"When Myth and Meaning Overshadow History: Remembering..." Topic
9 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Mexican-American Wars Message Board Back to The Old West Message Board
Areas of Interest19th Century World War One
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleNeed a classic airliner for your Pulp scenarios?
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
Tango01 | 22 Jul 2016 12:10 p.m. PST |
… the Alamo. "Rare are the students who enter US classrooms without some preconceived notions regarding the Alamo. Thanks to more than a dozen films produced at regular intervals over the last century, to Walt Disney's television series for baby boomers still conveniently available on DVD, to Stephen Harrigan's best-selling novel in 2000, and to countless Taco-Belled visuals and verbal lines drawn in the sand, generations of Americans and even immigrants from afar claim some familiarity with the contours of the story. More often than not, it is recounted as the simple tale of outnumbered defenders overwhelmed by an invading army, of valiant men who chose to die in order to bring into being the Republic of Texas. Indeed, for many decades, the history of the Alamo seemed to remain impervious to the revisionism so characteristic of American historiography in general. But since the sesquicentennial of the Battle of the Alamo in 1986, an increasingly sophisticated scholarship has emerged that frames the event from multiple new perspectives while providing opportunities to think about the relationships between history and myth, history and memory, and history and meaning. How was it that such a dramatic confrontation came to take place at the Alamo? The conventional explanation highlights the westward migration of mostly white Protestant Americans to Texas in hopes of securing land to grow cotton. This "searching for opportunity" narrative reflects, of course, the larger theme of Manifest Destiny that is an integral part of US history survey courses. Yet there is another dimension to this movement. In fact, it was the Mexican government that encouraged the initial population of its northern periphery by such settlement in the early 1820s, intending to form a buffer against American Indians raiding activities. In return for land, the new arrivals—including many slaveholders and aspiring slaveholders—pledged to respect Mexican laws and customs. As the number of settlers grew faster than anticipated, clashes ensued over the status of slavery, the Catholic Church, and trade duties. It is important to note that Mexico had abolished slavery in its territories in the federalist Constitution of 1824, the same constitution that Texas revolutionaries ostensibly supported. Likewise, the original American settlers had agreed to abide by certain conditions, and Mexican rule had proven not to be that harsh. Still, by 1835, disputes over the payment of import and export duties sparked armed rebellion. Given the predilection of Jacksonian common men to exploit the "frontier," such cultural, political, and economic clashes were not surprising. Nor did it appear a contradiction that the Texas protagonists defended both liberty and slavery simultaneously. In this respect, their mindset reflected the quintessentially American paradox identified by Edmund Morgan for seventeenth-century Virginia and present in the writings of many who supported the American Revolution. In recent scholarship, even US historians now set the Texas Revolution within an appropriate bilateral context.[1] After all, the lands in question were hardly unclaimed; they were part of the sprawling Mexican province of Coahuila y Tejas. So, as the Texans, or Texians, scrambled to raise an army to defend themselves against oppression, another conflict was unfolding to the south. In essence, Mexico itself had dissolved into civil war, as the federalist government was challenged by centralists. Putting down the rebellion in Texas thus must be viewed as part of a larger struggle for control, which featured nearly simultaneous uprisings in Zacatecas and the Yucatán and elsewhere later in 1836. General Antonio Lόpez de Santa Anna, at this juncture committed to the centralist cause, had his hands full during the summer and fall of 1835. Meanwhile, his brother-in-law, Martín Perfecto de Cos, fought the Texas rebels (presumed federalists) in battles around San Antonio de Béxar in December of 1835; he was forced to surrender the town on December 10. The stage was set for the Battle of the Alamo, as Texans struggled to figure out how to defend this supposedly strategic position against the expected retaliation. At one point, James Bowie actually was ordered by military superiors to dismantle the mission fort, but he chose to remain in and around the Alamo with a small group of volunteers. Others, including William Barrett Travis from east Texas and the former US congressman David Crockett from Tennessee, made their way to San Antonio as the Mexican army marched northward during an unseasonably cold winter. Meanwhile, at Washington-on-the-Brazos, political leaders wrote and then proclaimed the Texas Declaration of Independence on March 2, four days prior to the final showdown…" More here link Amicalement Armand |
emckinney | 22 Jul 2016 1:18 p.m. PST |
At the Alamo, there's one label on one display that mentions how the defenders were motivated by wanting to maintain and expand slavery. Apparently, making that clear would mess up the whole myth. |
Bunkermeister | 22 Jul 2016 1:24 p.m. PST |
"Mexican rule had proven not to be that harsh…" "…Mexico itself had dissolved into civil war.." If Mexican rule was not that harsh, then why was the whole country in flames? This narrative seems to leave out a number of facts and seems to draw rather odd conclusions. Mike Bunkermeister Creek Bunker Talk blog |
wolfgangbrooks | 22 Jul 2016 6:54 p.m. PST |
I dunno, the lead up to tensions in the colonies that caused the AWI wasn't over much at all. (And from my reading was in the process of being addressed in Britain.) The American Civil War was fought essentially because of Southern political hysteria over the election of Lincoln. People are irrational and prone to being disgruntled. |
emckinney | 22 Jul 2016 7:44 p.m. PST |
Accurate on Lincoln. Nothing had happened at all when SC set everything off. |
basileus66 | 22 Jul 2016 11:05 p.m. PST |
If Mexican rule was not that harsh, then why was the whole country in flames? Not every revolution is provoked by tyrannic rule. Many, actually, are the consequence of a group of elites controlling the centers of power and other elites, that feel that can't access to such power through peaceful means, rebelling against that monopoly. It is not about how harsh the government is, but about how flexible in sharing power. |
Tango01 | 23 Jul 2016 10:29 a.m. PST |
Agree with you Antonio!. Amicalement Armand |
Tom Scott | 14 Aug 2016 10:43 a.m. PST |
ALL nations/peoples have "myths". Post-modernity demands that myths be exploded (usually by creating a new myth containing opposite extremes of the original). These new myths then become as powerful and widespread as the ones they replace (since a new elite requires them to support their ideological perspectives). There are very few truly bad (and no virtuous) actors in the human play. Simply human nature working itself out within the ecological/technological/cultural scripts. |
|