« Courage, John! | Main | The Art of Inanity »
May 11, 2005
Remember the Alamo
The Alamo is one of the most sacred shrines in the history of American democracy. The structure became known as "the cradle of Texas liberty" when 189 volunteers declined opportunities to retreat and fought to the death while holding off the vastly superior army of the ruthless and megalomaniacal Mexican dictator Santa Anna. These heroes held out for 13 days before they were killed, taking with them around 1,600 Mexican soldiers. After the battle of Goliad, where Santa Anna's troops exterminated a rebel army after it had surrendered, the Texans turned the tide at San Jacinto, rallying themselves with the cries "Remember Goliad!" and "Remember the Alamo!" as they routed Santa Anna's forces.
"Remember the Alamo!" is a stirring cry to this day. It summarizes in three words the heroic devotion to freedom that makes this country such an honor to live in. These three words are precious not just to Texas, but to America.
So although it is thoroughly appalling, it's hardly surprising that the Left would want to take these three priceless words away from us.
WorldNetDaily reports that in a Nickelodeon "Nick News Bump," a teenage Hispanic girl is used as the mouthpiece for some anti-American propaganda that takes leftist revisionism to the point of sacrilege.
Here's the version of the Alamo Nickelodeon is teaching your kids (which is probably not terribly different from what they are "learning" in school):
The battle for the Alamo is often remembered as a rebellion of a small group of brave Texas farmers fighting against the Mexican army. What you may not know is that at the time, Texas was part of Mexico.
By the early 1800s, a lot of people living in San Antonio were farmers who brought their slaves with them. In 1829, Mexico abolished slavery and what followed was years of conflict between farmers who wanted to keep their slaves and Mexican authorities. This conflict led up to the battle for the Alamo.
It is true that there was still slavery in the US at that time in history, and over Sam Houston's objections, Texas later threw in its lot with the Confederacy. But to tell children that the Alamo was about slavery isn't just propaganda; it's a lie, and vicious one — a lie intended to rot away the justifiable pride that is the basis for our self-respect.
Liberals who hate this country and what it stands for may overwhelmingly outnumber conservatives in the mainstream media, as they do in education. But that is no reason not to resist to the bitter end when they attempt to steal our history, disgrace our heroes, and poison the minds of our children. Remember the Alamo!
Hat tip: Ravings of a Mad Tech.
Posted by Van Helsing at May 11, 2005 6:19 AM
Comments
Er, you know, Mexicans might see this a little differently, by jingo.
And the man's name was Santa Ana.
Posted by: Cato the Elder at May 11, 2005 3:47 PM
Cato, there are plenty of encyclopedias on the Web. I think they will all agree that the name of the "Napoleon of the West" was Antonio López de Santa Anna. You might try this one or this one or this one if you don't believe me. Santa Ana is an alternate spelling but is not the preferred one. Get your facts straight before you presume to correct people.
To get back to the point, Santa Anna himself would have agreed that the Battle of the Alamo had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. But that's okay, we can just pretend that it did. Anything to make Americans look like the villains.
Posted by: Van Helsing at May 11, 2005 4:58 PM
Well, smack me silly and call me Sally, VH!
I've always seen and used the one-N spelling. Perhaps instead of leaving it to online encyclopedias (dubious authorities, at best, especially Wiki), we should find out what spelling is preferred in Mexico.
Whatever. My actual point was not that the war was about slavery, which is patent nonsense. I was merely pointing out that Texas was a Mexican holding for ages before Bowie and Co. made their stand, and therefore the whole war of Texan "independence" could just as easily be seen as a war of territorial aggression against Mexico.
Does that make me a moonbat?
Posted by: Cato the Elder at May 11, 2005 5:40 PM
There are two sides to every conflict. But the conflict that interests me here isn't the one between Texas and Centralist Mexican forces back in the 1830s. It's the current conflict between people who love this country, and those who deliberately propagandize in order to drag it down, and to undermine our belief in ourselves any way they can.
Posted by: Van Helsing at May 11, 2005 7:19 PM
Well, on that we can agree. I hate PC nonsense as much as anyone!
Posted by: Cato the Elder at May 11, 2005 7:39 PM
"Texas was a Mexican holding "
This is always a tricky bit as most nations at one stage or another "acquired" at least a part of their territory by armed conflicts.
I did enjoy your your "exchange" VH and Cato.
"It's the current conflict between people who love this country, and those who deliberately propagandize in order to drag it down'
This is how I understood your line of thoughts in your post.
Posted by: Felis at May 11, 2005 8:05 PM
Cato - Yes, in Mexican use the common name of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna Perez de Lebron is normally spelled "Santa Ana", with one "N", and yes, that is the spelling the Mexican general used when signing his name. However, Kerfuffles was quoting Lieutenant Colonel William Barret Travis' famous letter from the Alamo, "Victory or Death", and used his exact quote, including the English spelling of "Santa Anna". In addition, in the 1830s, when the letter was scribed, there were no standardized spelling rules.
Posted by: Neddy at May 11, 2005 9:55 PM
Awesome post!
Posted by: Jay at May 11, 2005 10:23 PM
