Reply #48: History is always judged by modern standards

[jobycom]

The point of this discussion is mostly concerning the myth and symbolism of the Alamo. The Alamo story is taught these days as a lesson, as proof that war is noble, that fighting is better than negotiating. It's a training tool for young patriots. It can have other lessons as well-- sacrifice, standing up to corrupt governments, taking on overwhelming causes on principle, etc. Those are all judgements, not history.

A history of the Alamo simply would retell the facts of the battle, place it in its greater context of the war, Texas, Mexico, America. It would recount all of the causes of the battle and the war.

But that's not the point of the movie, nor of the lessons taught in school on the battle. Like most American history taught before grad school, judgement is everything. In Texas, people have uncovered new details about the battle over the last few decades, but any attempts to correct the details in history books is fought by school boards and the general public. One man who wrote the story using Mexican sources that disagreed with American sources had his life threatened repeatedly, even though obviously the Mexican sources would include eyewitness accounts of the battle that could not be told from the Texan side since the soldiers were all dead.

In other words, the history was rejected because the myth was too important. That's what this thread is about. Rebel soldiers fought in a battle, they chose to sacrifice their lives because they believed it would help win a war, and for other reasons. That happens every year all over the world. It's the myth that developed around that battle that makes it significant. And that is all about judging by today's standards.