Alamo Heros Appear Foolish Today.

[Blotan Hunka]

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin285.htm

Early in the siege, Travis wrote these words to the people of Texas: "Fellow Citizens & Compatriots: I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison are to be put to the sword. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot & our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. VICTORY OR DEATH! P.S. The Lord is on our side." As you read those words, remember that Travis and the others did not have the A.C.L.U., P.E.T.A., People for the un-American Way, and the National Education Association telling them how intolerant and narrow-minded their notions of honor and patriotism were. A hostile media did not constantly castigate them as a bunch of wild- eyed extremists. As school children, they were not taught that their forefathers were nothing more than racist jerks.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I think when you judge history based on the standards and beliefs of today you risk getting into trouble. And the further away from today the historical event was the possibility of that trouble increases exponentially.

And before anyone starts, with this being said, there are certain historical events that are, no matter when they happened, should and were considered just plain wrong. But in this case I am not referring to the Alamo

 

[Blotan Hunka]

So you are saying that you can paly both sides of the fence? If I think a historical event was right but you think its wrong then I am "judging history based on the standards and beliefs of today". If you think something in the past was wrong and I think it was right they were "just plain wrong"? Not that Im in total disagreement with your opinion, but that seems a little too convenient.

 

[Xue Sheng]

So you are saying that you can paly both sides of the fence? If I think a historical event was right but you think its wrong then I am "judging history based on the standards and beliefs of today". If you think something in the past was wrong and I think it was right they were "just plain wrong"? Not that Im in total disagreement with your opinion, but that seems a little too convenient.

Actually, no

I am saying that judging history by today’s standards is not a good thing.

But Genocide is genocide, terrorism is terrorism, murder is murder, war is war.

As far as the actions of those at the Alamo, I cannot judge them by the standards of today.

As far as the Armenian Genocide or the Genocide against the American Indians or the acts of Caligula, or the Genocide of Adolph Hitler, wrong is wrong and evil is evil.

 

[MA-Caver]

History, as it's often said is written by the winners. Houston driven Santa Anna back into Mexico shortly after the events at the Alamo. Thus reports and the "story" goes back to the eastern seaboard cities with tales of gallant bravery of Travis and his men (along of course with already then legendary Crockett and his Volunteers) bravely standing off to the last man the Mexican Army.
Did it really happen that way? Did every last man stand his ground and courageously fight to the death? Or were there several who, when the fortress was over-run fall to their knees sobbing like children and begging for mercy? Probably not as (reportedly) every last man was a seasoned fighter. Plus add to the fact that they knew there would be no getting out alive once the Mexican Army had surrounded the fortress.

Gallantry, bravery, heroism. Words that are becoming obscured and hazy because of those aforementioned activist groups (ACLU, PETA, etc.) trying to tell us what is right and wrong. Trying to dictate the true definition of those (and other) words by their standards. (*raspberries to them*)

Foolish? Perhaps, but those men stood their ground because Travis was under orders to hold the fort until reinforcements arrived. Had he surrendered, abandoned his post he'd be black marked for all time as a coward and a traitor.

I've been to the Alamo and seen the walls still pock marked with the bullets and can imagine during the mid-day summer heat of Texas that last day.
I'll go with what history says... there were brave men that died that day... down to the last man.

 

[Marginal]

So you are saying that you can paly both sides of the fence? If I think a historical event was right but you think its wrong then I am "judging history based on the standards and beliefs of today". If you think something in the past was wrong and I think it was right they were "just plain wrong"? Not that Im in total disagreement with your opinion, but that seems a little too convenient.

So in other words, you support killing the indians and slavery of the black man. If you do not, then you hate America.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin285.htm

History is composed of the actions of fallible men and women. It would be wrong to either judge them by today's standards or to diminish their accomplishments and heroism because they did not always meet those standards. On the other hand, it would also be wrong to see them as somehow superhuman men and women without flaws. In truth, they were probably much like the people of today; a combination of selfish and altruistic, sometimes cruel and sometimes kind, sometimes heroic and sometimes not. Personally, I think it is best to seem them clearly, worts and all, while recognizing that, for good or bad, we are standing upon their shoulders.

BTW, I would want Jim Bowie, Travis and Crockett on my side in a fight.