Revisiting Texas history and the Alamo

5,538 Views | 40 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Ghost of Andrew Eaton
aalan94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Just looking at the state or country of origin and heritage of the men who died in the Alamo is quite interesting in terms of what role slavery would have played in their decisions to stay and fight what they had to know was a battle to the death. Yes, some were classic Scot-Irish descended southerners who would have fit the stereotype of a firebrand but many were NOT.
Well, this is valuable, but needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Some historians looking at West Florida said, "Well, they're all Anglo-Americans because of their last names" and then promptly tried to interpret their actions in supporting annexation, completely ignoring the fact that there were lots of British loyalists there. So all details tell us something but we need to be careful about reading too much into it. Augustus Magee, the leader of the 1812-13 filibuster is Irish, and I've seen it suggested that he was therefore pro-Catholic. But I found that's actually from a Northern Irish presbyterian family.

Andrew Eaton, what I'm saying is, there isn't really a book like that that I know of. But I'm always on the look out for something like that and can share it if I come across it.
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

I apologize that I was less articulate than normal after midnight. Would you happen to know of a book that can help with how to analyze history or approach it from a better viewpoint? Honestly, I don't know where to begin to search for a way to improve how I approach the events I read about and try to study. Thanks.
Andrew Eaton, I realize that you were asking aalan, but if you will permit, I'd like to take a stab at partially answering your question.

I don't know of a specific book, either, but I do have a methodology that was taught to me by my dad, who had a PhD in Early American History from William & Mary and taught collegiate-level history as a second career. I took a bunch of courses from him in obtaining my own degree in history.

What he taught about analyzing a work of history is first to identify the author's bias. Bias is not being used here in a pejorative sense. Instead, it means to try to determine what "lens" the author is using to analyze history that may bias her perspective. For example, most historians fall into a few broad groups in how they analyze history: Marxist (i.e., economic), geographic determinist, Idealism, Great Man, etc. By determining the historian's particular lens, it helps in understanding what the historian may be over- or under-emphasizing. Marxist, in the context of history, does not necessarily mean a political marxist. It means someone who believes that economics drives almost all of history. A classic example is Charles Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Frederick Jackson Turner's "frontier thesis" may be the most famous example of geographic determinism. Almost all historical biographies are written through the lens of the "great man/woman" perspective.

Second, if there's a topic of interest or importance to you, read multiple historians from multiple perspectives. That will give you a better sense of how each individual historian is interpreting history and what facts they are omitting, or perhaps over- or under-emphasizing.

Next, think critically. A great example of the need to do so is reading biographies. It's almost impossible for biographers to resist becoming admirers of the person they're writing about, so their work tends to become hagiographic. As a reader, it's very easy to get swept up in a biography and finish it thinking that the subject was the greatest man or woman who ever lived. A solution to that problem is to read a biography of the enemy or opponent of the subject to get an alternative point of view.

Finally, it seems that academia today is the most biased that I've ever seen. As a contrast to today's environment, my dad obtained his PhD in the early 70s after retiring from the US Army and having just returned from Vietnam. College campuses were not a friendly place for military folks at that time. Nevertheless, my dad said that one of his biggest supporters on the W&M faculty was a political Marxist whose personal views on just about every issue were diametrically opposed to my dad's. My dad's advisor was a very famous historian who also had much different political views from my dad. But the one thing that they all shared was a commitment to intellectual honesty and their best efforts to find the truth in history. Not to write history to fit an agenda, but to try to write history as accurately as possible. That no longer seems to be the case. Many historians today seem committed to forcing history into a pre-determined mold that is shaped by their political and social views. In other words, you should be doubly vigilant in determining author bias and how it effects their scholarship when reading current historical work.

Just some thoughts that I hope help you.
aalan94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree with everything Jabin says. Very well put, and his dad clearly knew his stuff. I particularly like the part about bias. But also consider YOUR OWN bias. Do not be a slave to your own preconceptions. Look, I love Texas. I love Texas history. I love the people at the Alamo. But if I find information that shows Travis to be a complete and utter dirtbag, then I have to use that evidence in my story. That can be hard. One of the things you should learn about history is not to have heroes. Even people who have something that should be emulated (Travis' courage in his letter) should be praised only for that positive thing, and stay clinical and objective on everything else they have.

In my history, I did a lot of research into Augustus Magee. However, he turns out to be kind of craven and cowardly at the end, which may be his disease, but it may just be that he wasn't a very good man. I can't let the fact that I spent months on him divert me from exploring those weaknesses.

This is not just advice for history, but advice for life. How many of us criticize our friends? How many of us will risk taking the side of our enemies against our friends if our enemies are right on a point? Just look at this politically, and you can see there is a fear to do this.

Back to history, either we stand for truth or we don't, and we have to be absolute on this point. I agree that most historians come from a school or a perspective, but the more we can avoid the easy labels, the more independent we are. And it makes better history. David McCullough gave us John Adams with warts and all. That's the exception. Jabin's dad makes a really great point on this. It is very common with biographies to be too cozy with your subject. On the other hand, it's very hard for people to do good biographies of Hitler without falling into bitter hatred that ignores his complexity. Yes, he was evil. But he could be warm and engaging and totally opposite of the stereotype at times.

I find Aaron Burr fascinating, as he's usually subject to villain biographies, obviously not as strongly as in the case of Hitler. But I also find it fascinating that the Burr Conspiracy is almost always cast in essense, as another Burr biography, when he's almost the least important character in it. That was what my research found, which was entirely what I did not expect. This goes to Jabin's point, which is a true historian's journey requires you to not determine your destination ahead of time, but to get out there, and find the currents of truth in the stream of the story and let them take your boat where it goes.
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

... a true historian's journey requires you to not determine your destination ahead of time, but to get out there, and find the currents of truth in the stream of the story and let them take your boat where it goes.
I love that sentence, aalan. You need to use it and repeat it as often as you can. It captures the point with a metaphor that is almost poetic.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And unfortunately too many historians at the university level aren't practicing it. Just 10 years ago historians were looking down their noses with some justification at the books "amateurs" were writing. Today better histories are being written by the "amateurs" than are coming from the universities.
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I appreciate the help.
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I recognize that this is one side of the story.

If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.