$240 Worth of Pudding said:
Sapper Redux said:
$240 Worth of Pudding said:
Is it a myth that all of those men chose to stay and fight against a far superior force knowing that they'd never leave alive?
Is it a myth that the brutality of Santa Ana at the Alamo was the impetus for many colonists (Texians/Tejanos) to join the Army and assist in securing a successful revolt?
Yes, the battle has gained mythological status but it doesn't detract from the bravery and resoluteness of the men who gave their lives defending it.
I'll never understand why you and your ilk derive so much pleasure in minimizing, discounting, and just generally maligning these feats in our history.
Nothing that you just said should be above further investigation and analysis. Even if you don't like the conclusions reached. You're ascribing emotions I don't have towards these things. I'm much more interested in separating an event from the interpretation of the event in order to better understand both and how they both influence the society we have.
A) So in your "analysis", what is false about anything I wrote?
B) Ascribing feelings to historical events is an inherent part of why they become historical events to begin with, no? We don't usually remember things that don't rise to the level of making us feel something.
C) Your political leanings are no secret to most on this site going way back to your politics board days. The notion that you'd attempt to cast doubt on one of the most significant historical/cultural events in the chronicles of Texas and indeed, the United States, surprises no one. Your "interpretation" of such events is usually to sully or otherwise taint them with a "progressive" reimagining couched as some sort of scholarly endeavor.
I'm using myth in the academic sense, which I laid out in my first post, and you jump to the popular usage of myth as "fabrication." The reality of individual motivations and expectations is much more complicated than the simple, emotionally-charged narrative we construct.
The fact that an event becomes emotionally-charged in some way influenced how it is perceived in history. And that's an extremely important aspect of analysis in the history of memory and in historical analysis in general. For example, the emotional claims that evolved after the Civil War influenced the way the war was interpreted, and the fact that certain perspectives were given greater weight because they were more relatable to many audiences had a profound impact on American history. The emotions don't validate the narrative, however, and are always open to analysis and challenge.
And of course you try to turn this into an ad hominem because you don't like me. Fine.
