remember the alamo?

[Beaker]

so there's this big new movie coming out...maybe somebody from texas could better explain to me why the treasonous pricks who got their collective asses kicked for no good reason there are seen as heroes?

it's always baffled me.

[rabid_nerd]

1. great cars at great prices

n/t

[Rick Myers]

4. Ah... You beat me to it!!!

Dammit nerd, I'm a doctor not a satirist!!!

:toast:

[Fenris]

2. ...

No, I cannot.

[DrWeird]

3. Hey, Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill gave their lives!

for your freedoms!

[JVS]

50. Lol

Bunyan in Texas, good one

[jobycom]

5. We just took the whole Thermopolae myth for ourselves

It was a slow news day, so the story sort of grew.

Actually, my own theory is it is the same reason we claim the Civil War ended slavery, cowboys beat Indians, and Columbus discovered America. Guilt. Winners must describe bloody actions as noble, rather than pigheaded and dumb. So rather than say "Boy howdy, those idiots shore got their dumb asses killed for nothing in that fight," we say "Our heroes died defending liberty!"

Never trust any excuse for starting a war. And damn few excuses for fighting them, even.

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. The Civil War did end American slavery

Slavery does still exist in Africa.

While Columbus wasn't the first one here, he was the first one who had any major impact from Europe. And, last time I checked, the cowboys did beat the indians.

As for the Alamo, if you can't see bravery in that stand, then you are a lost cause.

[Beaker]

13. i don't see bravery in the stand at the alamo.

i see stupidity, arrogance and contempt for the rule of law.

[jobycom]

46. They had honest gripes

Nothing worth slaughtering thousands over, but there were legitimate gripes with Mexico. Both sides were ridiculous in their reactions, though.

Oddly, since Mexico had outlawed slavery, you could argue that the Alamo was a fight to preserve slavery.

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. Care to elaborate on those?

[jobycom]

44. hehe. I can't tell if you're being serious or not

Are you making those claims, or are you being sarcastic?

As for bravery, Davey Crocket died on his knees begging for his life. Aside from that, sure, they were brave. So are people who commit suicide, and for that matter, so are suicide bombers and the 9-11 terrorists. Bravery doesn't make heroes.

Then again, cowardice is far worse. Look at W.

[Semi_subversive]

6. My dad, a San Antonio native

reminds me of a country song from the 60s. "If there was a back door to the Alamo, there wouldn't be a Texas".

[KansDem]

53. LOL!!!

My late uncle, who lived in both Dallas and Dennison, used to say the same thing.

Thanks for the memory; he was my favorite uncle. :hi:

[ermoore]

7. "Treasonous Pricks" . . . WTF?!

Sounds to me like some people just can't stand heroes who fought (and died) in wars. Anyone who committs violence or who would join an army (willingly, no less) must just be some kinda uneducated barbarian!

Whatever. They could have run, but they stayed and fought (fought bravely and fought well). They are all heroes.

[FDRrocks]

11. Fought to steal land from Mexico.

Don't forget to state the ends of the violence, when you mention the means.

[argyl]

28. The same can be said for California,Nevada,Colorado,Arizona,Utah,and

New Mexico.Why only mention Texas?The Texans fought the Mexican army bravely fot thirteen days,to the last man.
The true owners of Texas at the time weren't the Mexicans anyway,but the Comanches.The place was known as Comancheria and they weren't subdued for over fifty years after the Alamo fell.
Of course the aforementioned states were stolen by the US government,so I guess that makes it allright.

[Sandpiper]

30. Nobody tries to romanticize

The US government's biggest violent landgrab (aka The Mexican War) like they do the Alamo.

[argyl]

37. This story was"romanticized"by the whole world,no Karl Rove spin needed.

xx

[Sandpiper]

40. Yeah, but when was the last time

You saw a movie about the Mexican War?

[corporatewhore]

33. The anglo immigrants yes. some mexicans living in texas did want indepence

aswell joined with the anglos and got screwed in the end.

[Beaker]

12. they were mexican citizens at the time...

except for the illegal anglo immigrants, that is...and they had agreed to the terms before moving there.

what about their actions makes them heroes?

they were criminals on mexican soil.

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. And Washington, Jefferson et al were British subjects...

who had sworn allegiance to the King...traitors everywhere...

[Beaker]

16. washington, jefferson, et al were born colonists...

the participants at the alamo moved to mexico, and agreed to the terms, only to renig a short time later.

[bookman]

27. Actually...

...Mexico changed the terms.

Not everything is that simple. I know Texas is not a favorite here, but the Alamo defenders believed in what they were fighting for.

[Sandpiper]

32. Yes they did

but the Alamo defenders believed in what they were fighting for.

And what they believed in and were fighting for was slavery.

[corporatewhore]

34. Some alamo defenders were mexican who wanted indepence and

joined up with the anglos and got screwed in the end

[FDRrocks]

19. I'm not sure about your sentiments

But the English were subjugating the US. Mexico was not.

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. Well, my sentiments aren't in favour of the Texans.

Fighting for the right to establish slavery doesn't exactly win them any points. Just making an observation, really. Sort of a philisophical reflection on the nature of "treason" and how the definition changes based on perception.

[ermoore]

17. ??

Yeah, well, I guess they were criminals, in the same sense that Washington, Jefferson, Henry, & Co. were criminals. Or that anyone else who ever took part in a rebellion (or civil disobedience for that matter) were criminals.

What you think Santa Anna was a democratically elected benign ruler or something?

[Beaker]

20. not anything near the same sense as washington, jefferson, henry & co.

see my response in my other post on that topic.

[MUAD_DIB]

26. Did you know that Santa Anna gassed his own people?

This argument seems vaguely familiar.

[corporatewhore]

51. santa anna was not a nice guy and the tejanos did want independce

for them selves but not with the same goals in mind as the anglo immigrants so they fought along side the anglos only to be subjated by them afterwards

[MUAD_DIB]

25. Castro and Che' are heros to somebody too.

It all depends on your perspective.

[Zomby Woof]

9. it's a good way to eat pie

[FDRrocks]

10. "The ultimate fight for freedom"

to paraphrase the commercial on this movie I last saw. I doubt this movie was talking about Mexicans.

The Alamo was 'the ultimate fight for freedom' for the US? The Alamo is one of the crappier parts of American history, especially since we hype it so much now. Stealing other peoples shit if freedom? Any of you guys own a BMW M-series? What's your address?

[TriMetFan]

22. The Alamo

Hi this is my first post but anyway I was born and raised in San Antonio Texas and I'm glad that people are Remembering The Alamo. But it is good for all of us Americans to also read the Mexican version (history) of The Alamo. I grew up knowing that one of the biggest problems in Texas back then was that the Mexican Government had pass laws that outlawed Slavery. These laws where called Emancipation Measures. This pissed off the likes of Travis, Crockett, Bowie ect... they wanted to have slaves. That was 27 years before Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation freeing all Slaves. Slavery had a lot to do with the war between the Texans and Mexico. I was very glad that when the History Channel did Remember The Alamo they did bring this up. It's always good to Remember the truth lines in between the 2 version.

[ermoore]

24. Whoa!!!

Hold up there duder. Now, I can't speak for the rest of 'em, you might even have a point with the slavery thing in general, but Davy Crockett never owned any slaves, whatever his opinion on the matter of slavery. I'm sure yall will assume he was for it, because he was an illiterate frontiersman and why in the world would we ever want to give him the benefit-of-the-doubt.

[corporatewhore]

36. yep that is true but their were several mexicans who wanted indepence

joined up with the anglos and got screwed in the end

[sam sarrha]

15. i remember the alamo every time i see grafiti in my neighborhood

Dont Mess With Texas!!

[sam sarrha]

18. they were fighting the invasion of spain... Mexican refers to indiginous

people at the time.

[Beaker]

23. say what?

the invasion of spain?

they were in mexico, and were part of a rebellion by people who were welching on their word.

you might want to check your..."facts"?

[Sandpiper]

29. Those were no heroes who died at the Alamo

Unless you consider fighting for slavery heroic.

[corporatewhore]

31. The anglos were but alotta mexicans living in texas wanted independce

from mexico too and joined with the anglos only to get screwed later on

[Sandpiper]

35. One of the first acts of the Republic of Texas

Was to pass a law banning free blacks from moving to Texas.

Heroes my foot.

[corporatewhore]

38. i am not saying they were heroes but saying that the "mexican" texans

wanted indepence as well because santa anna was not a nice guy so they fought with the anglos not necessarily with the same "goals" for texas an thenonly later to be subjated by them

[Sandpiper]

39. The white guys screwed over the brown guys

Imagine that.

[corporatewhore]

41. who'd a thunk it?

[Jim Warren]

42. A historical note

At that time in Mexico/US relations, Mexico was enforcing stringent border entry regulations to curb illegal American immigrants from entering their country. The Mexican economy and society in general at the time was mature and fairly flourishing. Apparently, they thought it prudent to control the crass hillbilly white trash Nortenos from entering unchecked, and who were searching for relief from a still struggling US economy.

[Bridget Burke]

43. The Alamo defenders were a mixed bag.

Some were indeed imperialists who wanted to add another slave state to the union. Others had wandered from other states & countries to Texas looking for a Grand Adventure; they were unclear on the details. And there were some native-born Tejanos who just disliked Santa Ana.

Did the 13 days they held the old mission help Houston gather the forces that would eventually defeat Santa Ana? Or was Travis a grandstanding fool? Did Crockett and other Tenneseeans surrender--to be killed, anyway? (The diary of a Mexican officer said so, shocking those whose devotion to Crockett reveals heavy influence by the works of Walt Disney & John Wayne.)

Santa Ana made all the questions irrelevant. By the end of the day they were all Dead Heroes. So a legend began. A Japanese visitor was reminded of famous last stands in his own history & placed a monument on the Alamo grounds; from the inscription:

"You do not see Chang Hsun, Hsu Yuan, and Nan Chiyun (David Crockett, Bowie, and Bonham)
But their fame, like the blossom's fragrance, is still in the air.
The custom of the West does not necessarily condemn surrender.
Why? We have never heard of a commander destroyed,
But here in the state of Texas, we see one (Travis).
In spirit there is not a distinction between East and West.
You need not wonder, then, if I drink a toast to your memory!
I have brought a well-polished stone from Japan,
And commemorate your heroic deeds with this humble inscription."

http://wnbonham.home.att.net/japan.htm

History is complicated & the growth of legend out of history is interesting to witness. This is a bit hard to understand if you come from a state with a more placid story.

I'd be surprised if the upcoming movie is any good.

[OKNancy]

45. Judging history with today's standards

is always problematic.

[jobycom]

48. History is always judged by modern standards

The point of this discussion is mostly concerning the myth and symbolism of the Alamo. The Alamo story is taught these days as a lesson, as proof that war is noble, that fighting is better than negotiating. It's a training tool for young patriots. It can have other lessons as well-- sacrifice, standing up to corrupt governments, taking on overwhelming causes on principle, etc. Those are all judgements, not history.

A history of the Alamo simply would retell the facts of the battle, place it in its greater context of the war, Texas, Mexico, America. It would recount all of the causes of the battle and the war.

But that's not the point of the movie, nor of the lessons taught in school on the battle. Like most American history taught before grad school, judgement is everything. In Texas, people have uncovered new details about the battle over the last few decades, but any attempts to correct the details in history books is fought by school boards and the general public. One man who wrote the story using Mexican sources that disagreed with American sources had his life threatened repeatedly, even though obviously the Mexican sources would include eyewitness accounts of the battle that could not be told from the Texan side since the soldiers were all dead.

In other words, the history was rejected because the myth was too important. That's what this thread is about. Rebel soldiers fought in a battle, they chose to sacrifice their lives because they believed it would help win a war, and for other reasons. That happens every year all over the world. It's the myth that developed around that battle that makes it significant. And that is all about judging by today's standards.

[NoPasaran]

47. If you don't like our mythology, don't see the movie.

Same reason I blew off The Passion.

[Ishoutandscream]

49. You're not wanting an answer - You simply want to bash Texas

A favorite activity here at DU.

[Beaker]

54. actually no...

I'm just trying to get someone to explain why the alamo "defenders" should be considered heroes- when you look at the historical facts objectively, it just doesn't make sense...

[sendero]

57. I watched the Alamo series...

... on the history channel a few months back. It seemed like a fairly evenhanded account.

100 people observing the same event can all come to different conclusions. As a son of generations of native Texans, and I've lived here 95% of my life - the stuff I was taught in grade school about the Alamo was largely bullcorn.

The main players were all men of property or aspiring men of property. They were trying to make their fortunes in Texas and the Mexican government was an impediment. To say that the US had some inherent right to take Texas from Mexico is rather ludicrous.

People revise and reinterpret history to make themselves feel better. They laugh at a buffoon like Saddam for putting his visage all over the place, and yet they are not much different. They tell themselves that their forebears were all noble men of conscience, doing the right thing - but they'd best not look too closely at what really happened or they'll have a hard time holding to that belief.

[TriMetFan]

60. "Bashing Texas"

Well I for one I'm not bashing Texas. I Love Texas that where I was born and raised. But like I said on my first post you got to read both sides. Even now that I live in Oregon I still say I'm a Texan before I say I'm a American. Yes Bush might be form Texas but he is no real Texan.

[VelmaD]

55. I think it has to do with how a small number...

of people held out for so long against such overwhelming odds. DO I agree with what some of them were fighting for? No. But you have to admire that they lasted 13 days against such long odds.

That's the part of the story that I think turned it into a myth. And there's nothing wrong with the idea that just because you're outnumbered doesn't mean you don't stand and fight.

[rinsd]

59. Yes...the "underdog" role plays a large part in myth making (nt)

[Goldust]

56. Do you have any clue what you're talking about?

"treasonous pricks who got their collective asses kicked for no good reason" What in the hell are you talking about?

The Alamo was defended by Tejanos and Anglos who were being oppressed by a military dictator. He took away their representative government and forced them to covert to Catholicism. His soliders murdered innocent civilians and raped women. How is declaring independence from that "treason?"

And they weren't illegals. Most of them came to Texas via agreements with the Mexican government. Many of those who died at the Alamo defending Texas were native Mexicans, and Texas' first vice-president was Hispanic.

Why are you defending a military dictator who wanted to establish a theocracy?

I've been to a rodeo, two state fairs and a Carrot Top movie, and that post has to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

[Sandpiper]

58. Again, ignoring the elephant in the living room

What really got the anglo settlers riled up and ready for war was that Santa Anna extended the abolition of slavery to Texas.

Why are you defending a bunch of plantation owners who were fighting to keep their slaves in chains?

[Bridget Burke]

61. All the legal settlers agreed to convert to Catholicism

It wasn't rigidly enforced.

Mexico ended slavery when it won its independance; Santa Ana's enforcement of this detail was the big problem with most of the "freedom fighters". Not all the Alamo defenders were going to benefit, though. Some just thought it was a big adventure. Most of the leading Anglo citizens joined the "runaway scrape" to the east, in order to get away from Santa Ana's army (and the oher Mexican armies in Texas at the time.) They left the guys at the Alamo holding the bag.

Santa Ana turned that motley crew into a bunch of Dead Heroes & a legend had been born.