|
Post by acbntx on Jul 23, 2012 14:07:36 GMT -5
I have a question: why are some historians claiming that the Alamo is a racist symbol? On what history or knowledge are they supporting their claim?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 23, 2012 20:06:46 GMT -5
First, welcome aboard. This a great place to learn about a subject most of us folks here are passionate about about.
I know this subject has been discussed (and rather hotly at times) in the past. I'm no expert -- just a fairly well-read arm-chair historian on the subject I guess. I'm not saying I agree with the folks who see the Alamo as a "racist" symbol, but there is the "brown" (Mexican) vs. "white" (Anglo) aspect of the battle. Then there was the slavery question, especially since Mexico didn't allow it but many of the American immigrants to Tejas owned and brought slaves with them. An independent Texas could be seen as an opportunity for an openly "slave" republic and eventually state.
I've read where some people argue slavery was a motive for the drive for independence. Other's see it as a brown vs. white thing. I'm oversimplifying it, of course, but you can draw your own conclusions.
For me, I think the promise of land in return for a few months of service (assuming that Texas won its independence and the individual survived the fight) was a bigger draw that the other stuff. For example, the promise of land is one of the chief reasons Crockett entered the fray (maybe aspirations to be part of the new government was another). Although he did not live to enjoy the fruits of his service, his family eventually did.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by acbntx on Jul 23, 2012 21:17:36 GMT -5
That makes sense, but wasnt the Mexican government turning a "blind eye" for lack of a better term, concerning slavery? I was under the impression that Stephen F. Austin was trying earnestly to use diplomacy with Santa Anna about the problems that the Texian settlers were experiencing, and they jailed him, I'm not sure as to what the "issues" were that Austin tried to iron out with Santa Anna, but I believe that Santa Anna was using heavy handed tatics, and then when diplomacy failed the settlers had no other choice but to fight.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 23, 2012 23:16:43 GMT -5
Several Alamo books cover these issues very clearly. There were two major factions in Mexico; Federalists, who supported more autonomy for the provinces, and Centralists, who supported control being concentrated in the central government with less local power in the provinces, including the Texas colonies. Although the Federalists controlled the government for a time, during which it did "blink a blind eye" at Texans violating the laws prohibiting slavery and requiring payment of customs duties, the Centralists later took control and feared that Texas was slipping from its grasp. The government opted for a crackdown and strict enforcement of the laws that had been ignored in the past, and put troops on Texas soil to enforce the crackdown.
Similarly, there were two factions in Texas; those who favored war and complete independence from Mexico, the so called "war hawks," and those who favored finding accommodation with Mexico. The latter group included Austin and most Texas colonists for quite a while. Austin had gone to Mexico to plead Texas' case, but wanted to secure reforms within the existing Mexican system. Only after being imprisoned and pretty much brushed off by the government, and then returned to Texas in poor health after a long confinement in a Mexican prison, did Austin's views shift in favor of independence. It would actually take the brutality Santa Anna showed at the Alamo and Goliad to arouse the anger and fear of the colonists and move them to join the movement for independence, which added to the ranks that would finally bring victory and independence at San Jacinto.
Regarding your question on racism, see Paul D. Lack's book "The Texas Revolutionary Experience," which goes into this aspect of the Texas revolution in some detail, and Holly Beachley Brear's book "Inherit The Alamo," which traces the various agendas of different groups with a stake in the Alamo story.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 24, 2012 16:04:05 GMT -5
I think its just one of these things where perceptions change as people try to fit things into their own agenda. Back in the day there were certainly openly expressed fears in some quarters that taking Texas away from Mexico would bolster slavery in the United States.
In more modern times I think its a more straightforward matter of Texas belonged to Mexico and was taken by white filibusters.
|
|
|
Post by acbntx on Jul 24, 2012 16:22:08 GMT -5
Stuart,
that makes sense to me, but (in my opinion) Texas actually didnt belong to either country,(Mexico or The Republic of Tejas) to me, if anyone had a legitimate claim, it was the American Indian tribes such as the Comanche, Apache, Karankawa and such, to me, both the American settlers as well as the Spanish- (Mexican) settlers were the outsiders in reality. I read where the Comanche/Mexican wars were extremely violent
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 24, 2012 18:27:31 GMT -5
Well, the same could well be said for every square inch of what is now the United States. I always like the opening scenes of "Red River," where John Wayne is warned by some vaqueros/gunmen to get off the Texas land he's on because it belongs to some land baron, whose title goes back to the king of Spain. Wayne asks who Spain got it from and, without waiting for the answer, says it was probably taken from whoever was there before, probably Indians. There's a ton of meaning in those few lines.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 25, 2012 19:24:37 GMT -5
As indicated above, whole books have been written to answer your question. My simplistic answer is that there were many many other reasons for the Texas War of Independence that (at the time) faaaaaaaar outweighed any racial issues that may have existed. Modern day values for the most part cannot be applied to early 19th. century events. They must be viewed from a 19th. century perspective. Right or wrong, slaves to Anglos from the old South trying to legally reestablish an economy in Mexican Texas in the 1820's and 30's simply brought their techniques with them. They saw the Central Government of Santa Anna replace the Federal Government of Mexico (to which they swore allegiance), and that the only way they knew of to build a future was being snuffed out. In their 1835-36 ethics, they were not doing something wrong and trying to keep from being chastised for it. They were having their agreed-upon rights taken away through no fault of their own.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Jul 25, 2012 19:29:56 GMT -5
Stephen F. Austin is the best barometer of the time that can be used. He was the most responsible administrator that I can imagine -- then or now -- and he advocated peaceful solutions to all problems with the government from 1821 to 1835 after his time in a Mexican dungeon and a discussion with President Santa Anna. When he returned, his view had reversed itself. "War is our only resource," he announced in September.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 25, 2012 20:43:53 GMT -5
I think that slavery was a bogus issue that Mexico threw in to justify its crackdown, despite the fact that Mexico had been aware of slavery in Texas and chose to ignore it. I think Austin's metamorphosis is illustrative of what was really going on. For a long time, Mexico was more interested in populating Texas and forming a buffer of resistence to Indians, while secruing its hold on the land by placing Mexican citizens there, even if they were American immigrants. During this period, Mexico sought accommodation that would make the idea workable. Under Santa Anna, I think the government had given up that approach, feared losing control of Texas to hordes of U.S. immigrants, who were not really loyal to Mexico, wanted to stop American immigration and crack down on the existing colonists. The policy would, ideally, prevent more Americans from entering Texas and either drive out malconent American colonists or bring them into compliance with Mexican rule. As we know, that plan did not work at all.
Neither Spain nor Mexico ever had much more than a tenuous hold on Texas and my guess is that, once they opened the floodgates of U.S. immigration, the days of Mexican Texas were numbered. It might have gone down differently and war might even have been avoided, but in the end Texas was going to be heavily populated by U.S. immigrants, who would insist on being governed in a way they were willing to accept, not necessarily the way Mexico thought it should be goverened.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Jul 26, 2012 0:00:12 GMT -5
Yes, Mexico officiallydid the old "wink, wink" on slavery. Mexico banned "slavery" per se. However, they recognized the right of settlers to enforce "contracts" they had entered into in the US with "laborers" they brought with them to Texas. So, to avoid Mexico's slavery ban, a settler simply had to claim that he had entered into a contract in the US with the slaves he brought with him to Texas. I think slavery was more basic issue to Texians than Mexico. To Texians, it was (ironically) a "civil rights" issue about their basic way of life and economic model. To Mexico, slavery was not the ture issue, ratehr it was simply too many defiant Texians coming in. Mexico simply used slavery as a "control point" to assert dominance. Witness the Anahuac disturbuance over runaway slaves.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 26, 2012 1:49:06 GMT -5
Just to return to my point (and the OP) its a matter of perception, or rather the imposition of contemporary agendas. To left wing historians the Alamo doesn't represent a symbol of freedom, but imperialism. Its not about independence from Mexico but the unlawful siezure of a part of Mexico.
Its a view that doesn't always command the respect of the supposed "victims" - I recall a comment by a hispanic gentlemen who refuted a young (white) liberal's assertion that Texas independence was a wicked crime, by retorting that if San Antonio had remained Mexican it would now be as bad as Reynosa.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 26, 2012 19:53:53 GMT -5
First, the claim that Mexico was really owned by the First Peoples ("Native Americans") and neither Mexico or the United States is, as Allen noted, a claim that could be made for all of the United States, then and now.
Two, Rich makes a valid point that when it comes to applying today's views and opinions to topics (such as slavery) to some earlier period when it might have been accepted practice and "the norm". Mexico certainly turned a blind eye to the Norte Americanos' peculiar institution of slavery. Allen, again, hits the nail on the head on this subject in his response above.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 26, 2012 20:21:33 GMT -5
I would take it a step further Mexico despite its laws continued to practice slavery until at least the Mexican-American war. Active enslavement of the Navajo in New Mexico and selling them as slaves in the interior - to include Mexico City was practiced until the province was captured by the US.
Quite frankly, much of the "official" Mexican position in 1836 was hypocritical propaganda to gain favor with Britain and the northern US. Granted there were some true humanitarians in Mexico, but they didn't include Tornell or Santa Anna.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 27, 2012 5:41:37 GMT -5
I agree. Calling Santa Anna a "humanitarian" in 1836 would be a huge stretch ...
|
|