Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Board signals it will keep ‘heroic’ in Alamo defenders in Texas history curriculum

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Board signals it will keep ‘heroic’ in Alamo defenders in Texas history curriculum

    AUSTIN — A Texas congressman joined dozens of parents and educators who urged the State Board of Education on Tuesday to keep the words “all the heroic defenders” in the state’s social studies curriculum to describe those who fought at the Alamo. An advisory group had recommended removing those words last week, setting off a barrage of criticism. But by mid-morning, the board appeared poised to keep the words in the curriculum, and a member of the advisory group said nobody had intended to minimize the deeds of the Alamo defenders.

    The advisory group had initially recommended removing the word heroic from the curriculum, saying it is a “value charged word.” The advisory group, made up of educators, also argued “all defenders” is a term too vague to be part of a history lesson. The group further recommended eliminating a specific reference to William B. Travis’ letter addressed to “the People of Texas and All Americans in the World,” commonly referred to as the “victory or death” letter.

    Texas lawmakers immediately rebuked the proposal. Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick called it “political correctness.” Land Commissioner George P. Bush said the proposal is “not debatable to me.”

    Stephen Cure, a member of the committee, said in an interview that the advisory group never intended to remove the Travis letter from the classroom or to discourage teachers from describing the defenders as “heroic.” He said eliminating the reference was only meant to simplify the wording of the teaching standards.

    “The majority of the work group felt it didn’t need to be said because it had always been taught that way for the past 30 plus years,” Cure said.

    The stories surrounding the Battle of the Alamo vary from true to mythologized to uncertain. The famous battle has been idolized on the big screen, and the iconic shrine receives more than 2.5 million visitors a year. But not many tourists, or locals for that matter, really know happened during that 13-day siege, or the events that occurred afterwards.

    Cure presented the board with a revised standard, which board members will discuss Wednesday. It says that teachers should explain issues surrounding significant events of the Texas Revolution, including “the heroism of diverse defenders who gave their lives” at the Alamo.

    https://www.expressnews.com/news/pol...hp?src=hp_totn

    Now how I read this is that some idiots in Austin decided that the story of the Alamo was too manly and needed to be marginalized...

    Remember folks, these are the ones who are teaching our children...
    Credo quia absurdum.


    Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

  • #2
    Good, kick those politically correct Leftist professors to the curb.

    Comment


    • #3
      Score one for the good guys.

      Comment


      • #4
        Why wouldn't they?
        We are not now that strength which in old days
        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

        Comment


        • #5
          I would say both sides were heroic. It takes guts to be part of a frontal assault on position with as many cannon as the Alamo had.

          People forget that the Alamo, like West Point in the Revolution, was a key strategic point in that period. It had more cannon (when the Texans took it) than any other. The place was in poor shape by 1836, but that didn't make it easy to take. Santa Anna tore the heart out of his force in that attack.
          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

          Comment


          • #6
            Our history books are already extremely skewed, biased and selective. Taking out the word heroic, won't change that.
            "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
            - Benjamin Franklin

            The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

            Comment


            • #7
              All the Defenders of Goliad and the Alamo were heroic, even if most of them surrendered. They died to inspire the Texans attacking at San Jacinto.

              Pruitt
              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                All the Defenders of Goliad and the Alamo were heroic, even if most of them surrendered. They died to inspire the Texans attacking at San Jacinto.

                Pruitt
                Most of tghe Alamo defenders died; there are one or two accounts that a handful (avariciously described as six or eight) who surrendered and then were bayoneted, but that has never been confirmed.

                Fannin's troops were not defenders at Goliad. They captured Goliad, then abandoned it under Houston's orders, and were caught on the move and defeated.
                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Fannin at Goliad was incompetent and tried to change his mind several times. He tried to leave, and destroyed his extra food and supplies. Then he tried to go back into the Mission. They even allowed the oxen pulling the cannon away to graze and wander off. The whole garrison surrendered and were shot. That being said, a small number were able to run away. Fannin also could have left days earlier, but did not.

                  According to a Mexican officer's writing, the Alamo garrison was asleep on the morning of the final assault. The Mexican Army was over the walls before they could be repelled. This version has Davie Crockett being shot after he and a small number of his men surrendered. The Mexican Army had battered the Alamo for days with artillery and kept up a fire at night. The defenders had to repair damage every night. The last night, the Mexican Army did not fire on the Alamo and the Texicans went to sleep. Some men were able to fire on them after the Mexicans raised a shout, but the Mexicans caught many defenders in buildings or trying to reach their defense positions.

                  Pruitt
                  Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                  Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                  by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                    I would say both sides were heroic. It takes guts to be part of a frontal assault on position with as many cannon as the Alamo had.
                    That forced march through a blizzard was no joke. How did el generalissimo put it: "my men are good soldiers -- they suffer well."

                    http://archive.caller.com/columnists...91089791.html/

                    And then, having to fight for that callous bastard Santa Anna must have been an extreme exercise in soldierly duty. At least he -- accidentally -- left the world chewing gum.

                    http://www.nypress.com/santa-anna-di...davy-crockett/

                    Are the Alamo's Mexican defenders, like Juan Seguin's unit, receiving honors alongside the Alamo's American defenders in this new curriculum?

                    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                    People forget that the Alamo, like West Point in the Revolution, was a key strategic point in that period. It had more cannon (when the Texans took it) than any other. The place was in poor shape by 1836, but that didn't make it easy to take. Santa Anna tore the heart out of his force in that attack.
                    Why didn't Santa Anna just lob mortars into the place, instead of jeopardizing his men in a frontal assault? Or was he just that careless a commander?
                    Last edited by slick_miester; 12 Sep 18, 10:57.
                    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Santa Anna did not have to use his artillery too much. The Alamo was not built for military defense. During the last assault the Mexican soldiers took a small cannon from the parade ground and used it to blow open the doors in the buildings around the church. The Mexican Army had to carry all its powder and shells from Mexico. It was easier to use soldiers than to use cannon balls.

                      Much of the powder used by the Texicans in their artillery was so poor it was separating back into basic components. The Mexican Army had this same problem in the Mexican War.

                      Pruitt
                      Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                      Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                      by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                        . . . . It was easier to use soldiers than to use cannon balls. . . . .
                        It's attitudes like that that tend to get officers fragged.
                        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Simply put, stop rewriting history.
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                            That forced march through a blizzard was no joke. How did el generalissimo put it: "my men are good soldiers -- they suffer well."

                            http://archive.caller.com/columnists...91089791.html/

                            And then, having to fight for that callous bastard Santa Anna must have been an extreme exercise in soldierly duty. At least he -- accidentally -- left the world chewing gum.

                            http://www.nypress.com/santa-anna-di...davy-crockett/

                            Are the Alamo's Mexican defenders, like Juan Seguin's unit, receiving honors alongside the Alamo's American defenders in this new curriculum?



                            Why didn't Santa Anna just lob mortars into the place, instead of jeopardizing his men in a frontal assault? Or was he just that careless a commander?
                            What "mortars"?
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                              What "mortars"?
                              One of these.

                              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X