|
Post by bowie on Dec 20, 2010 21:37:58 GMT -5
Absolutely. Phil Collins is a great "fan" if one does'nt mind that word. He brings a bit of attention to the Alamo that I think is good. I've had friends send me posts on facebook concerning Phil Collins' interest in the Alamo, Davy Crockett, etc. The people that sent me the messages about Phil Collins' interest were not Alamo "fans" at all. Therefore, maybe Collins' Alamo passion can help inspire more passion to those who have yet to really be introduced to the Alamo and it's history.
Bowie
|
|
|
Post by gtj222 on Dec 20, 2010 22:41:48 GMT -5
I am glad someone of his stature is interested in the Alamo. I hope he brings more attention to the Alamo. Thank you, Phil Collins.
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Dec 21, 2010 11:08:41 GMT -5
Am I the only one who is a bit upset at some of the commentary here, making jest of Phil? I mean, I never met the man, but his fame and money should have nothing to do with his interest in the Alamo or whether he owns "real" artifacts or not. Heck, half the stuff (maybe more) ion display in the Alamo didn't come from the actual battle, although they might have some connection with the people, place and the time. Crockett's rifle is a case in point. Thanks to Phil, Mark Lemon's model is on display and available for people to see and enjoy. Phil gives a voice to the Alamo story and does much to keep the shrine and its story alive. When it comes to the Alamo and deciding what is real or not, believable or not, we're all novices to some degree. Certainly I am, and likewise Phil. We all come here to learn and engage in the subject. I for one am grateful to count Phil among our merry band of "Mo enthusiasts. Hear, hear!
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 21, 2010 12:57:13 GMT -5
Phil's a generous guy, no question. I don't think anyone is questioning the idea that Phil's interest in the Alamo raises awareness. The issue is whether or not he's really in the best position to moderate a feud (for want of a better term) between rival factions in the Alamo community. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Dec 21, 2010 15:38:48 GMT -5
I've never met him, but (a) while I'd question his ready acceptance of the provenance of a lot of the stuff he's collected, I'd also have to admit a certain degree of jealousy. Would that I were in a position to collect so much...
And then (b) as to moderating between two factions, well again I don't know him or his qualities in that direction but the fact that he's from out of town gives him a big advantage when so much of the rival positions have been so deeply entrenched that those involved need to think about cutting fire-steps just to peer at each other :-)
|
|
|
Post by bmoses on Dec 21, 2010 16:05:17 GMT -5
...while I'd question his ready acceptance of the provenance of a lot of the stuff he's collected... I do wish he was a bit more academic about his approach to this event. I wonder if he is aware of the damage that is done when artifacts are dug up improperly and taken out of their archaeological context. It may seem "cool" to possess historic artifacts linked to the battle, but this comes at the expense of the greater understanding.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Dec 21, 2010 18:25:27 GMT -5
Blokes a100% dupe dont spoil somebodys fun they have made a few dollars out of him and good luck to them I beg you pardon, but your comments yesterday sound like sour grapeshot on Phil Collins' cannonball and other Alamo acquisitions. I have never met Mr. Collins, but he has some friends here and we don't consider him to be some kind of Alamo Philistine. In the future please lighten up on our modern defenders.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Dec 21, 2010 19:27:18 GMT -5
Amen, RR.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Dec 22, 2010 1:59:09 GMT -5
Yes, Phil is a great Alamo fan and I appreciate the good that has come from that. But too much of a good thing can be bad. The issue is integrity: How much do "people who care" defer to a guy who's main credential is how much money he spends on the Alamo? If Phil Collins declares that Davy Crockett surrendered weeping on his knees and begging for mercy, must we ALL accept that as fact just because Phil says it's so? Not that that's likely, but it demonstrates a point. Do we relax our standards for valid historicial justifications just because a guy spills open his wallet for the Alamo? If Phil's views agree with ours, do we cut him more slack than we give those whose views don't agree with ours?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Dec 22, 2010 5:42:38 GMT -5
Do we relax our standards for valid historicial justifications just because a guy spills open his wallet for the Alamo? If Phil's views agree with ours, do we cut him more slack than we give those whose views don't agree with ours? I don't think anyone here is suggesting that. I consider myself pretty well read on the Alamo (that is, pretty knowledgeable on the subject), and I do share my opinions about those parts of the story that I feel comfortable enough to put out there. Even then, my mind is open enough to differing opinions and have shifted my opinions based on discussions here by those who are true scholars on the subject. Like a lot of us, I don't have the time to devote away from paying jobs, family, etc. to be a true earth-digging researching scholar. That means I have to rely on what I read, see and hear from other's works. And I'm willing to revisit my opinions about some aspect of the Alamo and say, "Wow -- that makes sense." In fact, that happens a lot when I do chime in on something, and I have no problem with someone pointing out some flaw in my suppositions and logic. Truth is, what do we know as absolute fact about the Alamo? We know there was a siege and when. We know there was a final battle, and when. We know there were some survivors (the women, children and slaves). And, yes, we have a pretty good idea of who was there, but much of what happened during the whole event is educated speculation at best, and open to good, healthy debate. I love talking about the Alamo to those who allow me the time and space to do so. Whenever I've visited the site, I often wind up pointing out some feature or fact or aspect of the site to other visitors. In that, I think Phil and I (and others here) are quite alike when it comes to sharing our enthusiasm about the Alamo's story. No one is ever going to (or should) take my word as gospel on the subject, and I'm guessing he'd say the same about himself. Certainly, I don't believe for a minute that Phil expects anyone -- even Crockett himself, if he was still alive -- to cut him any slack just because of his name, fame or financial resources. Paul
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Dec 22, 2010 11:20:07 GMT -5
If there really is going to be a mediator appointed to oversee this conflict (and that's not a given, as I understand it), the litmus test should include this question:
Does this person stand to benefit financially from any ultimate decision?
That question should be investigated, WHOMEVER is nominated for the position.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Dec 22, 2010 11:51:23 GMT -5
If there really is going to be a mediator appointed to oversee this conflict (and that's not a given, as I understand it), the litmus test should include this question: Does this person stand to benefit financially from any ultimate decision? That question should be investigated, WHOMEVER is nominated for the position. Jim Very good point!
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 22, 2010 13:02:00 GMT -5
If there really is going to be a mediator appointed to oversee this conflict (and that's not a given, as I understand it), the litmus test should include this question: Does this person stand to benefit financially from any ultimate decision? That question should be investigated, WHOMEVER is nominated for the position. Jim Very good point! Yup. I know everyone hates government, especially committees, and many have come to naught I'm sure. However, in my long, distinguished career toiling at the public weal, I often found that small working groups turned out good results. Some of the few lasting things we achieved came out of such groups. You have to include a rep from each interested faction or group, a couple of independent people who really have no dog in the fight, and an expert or two whom all can agree on and who can bring some real expertise to the thing. You can monkey around with that formula, but it's got to be something like that. The group also has to be willing to produce a public report of its findings and recommendations and the reasons for them. Where serious contention remains among the members, that has to be stated too. One or two public sessions, where citizens, interest groups, cranks, et al, are free to present testimony should be held and the input recorded in an appendix to any final report, or at least summaries of them ("2 people said they hate the Alamo"; "4 people testified that the Alamo should look like Bracketville with a statue of John Wayne in the plaza"; 3 people testified that they want the Odditorium expanded further into the plaza and John Wayne's pickled skull displayed," etc.). Other than such public spectacles, the group should meet privately, but keep a record of those meetings that can be made public later. Some consideration should be given to what any recommendations are likely to cost and where the funding would come from. These things can be contentious and difficult, but can produce good results. Frankly, the idea of a single arbiter, regardless of who it might be, sounds loony.
|
|
johnk
Full Member
Posts: 67
|
Post by johnk on Jan 13, 2011 12:23:06 GMT -5
Is the general public gonna be able to buy a "Phil Collins Alamo light orb" after the book comes out? I'm sure the Odditorium would be more than willing to sell them. Ive read most Alamo books.I wouldnt hold my breath in anticipation of his book......I think it will be mainly about him growing up in the 1950s ...Quoting Fess Parker,John Wayne and his so called collection .!!!I would be surprised if it contained any real substance.
|
|
johnk
Full Member
Posts: 67
|
Post by johnk on Jan 13, 2011 12:28:22 GMT -5
Absolutely. Phil Collins is a great "fan" if one does'nt mind that word. He brings a bit of attention to the Alamo that I think is good. I've had friends send me posts on facebook concerning Phil Collins' interest in the Alamo, Davy Crockett, etc. The people that sent me the messages about Phil Collins' interest were not Alamo "fans" at all. Therefore, maybe Collins' Alamo passion can help inspire more passion to those who have yet to really be introduced to the Alamo and it's history. Yea but it must be annoying to some people who have done serious research over the years then this upstart comes along who needs something to hang his hat on and claims all sorts of rubbish !.....This sort of person the Alamo doesnt need .OK though if you need to raise awareness of the Alamo ok ...........To me it is cheap and nasty.Reminds me of when Chill Wiils made his 1960 comment about the Alamo film and needing votes in the Oscars........Buffs will know what I am refering to .
|
|