History channel will air an 8 hour mini series on the Texas revolution . I'm expecting it to be similar to the recent one they aired on the American revolution,not entirely correct but great production value ...seems like the " history Channel would want their movies to be actual history ? http://www.history.com/shows/texas-rising/videos/texas-rising-preview
Going on a tangent here... History channel is actually one of pet peeves. Just by the brand ("History" channel) they dupe people into taking everything they say at complete face value, but sensationalism is at the core of what they do. I have seen various things on there are aren't strictly true, or are not verifiable. They will present an idea and have you believe that is the only way to interpret an action/event/person. History is anything but black and white, of course, because it's constructed only of what we think we know.
Ima - if you can squeeze it in, Sea Wolf Park has a WW2 Sub and a Destroyer you can walk on and tour, it is only about 30 mins from the Battleship Texas - it is a WONDERFUL addition to what you are doing. Took my oldest to both last year with my father.....loved it. And I highly recommend the Nimitz Museum in Fredricksberg, especially when they do the re-enactments. DD
Wow, and that perspective sounds like a Tea Party wet dream! Well, I was going to continue on my earlier statement, but now that you've unleashed the classic rebuttal of ascribing the (apparently) challenging nature of my opinion to the type of rebellious idealism only a college student could possess, I guess I'll just stop now and cut my losses! Though, if I'm but a wee college sophomore, I believe that would make you either a young junior higher or perhaps even a middle-aged member of the Texas Board of Education... It requires the naivete of a preteen or the blind nationalism of the latter to believe and propagate the preposterous narrative that we're all fed in those ridiculous Texas History classes.
Age-shifting and Tea Party slams? Do you actually have any facts to argue or just historically inapplicable liberal talking points?
as a tribute to my mexican heritage Im planning to stay in a riverwalk hotel and visit sea world. Then watch the movie to see if hairyandme is correct.
That part is actually historically accurate. Santa Anna chose to march his army inland in December 1835 and that was a very cold winter with freezing temperatures and snow. Many of Santa Anna's soldiers succumbed to hypothermia on the way.
There is some substance to what you're saying but the history is much more complicated than looking at it as simply a land grab by Anglo settlers looking to spread slavery. Sana Anna had overturned the 1824 Mexican Constitution that granted a federation system to Mexico and many both Anglo and Hispanic residents of Texas opposed that. The initial push for the revolution of Texas wasn't about independence but a reinstatement of the 1824 constitution.
Running the Texas Independence Relay on March 28. 203 miles from Gonzales to San Jacinto. Come and Take It b****es. http://texasindependencerelay.com/
I can't believe someone on here likened to battle for Texas independence to ISIS. Excuse me while I go laugh.
mexico had abolished slavery and the anglo colonists were ignoring it and bringing in their slaves under the guise of "indentured servitude". that was one of the primary sources of conflict b/t the mexican government and the colonists...mexico was actually living up the standards established in the united states declaration of independence that "all men are created equal". that was accurate...they were marching thru the mountains of northern mexico in an abnormally cold winter.
the 1824 constitution protected slavery...it was only abolished in 1829. it is more complicated in the same way that the civil war was about more than just slavery, but the reality is that it was a land grab and the slavery issue played a huge part. there are quotes from santa anna saying how he was going to march on texas and free all the slaves. in alot of ways, the texas revolution was a precursor to the american civil war. most all of the people who came to fight were not here for altruistic motives, but for cheap (almost free) and abundant land. david crockett, for example, spent his first couple weeks in texas scouting out land to make a claim on. he had no intention of fighting and dying. he wanted land and a shot at taking part in being a founding father of a new nation. however, mexico bears much of the blame for their loss of texas. they had only been independent from spain for a decade...their government was unstable and corrupt...they could not get mexicans to want to live here...they kept changing the laws on the colonists creating uncertainly and instability.
Nope, no facts. Just liberal feeeeellllings. *heart bleeds* Aha, yes, thank you. There is certainly more nuance to be had in discussing this topic than what I started off with--thank you for offering an educated viewpoint rather than the silliness that was shown in other responses. As evidenced my posts, I'm in the same camp as jo mama, but it's certainly a topic that warrants further discussion. Well you're welcome. While I'll stand by my Ukraine example, I gave in to a bit of hyperbole with the ISIS comparison for the sole purpose of being incendiary. Though, I suspect the ones who would find the comparison the most laughable and/or offensive would probably be less likely to have ever questioned the "righteous" cause of the Texas Revolution in the first place. Anyway, clearly I've struck a nerve that I didn't really expect to hit. Most of my friends have similar viewpoints on Texas history and I assumed that many others would've come to the same, or at least similar, conclusions over time. Before I piss in the Alamo thread any more, I think I'll take this to the D&D where it belongs...
History is a horror show. Your entire family tree is full of rapists, murderers, thugs, oppressors, thieves, and con men. If not, your ancestors would have been on the other side of those transactions, and you wouldn't exist. Arguing moral high ground for history is counting angels on the head of a pin. By today's standards you are arguing whether John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy is the more moral man. Everybody's poo stinks. Get over it. The only thing history doesn't forgive is incompetence, and Santa Anna had that in spades. The fact that he was at one point absolute ruler of Mexico is proof positive that those who died at the Alamo did everybody who lives in Texas today a kindness beyond measure, whatever their motives.
Hah! Understood and agreed. However, I think there is an important distinction between accepting the past ills of society verses celebrating them. Perhaps, I might direct you to... [WARNING: D&D LINK] here.
