They pull no punches describing Bowie as a “murderer, slaver, and con man;” Travis as “a pompous, racist agitator;” and Crockett as a “self-promoting old fool.”


https://www.texasobserver.org/forget-the-alamo-unravels-a-texas-history-made-of-myths-or-rather-lies/

In the rush to condemn the Texians who died at the Alamo, progressives and anti-racists tend to forget who was attacking the fort: Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana. That is a mistake.

Santa Ana was a military dictator that had seized control of the Mexican government and had squashed dissent. He was aligned with big land-owners and the reactionary parts of Mexico’s Catholic establishment. By the time his troops reached San Antonio, he had put down a couple of regional rebellions and had massacred the survivors.

If this sounds much like the sorts of squalid military dictatorships the US supported decades later and into the 20th century, this is no coincidence. Santa Ana was cut from the same template. I think it is right to rebel against that sort of tyrant.

And lest progressives are still tempted to whitewash this example of 19th Century Mexico’s criollo (white) establishment, let us not forget that this is the guy who sold the Gasden Purchase to the US in 1853 and that the great Benito Juarez chased Santa Ana’s @$$ out of Mexico in 1855.

One brief example was your usage of Benito Juarez, who was the first indigenous person elected President in the New World, hardly something conservatives would want to see.

I distrust people who try to push ideological packages that are packaged, then sold without any regard to historical fact, especially if they clash with the black and white thought-patterns they either grew up with or have taught themselves to believe in..

Most of my posts reflect my attitude, and most of them have unkind things to say about right-wing politicians, right-wing influencers, and the self-deceiving chumps who choose to believe in them.

Unfortunately, some progressives are also prone to consuming ideological packages without bothering to shake the boxes, squeeze the tissues, or bothering to see if their notions might be contradicted by unpleasant facts. The “fellow travelers” before Worlld War II were one example; so were the anti-war activists who wrote ideological blank checks to Cambodia’s murderous Khmer Rouge.

I believe that it is a citizen’s duty to examine polemical statements and judge their veracity or lack of same. Right now I believe that responsibility has fallen to the (real) center and to the left, because the political and social right has fallen giddily in love not only with accepting and repeating lies and falsehoods, but inventing new ones.

Pretty simple.

The illegal immigrants, the Anglos, wanted to own slaves.
And fought for that racist crap at Alamo.

I don’t doubt or deny that most of the Anglo combatants at the Alamo were either slave-holders or wanna-be slave-owners, but I expect that more than a few were people who’d been trying to get a fresh start or, like the few Tejanos who also died at the Alamo, were leery of Santa Ana and his efforts to create a centralized authoritarian state. That part should also be remembered.

I am not trying to white-wash the racist behavior and attitudes of many of the Texan combatants here. But I’m not about to remain silent about the character and behavior of Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana and his political actions and his behavior in the field and after the battle. Such regimes should be opposed.

If you don’t think that the Texans who died at the Alamo deserve that amount of respect, I can’t stop you. But I believe that the rebels massacred in Zacatecas and in the Yucatán do.

Yes indeed there where good Tejanos there,

BUT later the Anglos turned on the Tejanos

Lot of racist Anglos…asshole Travis especially …

https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/tejanos-and-the-siege-and-battle-of-the-alamo

….The problem is a particularly difficult one in the case of Tejanos, whose presence was even dismissed in some sources, as for instance William Barret Travis’s letter of March 3 to the president of the Convention of 1836, in which Travis stated that the citizens of San Antonio were all enemies, except for the ones who entered the Alamo with the Texians, and that there were only three “Mexicans” in the fort with him.

I had read elsewhere that Mexico encouraged Southerners with experience growing cotton to relocate to Texas, because they seemed to have the knowledge and experience needed to produce the best cotton yields, which would be a boost to Mexican industry and tax revenue. The tax holiday was part of the inducement to relocate. When the tax holiday expired, the Americans (nascent Confederates, really) said, basically, "Pay taxes to brown people ?? Hell, no ! We got gunz !" and cooked up a rebellion of -- well, scofflaws, really. Men who agreed to a generous contract and then ... when it was time to finish their part of fulfilling the contract ... decided to abscond with the benefits and take the land with them.

Something very, very, Trumpian about that.