Post by marklemon on Nov 7, 2009 3:13:23 GMT -5
I apologize in advance for the length of this post. It was an article which was never printed (maybe for good reasons) in the Alamo Journal:
Is Every Opinion Really Valid? Getting to the Truth of the Alamo Compound
It has been said recently on various Alamo forums (and I've heard it many times myself) that, when it comes to the Alamo, there is no right or wrong, that everyone's opinion is valid, and that since the experts cannot agree, then we have a situation where we'll never know the truth, and so we can just engage in "freestyle" thinking about what the Alamo looked like, and what happened at the Alamo, who did what, who went where, etc, because, since we don't know, then everyone, whatever he wants to say, has a valid point.
As the song says:
“That they died to give us freedom, that is all we need to know…”
I believe this attitude is lazy, and much worse, dangerous. Why? Because it promotes a cum-bay-ah sense that the Alamo, and the events that happened there, were so murky, that we can just free our minds and have "our own private Alamo"(with apologies to the B-52's) and no one can dispute what we want to believe.
OK… OK, I realize that this is a bit extreme, but one takes my point.
Think about it. If we insist that all opinions be weighed equally, then how will we ever separate the wheat from the chaff? To put it bluntly, how will we ever get closer to the truth?
We must hold ourselves to strict standards when we speculate. Some speculations are just ridiculous, and some reasonable, and based on sources. How can they both be judged the same? Our speculation should be based on good data, and real research. Everything we posit as a possibility should be backed by at least one source. Things we are prepared to accept as real, should have at least two independent sources. Otherwise, we're just fantasizing...
In my opinion, there is one truth..... to the compound, at least.
Unlike the actions of persons, which is "organic" in nature, and subject to various interpretations based on the viewer's point of view, or their ability to observe this, or that action, or hear this or that conversation, and interpret the speaker’s tone of voice, etc, the structure of the Alamo was, what it was. It was a still, inanimate object, of stone, wood, and adobe. It did not move about, or talk, and so is subject to a closer, more accurate appraisal. It was drawn and surveyed many times (after the battle), and subsequent deed recordings after secularization of the mission gave us some exquisite detail of the lengths, height, and composition, of some critical Alamo structures. Of course, I fully realize that an inanimate object (the compound) can undergo changes, and, as a result, take on a "quasi-organic" characteristic. And in fact, these changes (made by the Mexicans, and the Texians, to the compound) do create challenges in interpretation, but even these challenges are beginning to be solved to a reasonable certainty. Certainly, I'd go out on a limb and state that we now know about as much about the Alamo in 1836, as we know about a much smaller place, Rorke's Drift, for example.
True, there are some areas of mystery...some details that we don't quite have a handle on yet, but make no mistake, those details are undergoing hard scrutiny, and will, one day, be solved, at least to a fair degree of certainty. What will create a huge boon in data will be the inevitable restoration of the Alamo plaza. The scraping of the current surface will yield a wealth of archeological data, such as footings, foundations (especially the low barracks), and other artifacts from the battle. This, as well as the ongoing research into the maps, deeds, sketches and surveys, will creep us towards our goal of knowing the place more completely.
As a result, and contrary to popular mythology, we do know quite a lot about the Alamo compound, and are getting closer to nailing it down every day. Of course, we'll never know to a photographic level, every small crack or crevice, (that is, barring a thorough and precise rendering of the place done by some master-draftsman which comes to light one day-I WISH!). But still, we really are coming very close to knowing the true nature of the compound, and it just isn't correct to say that "everyone's opinion is just as valid as anyone else's." In today's world, that kind of sentiment sounds warm and fuzzy, but it simply isn't true, or helpful. Perhaps when it comes to what Travis said to Baugh the night before the attack, or what Davy had for dinner…perhaps. But not when it comes to stone, wood, and adobe, which can be measured, sketched, surveyed, and recorded.
What’s more, the truth is that all of this “hard structure” has a great deal of significance to the actions of those heroes in the beleaguered garrison; how they could move, where they could go, access from this point to that point, etc.
The burden, then, of those who wish to enter into the very important arena of the Alamo architecture, is to be tireless, dogged, and relentless in their research of these things, and when they speak, to speak with intelligence, backed up by sources.
This may sound a bit harsh, but it is the only way that we'll ever move forward from the arena of reciting tired movie lines of John Wayne re-runs, and closer to the real Alamo.
Is Every Opinion Really Valid? Getting to the Truth of the Alamo Compound
It has been said recently on various Alamo forums (and I've heard it many times myself) that, when it comes to the Alamo, there is no right or wrong, that everyone's opinion is valid, and that since the experts cannot agree, then we have a situation where we'll never know the truth, and so we can just engage in "freestyle" thinking about what the Alamo looked like, and what happened at the Alamo, who did what, who went where, etc, because, since we don't know, then everyone, whatever he wants to say, has a valid point.
As the song says:
“That they died to give us freedom, that is all we need to know…”
I believe this attitude is lazy, and much worse, dangerous. Why? Because it promotes a cum-bay-ah sense that the Alamo, and the events that happened there, were so murky, that we can just free our minds and have "our own private Alamo"(with apologies to the B-52's) and no one can dispute what we want to believe.
OK… OK, I realize that this is a bit extreme, but one takes my point.
Think about it. If we insist that all opinions be weighed equally, then how will we ever separate the wheat from the chaff? To put it bluntly, how will we ever get closer to the truth?
We must hold ourselves to strict standards when we speculate. Some speculations are just ridiculous, and some reasonable, and based on sources. How can they both be judged the same? Our speculation should be based on good data, and real research. Everything we posit as a possibility should be backed by at least one source. Things we are prepared to accept as real, should have at least two independent sources. Otherwise, we're just fantasizing...
In my opinion, there is one truth..... to the compound, at least.
Unlike the actions of persons, which is "organic" in nature, and subject to various interpretations based on the viewer's point of view, or their ability to observe this, or that action, or hear this or that conversation, and interpret the speaker’s tone of voice, etc, the structure of the Alamo was, what it was. It was a still, inanimate object, of stone, wood, and adobe. It did not move about, or talk, and so is subject to a closer, more accurate appraisal. It was drawn and surveyed many times (after the battle), and subsequent deed recordings after secularization of the mission gave us some exquisite detail of the lengths, height, and composition, of some critical Alamo structures. Of course, I fully realize that an inanimate object (the compound) can undergo changes, and, as a result, take on a "quasi-organic" characteristic. And in fact, these changes (made by the Mexicans, and the Texians, to the compound) do create challenges in interpretation, but even these challenges are beginning to be solved to a reasonable certainty. Certainly, I'd go out on a limb and state that we now know about as much about the Alamo in 1836, as we know about a much smaller place, Rorke's Drift, for example.
True, there are some areas of mystery...some details that we don't quite have a handle on yet, but make no mistake, those details are undergoing hard scrutiny, and will, one day, be solved, at least to a fair degree of certainty. What will create a huge boon in data will be the inevitable restoration of the Alamo plaza. The scraping of the current surface will yield a wealth of archeological data, such as footings, foundations (especially the low barracks), and other artifacts from the battle. This, as well as the ongoing research into the maps, deeds, sketches and surveys, will creep us towards our goal of knowing the place more completely.
As a result, and contrary to popular mythology, we do know quite a lot about the Alamo compound, and are getting closer to nailing it down every day. Of course, we'll never know to a photographic level, every small crack or crevice, (that is, barring a thorough and precise rendering of the place done by some master-draftsman which comes to light one day-I WISH!). But still, we really are coming very close to knowing the true nature of the compound, and it just isn't correct to say that "everyone's opinion is just as valid as anyone else's." In today's world, that kind of sentiment sounds warm and fuzzy, but it simply isn't true, or helpful. Perhaps when it comes to what Travis said to Baugh the night before the attack, or what Davy had for dinner…perhaps. But not when it comes to stone, wood, and adobe, which can be measured, sketched, surveyed, and recorded.
What’s more, the truth is that all of this “hard structure” has a great deal of significance to the actions of those heroes in the beleaguered garrison; how they could move, where they could go, access from this point to that point, etc.
The burden, then, of those who wish to enter into the very important arena of the Alamo architecture, is to be tireless, dogged, and relentless in their research of these things, and when they speak, to speak with intelligence, backed up by sources.
This may sound a bit harsh, but it is the only way that we'll ever move forward from the arena of reciting tired movie lines of John Wayne re-runs, and closer to the real Alamo.
