|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 20, 2012 23:27:28 GMT -5
My point was that, while it is an important battle in the overall history of Texas, it is only peripheral to the Alamo story and, thus, only mentioned in connection with that. The overall history of Texas is a different matter and I believe the battle gets more attention in some books on that. I'm not near the books right now, but perhaps "Lone Star Nation" and "Lone Star Rising." Also, while the revolution is not the extent of Texas history, it is the event that set it on the course that took it where it got; independence and then U.S. statehood.
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Aug 21, 2012 10:47:57 GMT -5
Also, the Battle of Medina was not the largest battle ever fought Texas soil. That honor goes to Palo Alto in May of 1846, a battle fought near present day Brownsville between the U.S. Army, with 2,500 men, and Mexico's Army of Observation, with 3,500 men.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 21, 2012 11:25:04 GMT -5
I have heard the Alamo referred to as a racist symbol before and my response to that is this. Despite what folklore, Hollywood or Texas history class might have passed on to us about the battle being fought between the Texians on the side of liberty against the invading Mexicans on the side of tyranny students of history such as ourselves know that it wasn't so simple. Welcome aboard, aleman73. In addition to the discussion going on about racist or non-, I'd like to stick up for Hollywood in this regard. Early Alamo movies were extremely racist, but by the 1950's, every movie made about the Alamo provided at least some reference to Tejano participation, although I'm sure some might consider that simple tokenism. John Wayne's THE ALAMO (1960) and John Lee Hancock's THE ALAMO (2004), each in its own way, were very clear about the positive role of Mexicans in the Alamo, and the latter provided a well-balanced portrait of the Mexican Army as well. Stick around. We all have some good discussions, and, to quote a classic old movie Western line, "We may be in opposite camps, but we will never spit on one another." ;D
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Aug 21, 2012 12:20:00 GMT -5
In fact Rich, although they had no talking roles and served only as background characters in John Wayne's version, Wayne included numerous Tejano defenders - too many in fact as there were more than actually served at the Alamo. I wish he had included atleast one of them in a talking role - Lasoya for example. What a story.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 21, 2012 13:05:34 GMT -5
And that is what I meant by "each in its own way." Wayne's nowadays could be viewed as very stereotypical (Mexicans in broad sombreros silhouetted and elegantly composed against the inside of the south wall during the Bowie bereavement scene) and somewhat over-the-top attempts to praise their soldiers ("Even as I was killin' them, I was proud of 'em."). And, even though Grant took some basic father-son liberties with the Seguins, he did indeed show the pride and heroism of the local rancheros through the historic personages. By comparison, these were not perhaps as accurate or intellectual as the Texan and Mexican portrayals in John Lee's movie, but they were a sincere attempt on Wayne's part to set the story straight, and I agree that should be viewed accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 21, 2012 13:07:24 GMT -5
Seguin was a talking Tejano in Wayne's movie; José Toribio Losoya is mentioned as a casualty of the ill-advised scouting party and his family is present in that Alamo. In the Disney "Davy Crockett at the Alamo" episode a Tejano family warns Crockett's party not to go to San Antonio because Santa Anna already has the Alamo surrounded. Later in the show, a Tejano defender named Contreras helps to carry Bowie outside during the line-crossing scene and later speaks to Bowie after returning him to his room. Of course, in later years PBS did a special on Seguin and the 2004 movie was able to go further in recognizing both the Tejano defenders and the Mexican soldados. And lets not forget "Alamo: The Price of Freedom," which shows the recovery of Gregorio Esparza's body by his brother.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 21, 2012 13:13:04 GMT -5
Wayne included numerous Tejano defenders - too many in fact as there were more than actually served at the Alamo. I wish he had included atleast one of them in a talking role - Lasoya for example. What a story. And here, Wayne attempted to at least draw attention to the names, if just applied to one-time-only background extras. Sam Houston, in the opening scene, verbally greets "Senor Esparza," who is apparently an ancient Bexareno. Then, in a scene remaining only in the director's cut of the film, Losoya is represented. He is one of the men killed by the Mexican cavalry in the chase back to the Alamo with the other Texans. Travis offers his condolences to "Senora Losoyo," who is another ancient crone, standing with the non-combatants in the Alamo. Not accurate perhaps, but a true and sincere gesture. With filmmaking, it's always a product of time. I too would love to see some *Dickinson family* time devoted to Losoya, who even in Alamo: The Price of Freedom, only got to say that he was "born in the Alamo and will die in the Alamo." Actually, I felt John Lee Hancock was very cool to devote the Susanna Dickinson time to Juana Navarro Alsbury. After all, if anybody knows the Alamo Story even vaguely, they know of the "Madonna and Child of the Alamo." All a movie has to do is show them once and a flood of movie memories follow. Juana was new territory to most -- and wonderfully played in true John Lee Hancock minimalism by Estephania LeBaron.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 21, 2012 15:21:20 GMT -5
And let's not beat up on Hollywood too much; a lot of early Alamo literature had ignored Tejanos just as much and relegated the soldados to cardboard demons. And that's nothing compared to the yellow journalism of the period.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Aug 21, 2012 21:53:36 GMT -5
By comparison, these were not perhaps as accurate or intellectual as the Texan and Mexican portrayals in John Lee's movie, but they were a sincere attempt on Wayne's part to set the story straight, and I agree that should be viewed accordingly. Interestingly, all three of Duke's wives were Latinas. I've always felt his character development for Juana had something to do with that.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Aug 21, 2012 22:01:36 GMT -5
Also, the Battle of Medina was not the largest battle ever fought Texas soil. Good point. I should've said bloodiest instead of largest. 1300 rebels killed and 57 royalists.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Aug 21, 2012 22:18:20 GMT -5
Also, while the revolution is not the extent of Texas history, it is the event that set it on the course that took it where it got; independence and then U.S. statehood. Independence and statehood were the product of Anglo-Americans coming to Texas for land. Colonization efforts by the empresarios and the Texas Revolution weren't the first events that set that course. Isn't the first event where substantial numbers of Anglo-Americans came to Texas seeking land and independence (and, for many, also statehood) the Gutierrez-Magee expedition? The latter ended at the Battle of Medina. If independence and statehood were the culmination, Texas history should recognize that the first steps on that course pre-date the revolution and the emprasarios and went through Medina first.
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Aug 22, 2012 1:06:57 GMT -5
I dont think there's any doubt about the role that Medina played in Texas history or of the rebellion's role in the subsequent Texas Revolution. José Antonio Navarro and Jose Francisco Ruiz, Tejano signers of the Texas Declaration of Independence, were active participants (i.e., rebels) in the Texas rebellion of 1813 and survivors of Arredondo's campaign of extermination.
|
|