Replies

You must be more tolerant of Alamo Revisionism than I am, sonofatpatcher2, because I was disappointed in this "history". Granted it was better than my worst fears, but if Disney's new movie is based on this "research", it is no wonder that they have delayed it during wartime.

Besides an annoying level of playground-level remarks from people with PhD's, this show displayed many of the worst aspects of Alamo Revisionism: Political Correctness, Multiculturalism, Moral Equivalence, the tearing down of heroism, overemphasis on slavery, and a one-sided view of racism, as if only Anglos ever committed it. I was particularly disturbed by the continuous effort to rehabilitate or at least make excuses for the blindingly obvious villain of the piece: Santa Anna. They tried to excuse his lifelong "no quarter" policy by blaming the Spanish commander of this "impressionable young officer" who followed a similar policy upon the crushing of the Green Flag Republic. They referred to him allowing his troops "a couple of days of raping and looting" after suppressing the Zacatecas rebellion as if to diminish it. They credited him with a "textbook" siege for his stupidity in planning a four-sided attack of the Alamo, when what he should have done was pin down most defenders with diversionary attacks while he concentrated on one corner or side.

I was annoyed by a number of small "mistakes" that gradually added up. Downplaying the significance of the imprisonment of Stephen Austin which was the end of the Texan Peace Party. Excusing berserker behavior by Mexican soldiers at the Alamo because of supposed outrage at Texan violation of white flag procedures, this after two weeks of flying the Red Flag, playing Deguello, and being ordered not to take prisoners! Dismissing Texan claims of fighting for freedom by bringing up slavery while ignoring that Santa Anna's policies amounted to the establishment of a colorblind slavery. Giving too much credence to third-hand (though contemporary) claims of the surrender of Davie Crockett in an era before photography was invented and about a man whose appearance even we're not sure of today!

It goes without saying that there was too much whining about alleged racism in the rise of undocumented myths surrounding an event for which (a) thanks to the policy (reluctantly?) carried out by the Mexican Army we are a little short of witnesses for and (b) generation after generation of Mexican "sore losers" who refused to allow American historians access to Mexican records until relatively recently! The Alamo Revisionists who finally got access to those Mexican records have done both the greatest service and the greatest disservice to the history of the Alamo. Though not as bad as I'd feared, I was glad I didn't waste a video tape on this drek, and I don't think I will be watching the Disney disaster when it comes out. Billy Bob Thornton as Davie Crockett? (shudder)

Re: You must be more tolerant of Alamo Revisionism than I am, sonofatpatcher2...

Well, I consider myself a fair student of history, having a degree in it. I am a third generation Texan who does see that a lot of the myth about the Alamo has been generated by films and television that played fast and loose with history for both dramamtic effect and just plain ignorance.

However, I realize there is another side to every historical event and I am willing to take a look at those arguments. I consider something fair and balanced if all points of view are served up.

That does not mean I agree with all the sides presented in the History Channel's "Remembering the Alamo." I have my own view that there were brave men on both sides of the battle. There were also bad men on both sides. Those who know the unvarnished truth are long dead.

That said, there have been few times in my life when I felt totally awed in the presence of bravery. Once when I got to spend a few minutes talking to Audie Murphey, once when I shook Barry Goldwater's hand and every single time I was ever inside the Alamo.