Chris Tomlinson

How can you cash in on 1619 and the 1619 Project? Write the 1619 Project but for Texas history.

Yes, there is a lot of mythos in Texas History. But myth works both ways. To say 1776 is all-out perfect is not right. To say 1619 is all-out right is just as wrong. For oh so many reasons.

Ditto here with 1836.

Yes, the Texas colonists had slaves and Mexico had ended slavery. Yes, slavery was important to the folks who declared independence in 1836. But to say the Texas Revolution was ONLY about slavery or even MOSTLY about slavery is just as false and propagandistic as saying 1776 was ONLY about slavery or even MOSTLY about slavery.

Great historians undergird this work, like Lack and Torget. But, guess what, not everybody agrees with historians like these whole-hog.

The revolution of 1836 was about WAY MORE than slavery. Why would the non-slaveholding Tejanos go along? Why would Zacatecas rebel against Mexico? Why would Yucatan?

Trying to paint all Anglo whites as bad-guy Hitlers is silly. Trying to make all Mexicano browns into Saints is wrong. This book actually tries to paint Santa Anna as a goody. Despite his bloody nature and his dictatorship. The Siete Leyes? The abrogation of rights? The disposal of the Constitution of 1824? All lost by these authors. In its place is slavery slavery slavery. This is wrong.

And its wrongness colors the whole book thereafter.

The story of the Alamo, its survival, its uses today.

This might have been good, but the book basically sticks to this narrative: whites bad, Republicans bad.

There is some fishiness to the collection donated by Phil Collins. There is too much mythmaking of Davy Crockett.

But, to impute racist motive to everybody and call all Republicans dunces and Nazis is just as silly and wrong.

And the plans to remodel the Alamo are a farce. "Reclaim the battlefield." Even though the walls went through a Federal building. None of the plans now to "restore the footprint" include that historic, beautiful building. So the "restore" thing is a farce. All of downtown San Antonio was part of the battlefield. Unless you plan to raze downtown San Antonio, any remodeling of the Alamo grounds are farcical.

Biased, relies on secondary sources, pro-progressive and anti-conservative, fail to have good faith in others. These authors fail in their main premises. Some good bits of history and historiography, but all mis-colored by their biases and their agenda to stick it to anybody who might be white and/or Republican.

It's as if the liberals of the Texas Monthly (communists who like brisket) decided to opine on the Alamo. Nowhere near worth the praise it has gotten, but you need to read it nevertheless.… (más)