Here in Minnesota people are pretty negative about Texas. Red McCombs is hated and in the Startribune story about the Vikes sale much of the reporting mocked his "folksy Texas sayings." Yet he is also the guy who coined the phrase "Purple Pride" which is pretty much ubiquitous at Vikes game. I've had Minnesotans say, "I'm sorry to hear that" when I tell them I'm from Texas, or "but you seem so nice." I've also heard many say that they wish Texas would separate from the rest of America for the good of the country. I heard a speech by Walter Mondale on his early political career and he spent about 20 Minutes of it criticizing LBJ for how he treated Hubert Humphrey. He got particularly heated when he told the story of when LBJ invited Humphrey down to his ranch and put him in a cowboy hat and boots and sat him on a horse. I've seen the picture and Hubert has that look that 12 year old boys do when mom makes them model new clothes. OTOH if any of you have listened to the tapes of the phone calls between Hubert Humphrey and LBJ its easy to say that Humphrey deserves it considering how much he toadied up to LBJ.
Not sure who Howard Zinn is, but I'm sure he has no bias. I'm just tired of the whole slavery issue. It seems that there are too many conspiracies and conflicting histories on it. It appears every twenty years the entire thing is re-manipulated. Maybe I'm wrong and you're right. But I'm trying to figure out how history from 169 years ago keeps changing. Stick with the facts on history. Not hearsay.
History is first told from the perspective of the victorious and is never the complete story. Surely you must recognize that.
For proving that saying Slavery was the Focal point of Texas' independence is inaccurate. (possibly the worst sentence I've ever written, gramatically ^^^)
To the extent that Zinn is biased, this quote above demonstrates his chief bias. It also explains why history "keeps changing." LOL. Zinn recognizes that history books are biased in favor of the victorious and he's done as much work as anyone trying to correct for that. But since Fatty is "tired of the whole slavery issue," we should probably just leave it be. Cowboys=good. Injuns=baaaad. The fact that Fatty responded "precisely" to Zinn's basic thesis as worded by Mulder would seem to indicate he'd favor correcting falsehoods in history books over trusting them implicitly, but his "stick with the facts" post puts the lie to that. Which is it Fatty? Search for truth or willfull ignorance? Tough choice, I know.
I believe that this is not nearly as true as it was in the past. Thanks to modern technology, research, anthropology, and archaeology, historians are wanting to depict a more factual representation of history. I'm sure, in the past, it was more true. When textbooks were written on word-of-mouth, or based on other, outdated textbooks, or legend... But, socially, we are much more wanting and willing to recognize our own shortcomings (even if we don't necessarily change our behaviors). We're willing to say, "yeah - we essentially stole land from the 'Indians' (who really should be called Native Americans). And, yeah, we opressed blacks and women. And, yeah, we sold weapons to contras." Historical accounts are being questioned (as they should be) and truths are beoming revealed. And as people become more and more enlightened in historical inaccuracies, they are demanding more accurate historical textbooks for schools. Textbooks are under more scrutiny than ever before and more and more pressure is being placed on publishers to make sure that when they make a history book, they better get their facts straight. The days are dwindling for us to use the expression that history is written by the victorious. In time, we should be able to say, 'History is written by the scientists.' -- droxford
Funny, I never said it was. Let me remind you of how this got started. A poster stated: and while this is a bit of an oversimplification it was one of the main factors that caused the underlying conflict. Then you said That is a VAST oversimplification and doesn't even begin to explain the myriad of factors involved. I won't bring up your ill fated tangent into Lincoln's slave ownership (whoops, guess I just did). I just let that go. I was not nearly as gruff as you were to rocketbox, whose point had merit. Now, explain again how I proved your point.
*sigh* Whatever you say Batty. I took two courses of Texas History in college. Senior level courses. I have no idea what you took, or why it makes you feel superior, but sobeit. In my classes, we certainly didn't discuss how slavery earned Texas their independence. Did Texas have slaves? Yes How much did it have to do with our independence? As of 1994's history books, very little. Slave history has gotten larger and larger as part of our historical perspective in the past twenty years. Some of it true, some of it blown out of proportion. If my 1994 Textbooks were wrong, then they were. That's why I said let's stick with factual observations, and not some historian's theories.
Go read again about a biased perspective. It's not hard. Biased perspective... Victor... What don't you understand?
You know, now that I read your original post... again, let me ask this. Why would there be a BORDER dispute between the government of Mexico and another part of Mexico, Texas prior to 1836? There wouldn't. The dispute over whether the Texas border was at the Rio Grande or the Guadalupe was the Mexican American War in 1848, after Texas had been annexed by the United States. link because of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), which terminated the Mexican War, the Rio Grande becomes the international boundary between the United States and Mexico. link No matter how you slice it, you plum got that one WRONG. So, who needs to pick up a History Book?
Let me get this straight. If it was in a history book you read in college, it was a "factual observation." If it was in a history book you didn't read in college, it was "some historian's theories." Leaving out your weird fatigue with regard to slavery (which is not the focus of Zinn's books), you have agreed that history books are inherently biased in favor of history's victors. Why you would resist the writing of someone who's made it his life's work to correct for that is beyond me. I'll sigh back at you. A poster brought up a piece of Texas history that was unfamiliar to you so you told him he was wrong and should read a book. Back at you. You're wrong. Read a book.
Zinn is not without substantial bias. He is not someone trying to correct objective errors in current history text, but rather a revisionist guided by his own radical political leanings.
For example: Titanic sank in 1912. Undisputed historical fact. Orchestra played "nearer my God to thee" right before ship sank. Historical fact based upon numourous recounts of such by survivors. The ship sank because the Captain was under pressure to set a new speed record. Historical opinion based on some bias that could easily be disputed. Let us stick with historical facts, please.
Like the fact that you were calling out another poster for not knowing history when in fact your assertion was the one that was incorrect.
Texas was fought for due to a border dispute. We said it was the Rio Grande. They said it was another boundary. (Guadelupe, or Colorado). This statement would refer to the US/Mexico war of 1846 not the War for Texas independance.
You know what? Fine. I was wrong. I apologize. I got our battle for ind. mixed up with our annexation. Sorry. It does not discount the fact that slavery was not the major reason why Texas fought for it's independence. At least it wasn't in our required text 10 years ago. This is where I'm coming from. And some of your hostilities on this subject are annoyingly petty.
