Forget the Alamo

[EMNofSeattle]

Interesting. But maybe we can have myths for the masses, but see the shades of grey ourselves. I have read the shades of grey in MLK. I’m OK with that. Could it be not all of us need myths?

You sure do. Which is why you promote the leftist myth version of history as evidence by your endorsement of a false version of the history of the Alamo.

Myth does not mean “false”. Maybe you’re operating on the wrong definition of myth, but you certainly use myth to form your worldview

 

[Luce]

Sounds like a culture destroying leftist who should be put in a re-education camp

See, I'd have thought you would be in favor of the destruction of the Alamo.

 

[ataraxia]

You sure do. Which is why you promote the leftist myth version of history as evidence by your endorsement of a false version of the history of the Alamo.

Myth does not mean “false”. Maybe you’re operating on the wrong definition of myth, but you certainly use myth to form your worldview

Im not partial. I’m OK with learning the shades of grey on MLK as well as the Texans at the Alamo. Don’t you think that allows you to better understand your world? Aren’t you curious? Myths make that difficult. And if you don’t have a sophisticated understanding of the world, it’s hard to make sophisticated and informed decisions in it. That’s how we can end up with someone like Donald Trump.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

See, I'd have thought you would be in favor of the destruction of the Alamo.

Why?

 

[Luce]

Why?

Because the Alamo was full of people who had agreed to live under a Catholic autocracy, and then decided they wanted to live in a republic, and rebelled.

If you had any consistency at all, you'd want to tear down the Alamo and build a monument to Antonio López de Santa Anna.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Im not partial. I’m OK with learning the shades of grey on MLK as well as the Texans at the Alamo. Don’t you think that allows you to better understand your world? Aren’t you curious?

Whether it allows me to is not the relevant point. The relevant point is the people at large need myth in order to be citizens, and for a long standing functional society and to tie them to the past of the society towards the future. So destroying such myth is a great danger to society at large.

If you live in Texas you should not be viewing the Alamo from the Mexican perspective. I don’t expect Mexicans to view this from Texas perspective. But even that would be better then the completely made up view of this book you’re hawking in the OP because the premise is laughably false

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Because the Alamo was full of people who had agreed to live under a Catholic autocracy, and then decided they wanted to live in a republic, and rebelled.

If you had any consistency at all, you'd want to tear down the Alamo and build a monument to Antonio López de Santa Anna.

Santa Ana was a usurper and many Mexicans attempted to secede from him. They simply failed. Santa Ana isn’t even well liked in Mexican historical circles

Also the Mexico of the 1830s was a secular republic and not a Catholic theocracy. It was initially a monarchy, but that’s another story.

 

[Luce]

Santa Ana was a petty thug and many Mexicans attempted to secede from him. They simply failed.

Also the Mexico of the 1830s was a secular republic and not a Catholic theocracy. It was initially a monarchy, but that’s another story.

So now we have to add "white" to the list of qualifications, I guess.

 

[Luce]

The relevant point is the people at large need myth in order to be citizens,

Prove this.

 

[ataraxia]

Whether it allows me to is not the relevant point. The relevant point is the people at large need myth in order to be citizens, and for a long standing functional society and to tie them to the past of the society towards the future. So destroying such myth is a great danger to society at large.

If you live in Texas you should not be viewing the Alamo from the Mexican perspective. I don’t expect Mexicans to view this from Texas perspective. But even that would be better then the completely made up view of this book you’re hawking in the OP because the premise is laughably false

I’m not sure about that. Some societies are more sophisticated and educated than others. If both sides were open to learning all the shades of grey and all the actual facts, rather than just propaganda, it might lead to more mutual understanding and less tribalism. Isn’t that a good thing?

 

[Rexedgar]

Santa Ana was a usurper and many Mexicans attempted to secede from him. They simply failed. Santa Ana isn’t even well liked in Mexican historical circles

Also the Mexico of the 1830s was a secular republic and not a Catholic theocracy. It was initially a monarchy, but that’s another story.

Mexico abolished slavery in Mexico in 1829 and gave Texas a one year extension. Talk about myths!

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Mexico abolished slavery in Mexico in 1829 and gave Texas a one year extension. Talk about myths!

Which relates to the comment you quoted how?

 

[Rexedgar]

Which relates to the comment you quoted how?

You are the one that favors myths……you can connect the dots.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You are the one that favors myths……you can connect the dots.

Or you can make an argument. Instead of throwing spaghetti at a wall.

 

[j brown's body]

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.

Are you not aware of the role slavery played?

 

[Rexedgar]

@EMNofSeattle

See your post # 26. Texans good. By your logic the Confederacy was good, as well. I’m sensing a connection. Confederacy was all about state’s rights, too, right?

Why did Texas secede?

 

[COTO]

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.

It could be that Mr. Burrough is simply paying lip service to the term. However, my own experience is that any mention of "whiteness" in an academic treatise is a de facto admission that the writer intends to present every argument, as much as is possible, through the "whiteness" lens, which seeks to portray whites as uniquely avaricious, merciless, oppressive, and deceitful.

Again, perhaps Mr. Burrough is simply paying lip service to the term, but to me, "whiteness" appearing in the synopsis is a red flag that this author is going to do everything in his power--in terms of how he selectively includes and omits facts, and how he presents them--to convey history through that lens. The kitschy title, "Forget the Alamo", suggests the same. It's the title of a book that I expect to try to deconstruct anything and everything virtuous about the stand at the Alamo, not adhere to rigorous historical objectivity.

 

[j brown's body]

It could be that Mr. Burrough is simply paying lip service to the term. However, my own experience is that any mention of "whiteness" in an academic treatise is a de facto admission that the writer intends to present every argument, as much as is possible, through the "whiteness" lens, which seeks to portray whites as uniquely avaricious, merciless, oppressive, and deceitful.

Again, perhaps Mr. Burrough is simply paying lip service to the term, but to me, "whiteness" appearing in the synopsis is a red flag that this author is going to do everything in his power--in terms of how he selectively includes and omits facts, and how he presents them--to convey history through that lens. The kitschy title, "Forget the Alamo", suggests the same. It's the title of a book that I expect to try to deconstruct anything and everything virtuous about the stand at the Alamo, not adhere to rigorous historical objectivity.

Its a strawman argument. You're uncomfortable with the designation of whiteness, therefore any analysis of it in history, without bothering with the analysis itself, must be wrong.

 

[j brown's body]

You sure do. Which is why you promote the leftist myth version of history as evidence by your endorsement of a false version of the history of the Alamo.

Myth does not mean “false”. Maybe you’re operating on the wrong definition of myth, but you certainly use myth to form your worldview

I would be very suspicious of myths. The Myth of the Lost Cause wrote Blacks and slavery as an evil out of the slave south and the Civil War. The Myth of Manifest Destiny wrote genocide and plunder out of westward expansion. Thus, myths have a weak track record as far as being "true."

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I would be very suspicious of myths. The Myth of the Lost Cause wrote Blacks and slavery as an evil out of the slave south and the Civil War. The Myth of Manifest Destiny wrote genocide and plunder out of westward expansion. Thus, myths have a weak track record as far as being "true."

There was never any genocide involved in “manifest destiny” that very idea is a lie told by philocommunists.

The US government has never engaged in a genocide

 

[COTO]

You're uncomfortable with the designation of whiteness, therefore any analysis of it in history, without bothering with the analysis itself, must be wrong.

It's like somebody handing you a book called "Israel, the Curse", whose synopsis includes expressions like "apartheid" and "Zionist pigs", trying to persuade you that it's an objective look at the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Maybe it is. But are you going to trust it?

 

[COTO]

And it’s likely going to be entirely claptrap.

The new narrative the left is forming to try to destroy Texan identity is that evil racist white slave owners just decided to up and steal Texas from brown Mexicans even though the Mexican elite was entirely white (and still are today, they are called “fresas” the Spanish for strawberry, or “güeros”) and mixed race Tejanos largely joined with white Texians. They ignore that Santa Ana was a petty tyrant whos usurpation of power triggered multiple secessions from Mexico.

I'm not opposed to retelling of history from different perspectives, and I don't think the book will be "entirely" claptrap.

But do I expect it to present an objective historical account? No. Far too many red flags in the synopsis alone.

 

[Rexedgar]

There was never any genocide involved in “manifest destiny” that very idea is a lie told by philocommunists.

The US government has never engaged in a genocide

Get a history book out, or a dictionary…..

 

[Fishking]

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."

Forget the Alamo: The True Story of the... book by Bryan Burrough

These people are so lost walking in the trees they can't see the forest. The Alamo played an integral roll in Texas gaining its independence and eventually becoming a state. Full stop. That's the place it's holding in history. Not any of the minutia of details that these authors are whining about.

 

[bomberfox]

It's like somebody handing you a book called "Israel, the Curse", whose synopsis includes expressions like "apartheid" and "Zionist pigs", trying to persuade you that it's an objective look at the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Maybe it is. But are you going to trust it?

Not the same thing.