Joined: May 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 752 Location: Georgia Karma: 5
Is Every Opinion Really Vaild? « Thread Started on Nov 7, 2009, 3:13am »
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.
"We live in America, we can speak our minds....(if we) offend a bunch of people, well, get a record deal, man, and make your own songs.” Johnny Van Zant, of Lynyrd Skynyrd
Joined: Apr 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 1,235 Karma: 8
Re: Is Every Opinion Really Vaild? « Reply #1 on Nov 7, 2009, 5:51am »
If everybody's special, then nobody's special. This "everyone is an expert" lunacy is pervasive, as is the "all sides are equally valid" idea. That's why TV news has turned into a sideshow. Any outrageous claim is discussed as if it were worthy of real consideration, even when facts are in evidence to prove otherwise. It makes me want to scream. There's a good book that came out this year on this very subject called "Idiot America." It's worth your time. Informed opinion adds to a debate. An uninformed opinion is just a clanging cymbal. There are plenty of "experts" who have been proven wrong by avocational historians, so questioning authority is healthy. But it helps to know what you're talking about. There's no substitute for doing the research. Jim
Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 332 Location: Euless, TEXAS! Karma: 3
Re: Is Every Opinion Really Vaild? « Reply #2 on Nov 7, 2009, 11:12am »
I can see a little to both sides, but most of the weight is really with Mark. I kind of think of it in terms of umpiring a baseball game, at least as far as individuals and their actions are concerned. Three umpires, a hundred cameras, and 35,000 spectators, all usually offering a different perspective -- bacause of having a different vantage point to what they just saw -- all swearing they saw what they saw as absolutely correct ... and most of them still not agreeing on what was the correct call ("Safe" or "Out").
But, taking this analogy one step further ... the one thing that remains constant, that doesn't change, is the playing field. Fenway Park is Fenway Park. A ball diamond is a ball diamond, 90 feet between bases, and so on. The dimensions don't change.
Ditto for the Alamo compound, and it's through research such as yours, Mark, that we know more about what it must have really been like. Like you said, maybe we won't know about every crack, nook and cranny, but we have a much better idea now than at any time before.
I consider myself "knowledgeable" about the Alamo, but I would not consider myself an "expert". The subject of the Alamo is an open book. And, hell no, not every opinion has equal weight. I'm surprised someone, somewhere isn't trying to claim that David Crockett is alive and well and hanging out with Elvis at a Tiki bar somewhere in the Bahamas.
to be tireless, dogged, and relentless in their research of these things, and when they speak, to speak with intelligence, backed up by sources.
That's pretty much the golden rule for trying to find the truth about anything, including history. All ideas that are backed by evidence are worth looking into, and also worth discarding when the evidence doesn't hold up or when a stronger case can be made for an alternative explanation. And you always have to be ready and willing to discard long-held beliefs when they are shown to be weak or false. To say that all views are equally worthy of consideration is utter nonsense. Remember "cold fusion?" It was only one of many crack-pot ideas with no basis in fact; no evidence to suggest that they should be given any consideration. As Gil Grissom on "CSI" used to say, "follow the evidence."
"Idiot America" is a great book and shows the real danger in attempting to give equal time or validity to any argument, no matter how ridiculous, unfounded, manipulative, or politically motivated.
So called "all-news" cable stations are a great example of how far things get from the truth when anyone can say or claim anything without evidence. These stations are not about the news, fact-based analysis, or informing the public. Too often they sink into little more than mindless shouting matches by self-promoters with an agenda to push, facts be damned. Unfortunately, many people have become lazy and lulled into listening to this nonsense and base their views on what they hear and see on these stations, or what comports with their already-held views. We really owe it to ourselves to make an effort to look more deeply into issues we care about, rather than relying on such unreliable diatribes. That's as true of research into the Alamo and its major figures as it is of today's most pressing issues.
Re: Is Every Opinion Really Vaild? « Reply #5 on Dec 5, 2009, 5:06pm »
Since we seem to be discussing philosophy in the American Thanksgiving aftermath, this is the quote that sits above my computer. It is by famed English scientist Thomas Huxley. "The highest object that human beings can set before themselves is not the pursuit of any such chimera as the annihilation of the unknown, it is simply the unwearied endeavour to remove its boundaries a little further from our little sphere of action. "
Since we seem to be discussing philosophy in the American Thanksgiving aftermath, this is the quote that sits above my computer. It is by famed English scientist Thomas Huxley. "The highest object that human beings can set before themselves is not the pursuit of any such chimera as the annihilation of the unknown, it is simply the unwearied endeavour to remove its boundaries a little further from our little sphere of action. "
Good quote! I think those who follow this ideal, however ignorant they may be of this man's statement of it, are the reason we know as much about this enigmatic battle as we do.
![[Home]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Calendar]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif)
![[Login]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s4.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
Logged
![[avatar]](http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d111/bluespckr/Alamo-Day2-1.jpg)