• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Forget the Alamo

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
47,470
Reaction score
24,720
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
More and more of the south's propaganda and myth-creation after the civil war and reconstruction gets exposed. Fascinating book I saw recently:

"Three noted Texan writers combine forces to tell the real story of the Alamo, dispelling the myths, exploring why they had their day for so long, and explaining why the ugly fight about its meaning is now coming to a head. Every nation needs its creation myth, and since Texas was a nation before it was a state, it's no surprise that its myths bite deep. There's no piece of history more important to Texans than the Battle of the Alamo, when Davy Crockett and a band of rebels went down in a blaze of glory fighting for independence from Mexico, losing the battle but setting Texas up to win the war. However, that version of events, as Forget the Alamo definitively shows, owes more to fantasy than reality. Just as the site of the Alamo was left in ruins for decades, its story was forgotten and twisted over time, with the contributions of Tejanos--Texans of Mexican origin, who fought alongside the Anglo rebels--scrubbed from the record, and the origin of the conflict over Mexico's push to abolish slavery papered over. Forget the Alamo provocatively explains the true story of the battle against the backdrop of Texas's struggle for independence, then shows how the sausage of myth got made in the Jim Crow South of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. As uncomfortable as it may be to hear, celebrating the Alamo has long had an echo of celebrating whiteness. In the past forty-some years, waves of revisionists have come at this topic, and at times have made real progress toward a more nuanced and inclusive story that doesn't alienate anyone. But we are not living in one of those times; the fight over the Alamo's meaning has become more pitched than ever in the past few years, even violent, as Texas's future begins to look more and more different from its past. It's the perfect time for a wise and generous-spirited book that shines the bright light of the truth into a place that's gotten awfully dark."
 
I more or less categorically can't trust any historian pontificating about "whiteness" to render a fair and objective account of any event in North American history.

It's a shame, because it might be a fascinating book. Even so, who can trust a book that ostensibly advertises an anti-white bias in the synopsis? I want the truth, not "a more nuanced and inclusive story" or a screed about "celebrating whiteness".
 
More and more of the south's propaganda and myth-creation after the civil war and reconstruction gets exposed. Fascinating book I saw recently:

"Three noted Texan writers combine forces to tell the real story of the Alamo, dispelling the myths, exploring why they had their day for so long, and explaining why the ugly fight about its meaning is now coming to a head. Every nation needs its creation myth, and since Texas was a nation before it was a state, it's no surprise that its myths bite deep. There's no piece of history more important to Texans than the Battle of the Alamo, when Davy Crockett and a band of rebels went down in a blaze of glory fighting for independence from Mexico, losing the battle but setting Texas up to win the war. However, that version of events, as Forget the Alamo definitively shows, owes more to fantasy than reality. Just as the site of the Alamo was left in ruins for decades, its story was forgotten and twisted over time, with the contributions of Tejanos--Texans of Mexican origin, who fought alongside the Anglo rebels--scrubbed from the record, and the origin of the conflict over Mexico's push to abolish slavery papered over. Forget the Alamo provocatively explains the true story of the battle against the backdrop of Texas's struggle for independence, then shows how the sausage of myth got made in the Jim Crow South of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. As uncomfortable as it may be to hear, celebrating the Alamo has long had an echo of celebrating whiteness. In the past forty-some years, waves of revisionists have come at this topic, and at times have made real progress toward a more nuanced and inclusive story that doesn't alienate anyone. But we are not living in one of those times; the fight over the Alamo's meaning has become more pitched than ever in the past few years, even violent, as Texas's future begins to look more and more different from its past. It's the perfect time for a wise and generous-spirited book that shines the bright light of the truth into a place that's gotten awfully dark."
The Alamo is also one of the worst preserved national landmarks in this country. I don't know of anyone who visited it and didn't come away completely disappointed.
 
History is written by the victors…..and massaged.
 
Todays people think you are talking about a car rental company
 
I more or less categorically can't trust any historian pontificating about "whiteness" to render a fair and objective account of any event in North American history.

It's a shame, because it might be a fascinating book. Even so, who can trust a book that ostensibly advertises an anti-white bias in the synopsis? I want the truth, not "a more nuanced and inclusive story" or a screed about "celebrating whiteness".
Whiteness is a social construct and a way that society expects people to be, but doesnt necessarily define an individual and i dont find it anti white people. Context is key. Its an analysis of social phenomena, not biological or innate properties.
 
I more or less categorically can't trust any historian pontificating about "whiteness" to render a fair and objective account of any event in North American history.

It's a shame, because it might be a fascinating book. Even so, who can trust a book that ostensibly advertises an anti-white bias in the synopsis? I want the truth, not "a more nuanced and inclusive story" or a screed about "celebrating whiteness".

It’s hard to write about North American history without talking about whiteness. One would actually have to be very suspicious about any historian who tries to do otherwise.
 
This thread got me to thinking about the history that I have been exposed to. I think one of our issues is that there is a segment of the population that cannot come to grips with the fact that much of our history has been polished to show no warts. As technology and communication become better, we are exposed to the discrepancies with reality and what we have been led to believe.
 
This thread got me to thinking about the history that I have been exposed to. I think one of our issues is that there is a segment of the population that cannot come to grips with the fact that much of our history has been polished to show no warts. As technology and communication become better, we are exposed to the discrepancies with reality and what we have been led to believe.
The history channel has a series called 'the men who built america'. Interesting series because it didn't take out all the warts. One thing that became clear to me. All of them were real pricks. They would destroy people's lives without blinking an eye for more profit or just for spite.
 
I more or less categorically can't trust any historian pontificating about "whiteness" to render a fair and objective account of any event in North American history.

It's a shame, because it might be a fascinating book. Even so, who can trust a book that ostensibly advertises an anti-white bias in the synopsis? I want the truth, not "a more nuanced and inclusive story" or a screed about "celebrating whiteness".

If slavery in this country wasn't part of "whiteness," what was it? After all, you seem to think the acknowledgement of slavery as part of the establishment of Texas as '"anti-white." Please explain.
 
The history channel has a series called 'the men who built america'. Interesting series because it didn't take out all the warts. One thing that became clear to me. All of them were real pricks. They would destroy people's lives without blinking an eye for more profit or just for spite.
I’ve seen that, Carnegie was one of the robber barons, right?
 
Interesting read......though much of it is bullshit And the minute an author starts babbling about whiteness just put the book down and not waste your time on such stupidity.....

Jose Lopez De Santa Anna was a dictator, pure and simple ......and thats what started the Texas war for independance......first at Anahuac....then Gonzales.

Till finally the dictator got his head handed to him at San Jacinto.
 
Interesting read......though much of it is bullshit And the minute an author starts babbling about whiteness just put the book down and not waste your time on such stupidity.....

Jose Lopez De Santa Anna was a dictator, pure and simple ......and thats what started the Texas war for independance......first at Anahuac....then Gonzales.

Till finally the dictator got his head handed to him at San Jacinto.
Mexico’s abolition of slavery (1830) had nothing to do with it!

It’s Antonio, not Jose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_López_de_Santa_Anna
 
This thread got me to thinking about the history that I have been exposed to. I think one of our issues is that there is a segment of the population that cannot come to grips with the fact that much of our history has been polished to show no warts. As technology and communication become better, we are exposed to the discrepancies with reality and what we have been led to believe.
I understand that has been a historical trend. Though, I would say that in this most recent generation it is the complete opposite. All warts and little to no reflection on the good that we have caused as a nation.
 
I understand that has been a historical trend. Though, I would say that in this most recent generation it is the complete opposite. All warts and little to no reflection on the good that we have caused as a nation.
What’s the old physics rule, “water seeks its own level?”

Pendulum has been covering the warts for too long, it will take a while to reach equilibrium, imo.
 
What’s the old physics rule, “water seeks its own level?”

Pendulum has been covering the warts for too long, it will take a while to reach equilibrium, imo.
That actually makes sense

Just hopefully it doesn't swing too long, its important to understand the great mistakes we made as a country but it doesn't take away from the fact that we initiated an era of democracy, freedom and growth never seen before.
 
I understand that has been a historical trend. Though, I would say that in this most recent generation it is the complete opposite. All warts and little to no reflection on the good that we have caused as a nation.

We all like things clear, simple, and black & white. Reality though, unfortunately, usually just comes in various shades of grey.
 
More and more of the south's propaganda and myth-creation after the civil war and reconstruction gets exposed. Fascinating book I saw recently:

"Three noted Texan writers combine forces to tell the real story of the Alamo, dispelling the myths, exploring why they had their day for so long, and explaining why the ugly fight about its meaning is now coming to a head. Every nation needs its creation myth, and since Texas was a nation before it was a state, it's no surprise that its myths bite deep. There's no piece of history more important to Texans than the Battle of the Alamo, when Davy Crockett and a band of rebels went down in a blaze of glory fighting for independence from Mexico, losing the battle but setting Texas up to win the war. However, that version of events, as Forget the Alamo definitively shows, owes more to fantasy than reality. Just as the site of the Alamo was left in ruins for decades, its story was forgotten and twisted over time, with the contributions of Tejanos--Texans of Mexican origin, who fought alongside the Anglo rebels--scrubbed from the record, and the origin of the conflict over Mexico's push to abolish slavery papered over. Forget the Alamo provocatively explains the true story of the battle against the backdrop of Texas's struggle for independence, then shows how the sausage of myth got made in the Jim Crow South of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. As uncomfortable as it may be to hear, celebrating the Alamo has long had an echo of celebrating whiteness. In the past forty-some years, waves of revisionists have come at this topic, and at times have made real progress toward a more nuanced and inclusive story that doesn't alienate anyone. But we are not living in one of those times; the fight over the Alamo's meaning has become more pitched than ever in the past few years, even violent, as Texas's future begins to look more and more different from its past. It's the perfect time for a wise and generous-spirited book that shines the bright light of the truth into a place that's gotten awfully dark."
Sounds like a culture destroying leftist who should be put in a re-education camp
 
Back
Top Bottom