Texans cling to comic book history

HoustonChronicle.com ^ | April 17, 2004, 10:39PM | ANDRS TIJERINA

[rw4site]

No bias here.
BTW, Let's dig up San Antonio just to locate the invaders who attacked the ALAMO. NOT!

[jocon307]

My advice to this author: GO BACK TO MEXICO.

[WorkingClassFilth]

When reporters actually report the facts of current events, I'll be more willing to listen to their reinterpretations of past history. Wanna read comic book history Mr. Tijerina? Go read most anything in your mainstream media from 1992 to 2000...

[mtbopfuyn]

What the freakin' heck?!?

[aomagrat]

The public memory has forgotten that Americans brought their 37,000 slaves while spreading liberty.

So, the war for Texas independence was all about slavery?

[jimbo123]

Tijerina is a professor of history at Austin Community College.

What a flunkee! And he doesn't even teach at a real college. Austin Community College? Give us a break.

[50sDad]

I'm sorry, I classify this guy with the alt.net.kooks guy who is still prattling about "the Armenian Slaughter of 1921". Life's rough, the victors write the history.

[kittymyrib]

Juan Seguin is no hero. He was not at the battle of the Alamo but elsewhere "recruiting more soldiers", he said. He gave a flowery speech later though, commemorating all the defenders of the Alamo who were killed and whose bodies were burned by Santa Anna. So much for Christian burials, Ms. Tejerina. Later Seguin went back to Mexico and "was forced" to be an officer in Santa Anna's Mexican army,he said. Yea...sure. Can you imagine Travis, Crockett, Bowie joining the Mexican army? They would have died first. Texans will continue to honor them as heros and consider Santa Anna as an egotistical villain. Shooting unarmed prisoners at Goliad on a Sunday morning shows what kind of man Santa Anna was. He and the feckless Mexicans who supported this jerk deserve the back of history's hand. We won't stand for wishful Mexican revisionist history.

[muawiyah]

Mexicans continue to enter Texas at will.

So?!

[San Jacinto]

The public does not want to remember that San Jacinto was a slaughter. It was a slaughter, not of 188, not of 350, but of 630 soldiers killed in combat, shot in the back, shot while begging for mercy, shot while helplessly mired in the swampy mud.

Who says the public does not want to remember these facts? The Battle of San Jacinto was effectively over in 18 minutes. Even though the Mexicans substantially out numbered the Texians in the field, there were over six hundred Mexican soldiers killed and over 700 captured. Less than 10 casualties on the Texian side. When those guys said, "Remember the Alamo", they really had in mind "Remember the Alamo and Do Something About It" They did just that at San Jacinto.

As for the significance of the battle, it lead to the establishment of the Republic of Texas and eventually to the U.S. expansion to the Pacific coast.

Once San Jacinto was fought and the Mexican armies withdrew to the south of the Rio Grande, the Mexicans could NEVER have retaken Texas. Eventhough young Texas was weak, Mexico could not get through a six month period without a revolution toppling governments. Mexico could never have mounted an efficient invasion and held the territory, especially with Texas growing more populous and stronger each month.

[normy]

The Mexicans were basically the French of their day. They won independence from Spain. Santa Anna declared himself dictator and that was it. You were forced to be a Catholic to be a citizen and those in Texas didn't have representation, hell there were places in Mexico that were too far from Mexico city that didn't have representation.

No the Mexicans had their independence but it was taken almost immediatly by Santa Anna. Yes it was a massacre at San Jacinto but it was in revenge for the massacres accross the state done by Santa Annas army. True debt was high in Texas and it eventually had to join the US, but as a soverign nation I doubt Mexico had the luxury of attacking Texas after it was recognised as independent by the US or Europe.

At the time it was a battle within Mexico for Texas self governence. After San Jacinto it would have been an act of war on Texas by Mexico which would have brought in America and probably most other nations, Spain, France, England, to the aid of Texas and Mexico would have been in big trouble, maybe losing the whole nation.

If Santa Anna had been executed before he had surrendered Texas, the war would have continued. Santa Anna was the dictator of the whole nation of Mexico, not just the head General. His word sent the rest of the Mexican army back to Mexico.

[Dacus943]

"Tijerina is a professor of history at Austin Community College."

Hey Tijerina, ya have any ideas about just how big a Sh** Hole Texas would be today if it were part of Mexico?

[MamaTexan]

How does this author call herself ‘professor of history’ with a straight face? Texans took on the mantles of heroes by bringing a democratic republic of Christians to a heathen land.
Tejas was populated primarily by Christians before the battle for independence, and ‘democratic republic’ is an oxymoron.

As an example, the public wants to remember that the Alamo was a slaughter of brave soldiers, and that Goliad was a massacre. The public does not want to remember that San Jacinto was a slaughter. It was a slaughter, not of 188, not of 350, but of 630 soldiers killed in combat, shot in the back, shot while begging for mercy, shot while helplessly mired in the swampy mud.

San Jacinto was revenge for slaughtering the men at Goliad AFTER THEY SURRENDERED.. (which really tends to pi$$ us off).

The Tejano became a Texan in the early 1700s

No, it was ‘Texian’, not ‘Tejano’. I never even heard that phrase until the 1980’s.

Much of Texas history is based on the public memory rather than on documented facts. For many years, it was taught officially in public schools through comic books that depicted the Mexican as a cartoon character, and the Texan as the paragon of virtue.

Odd, we had 3 years of Texas history during the 60’s and 70’s, and my teachers ALWAYS stressed that the fight for Texas was fought by ALL Texians...white, brown, black and red-- but I guess she’s too busy making generalizations such as ‘historians argue’ and ‘historians concede’ to actually back up any of her spew with FACTS!

[Gunrunner2]

Git-ah-rope!

[normy]

By "French of their day" I mean they were like the French in their revolution, not like the US revolution. I don't mean they were like the French of today, ya know, cheese eating surrender monkeys.

[Bubba_Leroy]

We took Texas from Mexico in 1836. Slowly but surely they are taking it back.

[sinclair]

The victor writes the “History” Senor Tijerina. It was ever thus and will ever be.

[ARCADIA]

Mexican historians argue that the Mexican army entered Texas at will after the battle until the U.S. Army invaded Mexico in 1846.

By the same token perhaps the US should be celebrating its "revolution" of 1812, rather then 1776. Still Texas was an independent state for 9 years before joining the US; Does it really take Mexicans that long to get their act together? Perhaps if the Mexican Army had re-entered Texas "at will" and stayed there, instead of running like little girls; the history of Texas would have been closer to what this clown is suggesting.

[vetvetdoug]

Ms. Tiajuana probably creamed in her jeans when she saw the Disney fiasco, The Alamo. No bias, no agenda, no prejudice, and no leftest leanings here. No, this article is real informative and level. She should go back to Mexico where she will be raped and robbed by her fellow cuddly and friendly countrymen.

[neutrino]

Tijerina is a professor of history at Austin Community College.

Ahh, yes, a community college. No doubt it has an international reputation for excellent research. (Smirk!)