poplar, which makes The Alamo and Los Alamos much less intimidating.