"Teaching the Alamo" Topic

…Removing the word "heroic" to describe those who protected the Alamo was among the items included in a report penned by an advisory panel to the State Board of Education on how to structure the curriculum, Dallas News reported on Friday…

link

When last I was there, there was one tiny mention, tucked away in a corner of the Alamo museum, explaining that the Americans were there because they wanted to expand slavery into Texas. (It was illegal in Mexico.)

A small group of soldiers fighting for what they believe in against an overwhelming enemy is heroic, by definition.
Wake Island, The 300, The Alamo, and many others.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

It can also be described as lunacy by definition.

Heroic lunacy?

Two sides to each story, then there is the truth.

"the Americans were there because they wanted to expand slavery into Texas. (It was illegal in Mexico.)"

Presumably there was not a mention that the Americans were there because they wanted to expand freedom of religion into Texas? (That also was illegal in Mexico.)

Lots of ways of looking at stories. I find the current choices of our cultural elites--interesting.

When last I was there, there was one tiny mention, tucked away in a corner of the Alamo museum, explaining that the Americans were there because they wanted to expand slavery into Texas. (It was illegal in Mexico.)

Far too broad a brush. Undoubtedly there were those involved in the rebellion who favored expansion of slavery but there were also some who simply wanted Mexico to honor previous agreements with the settlers. Some favored complete independence while others favored remaining tied to Mexico but with more local autonomy. The beliefs and dreams were as varied as the people themselves: local Tejanos, settlers from North America and Europe, speculators, farmers, shopkeepers, drifters. The belief that the Americans who were settling in the Mexican State of Tejas all (or mostly) favored slavery has gained recent traction thanks to some shoddy, politically shaded, revisionist history.

> Heroic lunacy?

One does not preclude the other. Sometimes they can be considered synonyms.

In most any revolution those on the side of the revolutionaries have had multiple factions – some with very different and contradictory aims in doing so. Iran's is a great example. Considering Texas ended up a slave owning state that ended up joining the CSA I don't think anything "Shoddy" or "Politically shaded" need be applied to the idea that the revolution in Texas was for pro-slavery purposes.

Texas history in Texas schools has a total of half a page on the revolution and Texas as a republic. Taking "heroic" out of it is just the latest reason, of a mountain of reasons, that this panel with it's political correctness should be done away with. They have ruined the education system here.

I don't think anything "Shoddy" or "Politically shaded" need be applied to the idea that the revolution in Texas was for pro-slavery purposes.

The revolution in Texas was a couple decades removed from the American Civil War. The revolt in Texas was definitely not "for pro-slavery purposes." The fact that Texas ended up joining the CSA is not evidence that the Texas revolution was FOR that purpose.

I always thought both sides fought so hard because the loser had to keep Texas?

It's funny. You always hear that it's the winners who write the history. I always thought that was a load of rubbish. History is written by those who write it and it's shaped by that writer's agenda. Bias slips into every writer's craft and bias also slips into curriculum too. Right now who writes the curriculum? Teachers, at least in my neck of the woods. Most of the teachers I know lean left so…

The question is will the people of Texas let them do it?

IMO the defenders of the Alamo were heroic, but so were the poor sods who braved the defensive fire and breached the wall. Heck, it takes guts to go on the firing line and risk your skin. I'm not sure why the writers here had a problem with the character trait of "heroic". I guess it doesn't fit their agenda.

I am a teacher myself, by the by.

McKinstry for the Win!

If the Anglos were only fighting for slavery, what were the Tejanos (Mexicans who fought with the Anglos against Santa Ana) fighting for?

Among the fifty-six men who signed the Texas Declaration of Independence on March 2, 1836, three were Hispanic: two Tejanos, José Antonio Navarro and José Francisco Ruiz, and the new Republic's first Vice President, Lorenzo de Zavala. And let's not forget Juan Seguin, the third Hispanic signatory led hundreds of other Tejanos in the Texian army.

Sometimes our Euro/American-centric interpretations AND criticisms blind us to the complexity of historical motivations. Motivations we can never truly understand because we do not live in those historical times and which can only be interpreted through our modern, elitist sensibilities.

Tgunner, that was very well said, sir. Your students are a lucky bunch!

EDIT: And you too, Raylev!

Tgunner & Raylev +1

Of course today the word "slavery" is it a "dog whistle" for some. Regardless, it has to be pretty obvious to almost everybody with any common sense, etc., slavery of any kind was[and still is !] a very bad "concept". And that should be made very clear for all to hear. And stopped at every opportunity !

However the good, the bad, and the ugly facts remain. It occurred[and still does sadly !] and that it was in a very different time, mind set, etc., in the past centuries. Especially those before the 20th on back.