|
Post by Kevin Young on Jun 30, 2009 10:18:56 GMT -5
Boy, do I agree with the critical thinking aspect of teaching history. I sub at local schools and it is lacking. Critical thinking is generally how fast you can find the answers (out of context) for a worksheet. Putting things in context is a challange-I wrote some key events of the 20th century on the board (out of order) and simply asked the students to put them in the order they happened. Almost everyone put WWI before the Wright Brothers. When I talked to them about it, I asked them what image did they have about WWI-they said dogfights. So, I said, then what had to happen before WWI-the Wright Brothers. Then we worked at some fun stuff to get them to look at material and be able to draw some conculsons for themselves. Problem is that was just one week-after that it was back to read the chapter, do a worksheet, and take a test.
When going over slavery, I had had the science teacher "stop in" to see how I taught history. She became concerned when I was teaching about slavery and mentioned that Indians practiced slavery and that slavery was allowed in Illinois at one point. Such information apparently would confuse the kids for as you know there was only slavery in the South and they are bad people!
Because historical studies are not nationally tested (unlike everything else) it takes a back seat. The current trend to drop teaching US history before 1865 in primary and junior highs schools is frightening.
Ok-more editorials! To the Alamo. Many Alamo visitors do not want the historical truth. They want the legend, or the traditional view. Trying to get them to make the leap of "faith" over to a better understanding of the history can be a hard sell. This is one of the reason that the old gift shop at the IMAX (back in the 1980's) had every available Alamo or Texas Rev. book for sale. I do not know how many "traditionialists" were directed over there to look at the various histories so they could see for themselves the variety of interpretations offered. (Just for the record, A Time to Stand was the big seller, followed (when it came out by Hardin's book). We kept new copies of Texas History movies on hand because we always had the folks who remember them from Texas history class and they wanted to get their grandkids a copy!
What we see as historical understanding and truth many see as revisionism and disrespect for the past. Many folks out there see our efforts to find out what really happened as attempts to destroy their beloved traditional view. I have only met a few Alamo researchers over the years who were really out there to destroy the signiificance of the event, while I know dozens who want to put it into context while at the sametime remembering that dispite all these men did something special. I recall after a spirit history conference at the Alamo that I made the final comments that we just got done talking Davy's death, how many Mexicans were really killed, and a host of other issues that went against the traditional view: and if you went outside the Texas flag was still flying, the walls were still standing, and the hundreds of people were going through the Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Jun 30, 2009 13:19:26 GMT -5
When my kids were in high school here in Dayton, OH (they're both in their 30's now so, admittedly, that was a while ago), they didn't even have history classes. History was wrapped up into social studies, which included geography and everything was mixed together, American History, European History, Asian History -- a bit of history for whatever state, country or region they were studying at the time. They were taught disjointed episodes of history that had no continuity at all so I can understand and the teachers didn't seem to know what a time line was.
Being from Ohio, our kids didn't get into Texas history much, if at all, which is understandable, I guess. But I'll never forget when one of my son's teachers wouldn't let him do a report on David Crockett because "he's a fictional character!"
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 30, 2009 13:53:46 GMT -5
But I'll never forget when one of my son's teachers wouldn't let him do a report on David Crockett because "he's a fictional character!" UHGGG! Can you hear me groaning all the way out in Ohio, Bob? If that isn't the ultimate outcome of the emergence and growth of the "Davy" image, and its eclipsing of the real man, I don't know what is. Allen
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jun 30, 2009 19:21:50 GMT -5
I have to tell you, I love history (big surprise, seeing as I hang out here) and have always had a deep interest in the Alamo and the Little Big Horn.
First thing I did when I moved to San Antonio back in '94, was sign up for a Texas history course at the University of Texas at San Antonio. I took a very non-traditional and unpopular view of the events leading up to the battle. Some of the students branded me as being the anti-Christ, I think, but the professor loved it.
Growing up in New Hampshire and going through the public school system in the '50s and '60s, they only touched on the Alamo, but at least it was mentioned and it was in our books. But you know what sparked my interest in the two events I referred to above? The movies. Like many people, Fess Parker's portrayal of David Crockett at the Alamo hooked me forever on the Alamo. I think, too, it was the first time I saw a movie that the "hero" died. I was devastated, because I figured Davy and the "good guys" would wi. Guess I learned a couple of lessons that day.
For the Custer thing, it was Sal Mineo playing a Sioux in a Disney flick about the horse Comanche. In that movie, Comanche was the horse ridden into the Little Big Horn by Miles Keough. I don't think I was aware of Custer and the Little Big Horn until I saw that movie.
I'm saddened to hear there is such a trend away from teaching history. What's next? English literature? I've always connected literature with historical periods, and it's kind of hard to make sense of the literature without understanding the historical period from whence it came.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 1, 2009 8:16:47 GMT -5
Paul,
I had a high school English teacher in 1960 who always tied 19th century American literature to the history of the period. I can still hear him telling us how a lot of that literature reflected concepts of the time, like self reliance and rugged individualism. I remember him mentioning Crockett and Bowie by name as stereotypes or examples of that image, the Leatherstocking tales, etc. I wish I remembered more of it.
The name of that Disney Custer movie was "Tonka."
Allen
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jul 1, 2009 10:33:44 GMT -5
Interesting discussion on the teaching of history, but at the expense of sounding like a cop, it's going off topic. By all means continue it, but in its own thread in an appropriate topic area, if you will.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jul 1, 2009 18:00:09 GMT -5
Anyone who has studied the Mexican strength returns compiled after the March 6th battle has to see at once that the numbers listing casualties are all very consistent with each other. They do not all match perfectly, but are in the same ballpark. This kind of thing is understandable after a chaotic action, where wounded or missing personnel straggle back in to camp, and word about them does not get disseminated instantly across the entire army at once. These reports were compiled by battalion adjutants based on company musters taken after the action, and unless we are prepared to speculate that there was a vast, dark conspiracy to fudge the numbers across the board, and then make them all closely agree with each other, we should accept these records at face value, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 1, 2009 20:52:41 GMT -5
Interesting discussion on the teaching of history, but at the expense of sounding like a cop, it's going off topic. By all means continue it, but in its own thread in an appropriate topic area, if you will. Quite right Tom. I moved this to the "General History" section, for anyone interested in continuing. Meanwhile, let the Mexican Casualty count go on, unimpeded! AW
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jul 12, 2009 11:00:31 GMT -5
I'm currently reading "A Voyage Long and Strange" by Tony Horwitz, and came upon this passage about the attack on the Indian stronghold at Mavila by DeSoto. Defender KIAs were estimated at between 2500-3000, DeSoto's (the attacking force) KIA's were about 20, with about 200 wounded (half the surviving force).
These comments were by Kent Goff, a West Pointer and military historian. There were some interesting parallels with the Alamo (this is a paraphrase:
"Indians fought in the traditional style of the warrior individual, with great courage and in concert with family members. The Spanish, by contrast, fought as cogs in 16th century Europe's most efficient military machine. It was like the Romans vs. the Celts. On an individual level, Celts were better fighters. But led in a group by centurions, the Romans could beat ten times their number.
At Mavila, the Spanish formed a 'combined arms team': foot soldiers, horsemen, and harquebusiers, launching a coordinated assault. On a signal - a musket shot - they attacked simultaneously from 4 directions. Soldiers with shields protected axemen from arrows as they chopped at the walls. Infantry poured through the breach.
Indians never encountered this kind of warfare. The resulting surprise and disarray helped to explain the lopsided casualty figures. When the Spanish pierced Indian lines and natives saw their fellow warriors and blood relations go down, they were stunned and broken. And they couldn't outrun a horse. So it became a massacre."
Keep in mind that though the Spanish had some firepower with harquebusiers, most of the assault was carried out with edged weapons, so the technological imbalance wasn't as big a factor as it might seem. It was the coordinated attack that made the difference. Individuals vs. a machine.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 12, 2009 15:57:39 GMT -5
The analysis is a valid one, but it only reinforces my earlier point that even if we take the lowest available Mexican figures, the number of attackers returned as killed or wounded seems astonishingly high in the circumstances - and certainly way above what could reasonably have been expected when planning the assault
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 12, 2009 20:27:12 GMT -5
I wonder how many Mexican casualties were the result of friendly fire. Given the number of troops bunched up under the north wall for some period of time, while comrades to the rear might be firing in their direction, and the men under Morales who may have been fired on by troops entering from the north, it could have been a significant number. Could account for that disparity in casualties.
AW
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 13, 2009 5:35:31 GMT -5
I don’t think there’s any doubt that some of the Mexican casualties will have been down to friendly fire. Even at the best of times there’s an understandable tendency to fear that anybody or anything moving in front of you, especially in poor visibility, is hostile and to blaze away just to be on the safe side. Sometimes the results can be tragic although they are frequently balanced by a tendency to shoot high. Without quoting quotes I’ pretty sure there is more than a suggestion of the rear ranks firing into the front at the north wall and the simple fact that DLP describes Morales’ men taking cover in a ditch to avoid friendly fire is a pretty clear indicator that they were shot at by the men coming over the north wall – whether they actually suffered any casualties before taking cover may be a different matter but there’s no doubt that friendly fire incidents were occurring. The problem is that its quite impossible to quantify them unless a report turns up in which an officer complains that a certain number of his men were accidentally or carelessly shot in a particular encounter. I’d even be comfortable, in the circumstances, with the notion that the Mexicans may have accidentally killed more of their own men than the disorganised and disorientated Texians did, especially if a substantial part of the garrison took the opportunity to bug out, I just have difficulty with the arithmetic and in particular with filling all of the gap between what the Texians might reasonably be expected to have inflicted, with friendly fire victims. I don’t have an answer to this one; I’m just uncomfortable with the data, but at all events there’s absolutely no grounds to support either fantacist opinions that Mexican casualties “must” have been higher – or that Santa Anna ordered the assault “knowing” casualties were going to be so high as they appear to have been
|
|
|
Post by pff on Jul 13, 2009 9:42:03 GMT -5
60 years before the farmers marksmanship at Lexington and Concord was only about 1/300 or 1/15 which hit a target. With this ratio of the 189 garrison only about 26 would have hit a target-and each one would have accounted for 11.96 soldiers apeice Seriously Santa Anna Army deserves credit for nearly succeeding in crushing the Revolution-after all despite a corrupt logistical and non-existent medical service-they actually achieved their objective-except for losing the last and crucial battle... It has been pointed out that Travis could very well have been handicapped in trying to turn his volunteer force into professionals-after all only 2 {Musselman and Rose} had served in regualr Armies-while Travis; Crockett, Bowie, Autry and Bonham had onlyserved in volunteer/militia forces. One glaring handicap was the North Wall -{see Lemon's Illustrated Alamo}-in which for some unknown reason the garrison did not finish putting sand against the bracing timbers on the Northwest corner on the outside-a circumstance which helped the Mexican overrun the wall better...
|
|
|
Post by pff on Jul 13, 2009 9:48:39 GMT -5
Not just Crockett and Bowie but Daniel Boone was seen as a trailblazer-which probably got a boost when Fess Parker played first Crockett and then Boone...however I never saw actor Arthur Hunnicut who played Davy Crockett in a Alamo movie as anything like the real Crockett...especially as the real Crockett never had a beard! Nor did I ever think as Brian Keith "heavy actor" that he was as Crockett not of James Arness as Bowie in a Alamo movie as well!
|
|