"review of new Alamo book" Topic

A challenging review of new Alamo book

link

Far more of an anti-Texas polemic than serious history, the book is an utter disappointment.

The key reason is the presence of dozens of "straw man" arguments. The primary example reduces anyone who supports the popular understanding of what occurred at the Alamo to a white supremacist. Consequently, anyone with the gall to question their work (like Patrick did publicly last week) is an "Alamo-head" or "Bible-thumper" who clings to what the authors call the "Heroic Anglo Narrative." Burrough et al. leave no room for someone to reject both the extremes of the early 20th century Texas jingoists and their own, even more baseless analysis.

The result of these shortcomings is one massive flaw in the book: every event in Texas' past, and every episode in the present, is portrayed as a battle between oppressed people of color and whites. Of course, almost every white person (save for the enlightened elite intellectuals of the modern era who are working to "correct the record") is painted as evil. Not to be a member of the enlightened group is to adhere automatically to the Heroic Anglo Narrative.

Doc adds: the 2004 film (Thornton as Crockett) seems to me to be quite balanced and nuanced, and representative of where most of us are on remembering the Alamo.

Its actually a good book. One only has to actually read it. Hard to argue with facts such as oral and written information that can be fact checked.

Of course, admitting that the folks that moved to what was Mexico at the time, swearing an oath to become Catholics and not bring slaves with them (as Mexico was a Catholic nation and had outlawed slavery) and then revolting over those promises seems to get under some folks skins as how it depicts their cherished myths and such in that light.

Plenty of Alamo myth, to be sure, but we've undertood that for quite a long time now. They were also promised a constitutional government, not a military dictatorship.

As to heroes, I don't know what Crockett's attitude towards slavery was, but he sacrificed his political career in defense of the southern tribes.

Don't know about you, but I am a mixture of good and bad thoughts, intentions, and actions.

Thanks, docmb. There is so much to read that I have to rely on solid reviews to filter out the chaff. Won't be reading this one.

Dan Cyr " Hard to argue with facts such as oral and written information that can be fact checked"

Have you ever heard the horror stories for none Mexican citizens to access their Mexico's National Archives? So It very hard to fact check anything based on it as a source.

A friend once tried to get access to Zebulon Pikes papers/maps, And after 10 years ,He got one blurry picture of one page.

It looks like the reviewer is some sort of right wing ideologue:

link

The perfect choice to objectively review a book revisiting Alamo and Texas history.

It is amusing to see his approach:

1. Fight Bias with Bias

2. Fight Straw men with Straw men

3. Mention Straw men, lots and lots of Straw men

4. Did I mention, Straw Men?

5. Proactively ironicize "racism everywhere" as a brainless way to assure racists that racism doesn't exist and never has.

6. Headline "[Glaring]Historical Errors" and then fail to mention any.

A little about the reviewer from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an organization dedicated to keeping the "as" in Texas.

As a scholar of America's Founding, Roberts approaches every public policy issue with the desire to increase self-governance and decrease government overreach

The [Texas Public Policy] Foundation, is guided by these principles

Free Enterprise
Liberty
Personal Responsibility

In other words, FREEDOM!

It's interesting that the reviewer, a self styled lover of freedom and opponent of tyranny, oppression etc, mentions and seemingly approves of the Texas Governor cancelling the book event as if it isn't an appalling 1st Amendment violation. But then, I suppose sometimes the government has to deny some people's 1st Amendment rights in order to preserve other's 1st Amendment right to continue to live in denial.

Oh, and Straw Men.

Of course he is right-wing. So am I. What of it? The question is what is TRUE.

Of course he is right-wing. So am I. What of it? The question is what is TRUE.

Except that he isnt just right wing, he is a "Right Wing Ideologue" which means he is an extremist. Are you also that?

You know, for someone who is always railing about how people purposefully misquote and misinterpret your words and also have reading comprehension issues, you certainly "dip your wick" in that pool quite a bit in your own right.

What's more, Kevin D. Roberts isnt just any old right wing ideologue, he works for a Texas Foundation committed to upholding traditional Texas values; which makes me suspicious that his bread and butter derives from perpetuating all positive Texas tales whether true or false.

It doesnt seem like he even read the book but it looks like his opinion on what makes the book bad is that it criticizes Texas heroes gone by:

I could go on about the authors consistently portraying Mexican historical figures in the most positive light and Texan figures in the most negative.

What a crime…must a bad book.

But I love his proposed alternate title for the cancelled book event "The Craft of Writing Straw-Men."

I noticed neither he nor you think the true outrage is the government censorship. And maybe that's exactly how it should be. Let's face it, if you start letting competing ideas hit the atmosphere, it might interfere with the "truth". Further, censorship is justified when a book is poorly written, badly researched and criticizes Texan heroes.

Wow, he sometimes sounds like you:

As a historian with a doctorate in American history from the University of Texas, I know the subject of the book well; I have taught U.S. and Texas history to thousands of students.

Oh well, he has taught it, that's really the end of the debate. Otherwise, we might have to have a student recall…

Au Pas de Charge,

I did not see anywhere, in your link, the word ideologue. He is professor of history, and obviously a practicing Catholic. Apparently from your position, anyone who disagrees with you is not only wrong but a bad/evil person.

Au Pas, you often make some great points as does doc mcb. Sometimes the tone of some of these discussions just feels too personal to me.

For me, the problem with the review is that it tells me next to nothing about the book itself. No quotes, no citations. What exactly did these authors get so wrong? Show me, I look for specific examples to appear in most book reviews.

I really want a second opinion. Nothing this writer says proves to me that he read the book. I don't read "The Federalist". I don't know "The Texas Public Policy Foundation" he works for. But that doesn't matter.

Just a couple of quotes from the book with some documentation to show how bad it is would go a long way. This review was more of a broad condemnation based on personal politics. Now, I really want to read this book to find out why it's being attacked!

For me, the problem with the review is that it tells me next to nothing about the book itself. No quotes, no citations.

He either didn't read it or the things he thought were wrong he couldn't dispute.

This reviewer in the WSJ looks like they actually read the book.

link

Yes this looks like a book review, and reads like one to me. This one goes on the list. The WSJ informs more than judges in this case, I feel.

I have picked up some good ideas for reading about this topic from several of you, much thanks!

Glistening purple helmet

I personally, while I had known much of what was presented in the years leading up to the revolt, was surprised to read of the Mexican cavalry riding down the the two fairly large groups of Alamo defenders that fled the compound and were not killed in defending the place.

Au Pas de Charge,

I did not see anywhere, in your link, the word ideologue.

You think this is a title people give themselves?

He is professor of history, and obviously a practicing Catholic. Apparently from your position, anyone who disagrees with you is not only wrong but a bad/evil person.

I didn't say he is a bad person. He's a bad choice to review a book like this because he is predisposed to defending the legend no matter what.

I cant say I disagree with him, I simply found his review comic. I dont know that I have strong feelings about revising the Alamo adventure. Do I have to pick a side?

I've read other stuff by him, he is intelligent and capable of a good review. That makes this culture war performance art piece all the more disappointing.

Dan, that episode with the escape and the lancers has been well known for many years. BLOOD OF NOBLE MEN even has an illustration of it.

If all the book is doing is saying the siege and battle were more complex than the version we learned in the 7th grade, then yes, of course. And George Washington did not really cut down thta cherry tree. But one suspects the book's motive is more sinister than that.

Both of you recent streams have taken people to task because, it appears to me, that they did not like a review of a book about The Alamos by a left wing "ideologue" who was a professor, the you disparaged the reviewer of a book about The Alamo by right wing ideologue. Do you dislike any stories about this action that may not agree with your view? There are myths and legends about the Alamo, do I believe them? No, but they are there. I do however have to agree in part with Tortorella it seems entirely to personal, in future I will not respond to any postings, it is just to wearying.

As a wargamer, 'this' is the book to get! An amazing scale model.
(But yikes, certainly wasn't this expensive when I bought it.)

link

I was appalled at the cancellation of the presentation. Former Land Commisoner Jerry Patterson's approach was much better: let them talk then take their "facts' and conclusions on with reasoned questions. Apart from that, I find their book's title to be deliberately provocative and sensationalist.

As an Englishman there is something I don't understand about Americans and history; why is it, when ever someone presents evidence that American's past is not the "glorious lie" that you've been presented with for with, you behave like someone has shot a puppy with a GAU-8 Avenger 30-mm gun?

We Europeans have been aware of the link between slavery and the Texan revolt for years. We've had evidence of surrender of some the defenders, like Crockett, or Travis's involvement with the slave trade for at least 35 years.

+1 138SquadronRAF

Perhaps the steady flow of mythological stories, perhaps the appalling partisan educational history taught, perhaps the constant need to ensure we are a chosen nation, perhaps political needs, perhaps even a sense of shame or insecurity, etc.

A large number of educated people know better, but the bulk of the population has no real knowledge of history and events that are dated more than a few years past and certainly not something a century or more ago. Others refuse to accept that their ancestors might have committed acts that we don't want to admit today, or beliefs that we'd like to pretend don't still resonate today. Then there are the political, economic and religious leaders who have a vested interest in keeping past history safely hidden for one reason or another.

Not much different from most countries, but is painful to watch in real time. Most educated folks (and I don't mean just those who were formally educated, but those who made the effort on their own) are fortunate that living in a free society allows them to know more of the "truth" about US history, even if they invite scorn for saying so.

Therefore there is a constant battle between those who want to reveal or make more public such events and those that are desperate for one reason or another to alternate, conceal or bury such historical events.

Okay, but I am not sure that is what the present argument is about.

138SquadronRAF: As an Englishman there is something I don't understand about Americans and history; why is it, when ever someone presents evidence that American's past is not the "glorious lie" that you've been presented with for with, you behave like someone has shot a puppy with a GAU-8 Avenger 30-mm gun?

Just touching on a few differences.

Britain doesnt have religious extremism. Some of that extremism leeches into other walks of life here. That's why you see concerns over being tolerated by a given group offset by assumptions that their view is the one and only one. Add to that a concept that beliefs and organizations must be infallible, that tradition is monolithic and an inability to consider nuance; you can see that new ideas are not welcome. This isnt about history, it's about heresy against dogma. Thus, the history is a minor detail, the real problem is making a challenge at all to a belief that can't be criticized one iota, let alone changed.

Additionally, immigrants and working poor groups are also constantly in fear of persecution which can make it very emotional for them to be able to discuss new or contrasting ideas without taking it personally.

Also, America doesnt have a lot of history, not compared to Europe. Thus, any hero that gets revised kind of leaves us with less to work with. A lot of young countries do this. Rome had its myths around Romans holding their arms in a fire to demonstrate noble, Roman resolve and perhaps they are important for identity.

Dan Cyr touches on something too. Many Americans arent interested in history, they simply want too root for their country and it becomes confusing if that pure motive is complicated by association with ugly concepts. You can sympathize if you think of it as rooting for your favorite team and, simply while doing so, you are accused of being racist or murderous etc. That renders national criticism more likely to be viewed as a sort of sour grapes attack on a noble past made by dissidents.

Also, Freedom of Speech is an issue. It isnt an accident that we need rules around this because quite a few Americans dont believe in it. Sure, they'll tell you they do but really they neither understand nor believe in the principle. You'll hear them tell you that it isnt censorship to exclude some speech with the rationalization that it is indoctrination or argument (as opposed to debate) or rambling, or whatever word they want to use when an idea both frightens them and they think it's persuasive.

Which brings us to another point around discomfort. For all its claims about rugged individualism, America is a very conformist country and in addition, the conformists routinely call the non-conformists "sheep".

link

Addresses three specific allegations of the new book and looks at their sourcing. Reviewer finds FORGET to be wrong on all three poionts.

In fact, in these three cases, the sources the authors cite say the opposite of what the authors claim they say. That adds up to something worse than mere mistakes. Again, this is an examination of the sources that Forget the Alamo's authors cite for these specific claims of fact.

Perhaps they figured no one would check their footnotes. With regard to their media colleagues, they have been right. No mainstream media outlet including the very informed San Antonio Express-News has fact-checked any of the book's claims. That newspaper continues bashing the Alamo almost daily, and in so doing is spreading the disinformation Forget the Alamo contains.

On the third point, the debate is not whether the Texans held slaves and Mexico had abolished slavery -- that is obviously the case. The debate is whether the Texas revolution was CAUSED by Mexican abolition as opposed to Santa Anna's despotism and overthrow of the Constitution of 1824. The sourcing for that is exceedingly thin and contradicted by the source itself.

No idea if what the link claims is true as I've not had time to do the research (but I did read the link, then found better than another dozen reviews that did not make the claims it did), but really, that is a source you trust?

I'll try and get back to this thread once I find sources either for or against the link's claims.