What do you think?
Rate this book
Forget the Alamo: The Rise and Fall of an American Myth
Three noted Texan writers combine forces to tell the real story of the Alamo, dispelling the myths, exploring why they had their day for so long, and explaining why the ugly fight about its meaning is now coming to a head.
Every nation needs its creation myth, and since Texas was a nation before it was a state, it's no surprise that its myths bite deep. There's no piece of history more important to Texans than the Battle of the Alamo, when Davy Crockett and a band of rebels went down in a blaze of glory fighting for independence from Mexico, losing the battle but setting Texas up to win the war. However, that version of events, as Forget the Alamo definitively shows, owes more to fantasy than reality. Just as the site of the Alamo was left in ruins for decades, its story was forgotten and twisted over time, with the contributions of Tejanos--Texans of Mexican origin, who fought alongside the Anglo rebels--scrubbed from the record, and the origin of the conflict over Mexico's push to abolish slavery papered over. Forget the Alamo provocatively explains the true story of the battle against the backdrop of Texas's struggle for independence, then shows how the sausage of myth got made in the Jim Crow South of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. As uncomfortable as it may be to hear for some, celebrating the Alamo has long had an echo of celebrating whiteness.
In the past forty-some years, waves of revisionists have come at this topic, and at times have made real progress toward a more nuanced and inclusive story that doesn't alienate anyone. But we are not living in one of those times; the fight over the Alamo's meaning has become more pitched than ever in the past few years, even violent, as Texas's future begins to look more and more different from its past. It's the perfect time for a wise and generous-spirited book that shines the bright light of the truth into a place that's gotten awfully dark.
Every nation needs its creation myth, and since Texas was a nation before it was a state, it's no surprise that its myths bite deep. There's no piece of history more important to Texans than the Battle of the Alamo, when Davy Crockett and a band of rebels went down in a blaze of glory fighting for independence from Mexico, losing the battle but setting Texas up to win the war. However, that version of events, as Forget the Alamo definitively shows, owes more to fantasy than reality. Just as the site of the Alamo was left in ruins for decades, its story was forgotten and twisted over time, with the contributions of Tejanos--Texans of Mexican origin, who fought alongside the Anglo rebels--scrubbed from the record, and the origin of the conflict over Mexico's push to abolish slavery papered over. Forget the Alamo provocatively explains the true story of the battle against the backdrop of Texas's struggle for independence, then shows how the sausage of myth got made in the Jim Crow South of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. As uncomfortable as it may be to hear for some, celebrating the Alamo has long had an echo of celebrating whiteness.
In the past forty-some years, waves of revisionists have come at this topic, and at times have made real progress toward a more nuanced and inclusive story that doesn't alienate anyone. But we are not living in one of those times; the fight over the Alamo's meaning has become more pitched than ever in the past few years, even violent, as Texas's future begins to look more and more different from its past. It's the perfect time for a wise and generous-spirited book that shines the bright light of the truth into a place that's gotten awfully dark.
416 pages, Hardcover
First published June 8, 2021
About the author
Bryan Burrough
14 books324 followersBryan Burrough joined Vanity Fair in August 1992 and has been a special correspondent for the magazine since January 1995. He has reported on a wide range of topics, including the events that led to the war in Iraq, the disappearance of Natalee Holloway, and the Anthony Pellicano case. His profile subjects have included Sumner Redstone, Larry Ellison, Mike Ovitz, and Ivan Boesky.
Prior to joining Vanity Fair, Burrough was an investigative reporter at The Wall Street Journal. In 1990, with Journal colleague John Heylar, he co-authored Barbarians at the Gate (HarperCollins), which was No. 1 on the New York Times nonfiction best-seller list for 39 weeks. Burrough's other books include Vendetta: American Express and the Smearing of Edmund Safra (HarperCollins, 1992), Dragonfly: NASA and the Crisis Aboard Mir (HarperCollins, 1998); and Public Enemies: America's Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the FBI, 1933–34 (Penguin Press, 2004).
Burrough is a three-time winner of the John Hancock Award for excellence in financial journalism. He lives in Summit, New Jersey with his wife Marla and their two sons.
Prior to joining Vanity Fair, Burrough was an investigative reporter at The Wall Street Journal. In 1990, with Journal colleague John Heylar, he co-authored Barbarians at the Gate (HarperCollins), which was No. 1 on the New York Times nonfiction best-seller list for 39 weeks. Burrough's other books include Vendetta: American Express and the Smearing of Edmund Safra (HarperCollins, 1992), Dragonfly: NASA and the Crisis Aboard Mir (HarperCollins, 1998); and Public Enemies: America's Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the FBI, 1933–34 (Penguin Press, 2004).
Burrough is a three-time winner of the John Hancock Award for excellence in financial journalism. He lives in Summit, New Jersey with his wife Marla and their two sons.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 890 reviews
June 10, 2021
‘Forget the Alamo’ Unravels a Texas History Made of Myths, or Rather, Lies
Texas Observer
Nic Yeager
As a former student of Texas public schools, much of what I remember from Texas history class boils down to this: General López de Santa Anna, of Mexico, was evil incarnate—my old friends and I still marvel at how much this was hammered into our heads—and the Texas Revolution was a fight for liberty against the tyrannical Mexican government. The Battle of the Alamo, where Texian fighters held out for 13 days and then were slaughtered by Mexican forces, has long been a central part of that story. Every Texan has been told to “remember the Alamo.”
It doesn’t look like that will change any time soon. On Monday, Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill creating “The 1836 Project,” designed to “promote patriotic education” about the year Texas seceded from Mexico. In other words, the law will create a committee to ensure that educational materials centering “Texas values” are provided at state landmarks and encouraged in schools. This comes on the heels of the “critical race theory” bill that has passed through the Legislature, which would restrict how teachers can discuss current events and teach history. The American Historical Association has described the bill as “whitewashing American history,” stating: “Its apparent purposes are to intimidate teachers and stifle independent inquiry and critical thought among students.”
Nevertheless, a new book co-authored by three Texas writers, Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson, and Jason Stanford, urges us to reconsider the Alamo, a symbol we’ve been taught to fiercely and uncritically remember. The authors are aware that their book sounds like a desecration. Starting with the cover of Forget the Alamo: The Rise and Fall of An American Myth, out this week from Penguin Press, the authors lean into associations of defacement with the title scrawled in what looks like red spray paint across an image of the old mission.
Written for popular audiences, the book challenges what the authors refer to as the “Heroic Anglo Narrative.” The traditional telling, which Texas public schools are still required to teach, glorifies the nearly 200 men who came to fight in an insurrection against Mexico in 1836. The devastation at the Alamo turned those men into martyrs leaving behind the prevailing story that they died for liberty and justice. Yet the authors of Forget the Alamo argue that the entire Texas Revolt—“which wasn’t really a revolt at all”—had more to do with protecting slavery from Mexico’s abolitionist government. As they explain it, and as Chicano writers, activists, and communities have long agreed, the events that occurred at the Alamo have been mythologized and used to demonize Mexicans in Texas history and obscure the role of slavery.
Taking a comprehensive look at how the mythos of the Alamo has been molded, Burrough, Tomlinson, and Stanford paint a picture of American slaveholders’ racism as it made its way into Texas. In their stories of these early days, they peel back the facade of the holy trinity of Alamo figures: Jim Bowie, William Barret Travis, and Davy Crockett. All three died at the Alamo and their surnames are memorialized on schools, streets, buildings, and even entire counties. They pull no punches describing Bowie as a “murderer, slaver, and con man;” Travis as “a pompous, racist agitator;” and Crockett as a “self-promoting old fool.”
In the nearly 200 years that followed the battle, we learn about the mechanics of how false histories were reinforced by patriotic white scholars and zealous legislators, including the “Second Battle of the Alamo,” when a Tejana schoolteacher fought to preserve a significant area of the compound. Ultimately she was silenced by the moneyed white elite in San Antonio who sought to transform it into a flashy park instead, and the authors suggest that this moment “represented the victory of mythmaking over historical accuracy.”
Well into the 20th century, it was rare that critical studies of the Alamo were taken seriously, although Latinx writers in the 1920s and Chicano activists in the 1960s wrote their own accounts of Tejano history. Starting in the middle of the century, Hollywood further cemented the profoundly conservative folklore through mass entertainment: In 1948, Walt Disney, fed up with left-leaning labor unions, made a television series on Davy Crockett to encourage “traditional” American values like patriotism, courage, self-sufficiency, and individual liberty, the authors write. John Wayne, a rabid anti-Communist, had similar motivations behind his vision for the film The Alamo, in 1960. Meant to draw parallels with the Soviet Union, Wayne’s characterization of Santa Anna was intended to portray “a bloodthirsty dictator trying to crush good men fighting for self-determination.”
Burrough, Tomlinson, and Stanford are all white male writers, which raises questions. Will this book be afforded the attention and legitimacy that related works by non-white authors haven’t been? Probably, but it shouldn’t. The authors are transparent about the fact that they are far from the first to present an alternative to the “Heroic Anglo Narrative,” and cite Latinx scholarship and perspectives throughout. “We trace its roots to the oral traditions of the Mexican American community, elements of which have long viewed the Alamo as a symbol of Anglo oppression,” they write early on. They dedicate multiple sections to the Mexican American experience of the Alamo myth, highlighting how widespread it is in the Latino community to experience shame and harassment within their school classrooms for being associated with the “bloody dictator” Santa Anna and being “the bad guys.”
The book is aimed at white readers and toward people who haven’t heard these alternative tellings before, which leads to a slightly more moderated tone, and despite their robust critiques, the authors seem conflicted about how strongly to indict Texas history overall. There’s still so much more to unravel about early Texas, especially for Native Americans, whose histories they rarely delve into: The story of the Alamo before 1800—it was built in 1718 by Spanish missionaries to convert Indigenous people to Christianity—is reduced to about a page. If Forget the Alamo becomes a definitive text of revisionist Texas history, there’s a serious question of whether non-white writers, activists, and scholars will ever get their due. There’s also a question of whether the truth they’ve voiced for generations will prevail: When will it finally be normal within Texas history scholarship to call the whole foundation rotten?
Still, the book provides strong, provocative critiques of U.S. imperialism and colonialism. The writers make clear that even before Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821, U.S. presidents and Washington insiders were invested in—and had a hand in—destabilizing the region in the hopes of eventually annexing Texas. Forget the Alamo also turns to LBJ, who once said, “Hell, Vietnam is just like the Alamo,” and suggests that the patriotic, pioneering myth of the Alamo has been used to buttress justifications for war across the globe and to the present.
The myth of the Alamo, as we know it, is a lie. It’s been a part of the lie students have learned in school, and animates the lies peddled by legislation like the 1836 Project and the critical race theory bill. But if you want to truly remember the past, you first have to forget it.
Texas Observer
Nic Yeager
As a former student of Texas public schools, much of what I remember from Texas history class boils down to this: General López de Santa Anna, of Mexico, was evil incarnate—my old friends and I still marvel at how much this was hammered into our heads—and the Texas Revolution was a fight for liberty against the tyrannical Mexican government. The Battle of the Alamo, where Texian fighters held out for 13 days and then were slaughtered by Mexican forces, has long been a central part of that story. Every Texan has been told to “remember the Alamo.”
It doesn’t look like that will change any time soon. On Monday, Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill creating “The 1836 Project,” designed to “promote patriotic education” about the year Texas seceded from Mexico. In other words, the law will create a committee to ensure that educational materials centering “Texas values” are provided at state landmarks and encouraged in schools. This comes on the heels of the “critical race theory” bill that has passed through the Legislature, which would restrict how teachers can discuss current events and teach history. The American Historical Association has described the bill as “whitewashing American history,” stating: “Its apparent purposes are to intimidate teachers and stifle independent inquiry and critical thought among students.”
Nevertheless, a new book co-authored by three Texas writers, Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson, and Jason Stanford, urges us to reconsider the Alamo, a symbol we’ve been taught to fiercely and uncritically remember. The authors are aware that their book sounds like a desecration. Starting with the cover of Forget the Alamo: The Rise and Fall of An American Myth, out this week from Penguin Press, the authors lean into associations of defacement with the title scrawled in what looks like red spray paint across an image of the old mission.
Written for popular audiences, the book challenges what the authors refer to as the “Heroic Anglo Narrative.” The traditional telling, which Texas public schools are still required to teach, glorifies the nearly 200 men who came to fight in an insurrection against Mexico in 1836. The devastation at the Alamo turned those men into martyrs leaving behind the prevailing story that they died for liberty and justice. Yet the authors of Forget the Alamo argue that the entire Texas Revolt—“which wasn’t really a revolt at all”—had more to do with protecting slavery from Mexico’s abolitionist government. As they explain it, and as Chicano writers, activists, and communities have long agreed, the events that occurred at the Alamo have been mythologized and used to demonize Mexicans in Texas history and obscure the role of slavery.
Taking a comprehensive look at how the mythos of the Alamo has been molded, Burrough, Tomlinson, and Stanford paint a picture of American slaveholders’ racism as it made its way into Texas. In their stories of these early days, they peel back the facade of the holy trinity of Alamo figures: Jim Bowie, William Barret Travis, and Davy Crockett. All three died at the Alamo and their surnames are memorialized on schools, streets, buildings, and even entire counties. They pull no punches describing Bowie as a “murderer, slaver, and con man;” Travis as “a pompous, racist agitator;” and Crockett as a “self-promoting old fool.”
In the nearly 200 years that followed the battle, we learn about the mechanics of how false histories were reinforced by patriotic white scholars and zealous legislators, including the “Second Battle of the Alamo,” when a Tejana schoolteacher fought to preserve a significant area of the compound. Ultimately she was silenced by the moneyed white elite in San Antonio who sought to transform it into a flashy park instead, and the authors suggest that this moment “represented the victory of mythmaking over historical accuracy.”
Well into the 20th century, it was rare that critical studies of the Alamo were taken seriously, although Latinx writers in the 1920s and Chicano activists in the 1960s wrote their own accounts of Tejano history. Starting in the middle of the century, Hollywood further cemented the profoundly conservative folklore through mass entertainment: In 1948, Walt Disney, fed up with left-leaning labor unions, made a television series on Davy Crockett to encourage “traditional” American values like patriotism, courage, self-sufficiency, and individual liberty, the authors write. John Wayne, a rabid anti-Communist, had similar motivations behind his vision for the film The Alamo, in 1960. Meant to draw parallels with the Soviet Union, Wayne’s characterization of Santa Anna was intended to portray “a bloodthirsty dictator trying to crush good men fighting for self-determination.”
Burrough, Tomlinson, and Stanford are all white male writers, which raises questions. Will this book be afforded the attention and legitimacy that related works by non-white authors haven’t been? Probably, but it shouldn’t. The authors are transparent about the fact that they are far from the first to present an alternative to the “Heroic Anglo Narrative,” and cite Latinx scholarship and perspectives throughout. “We trace its roots to the oral traditions of the Mexican American community, elements of which have long viewed the Alamo as a symbol of Anglo oppression,” they write early on. They dedicate multiple sections to the Mexican American experience of the Alamo myth, highlighting how widespread it is in the Latino community to experience shame and harassment within their school classrooms for being associated with the “bloody dictator” Santa Anna and being “the bad guys.”
The book is aimed at white readers and toward people who haven’t heard these alternative tellings before, which leads to a slightly more moderated tone, and despite their robust critiques, the authors seem conflicted about how strongly to indict Texas history overall. There’s still so much more to unravel about early Texas, especially for Native Americans, whose histories they rarely delve into: The story of the Alamo before 1800—it was built in 1718 by Spanish missionaries to convert Indigenous people to Christianity—is reduced to about a page. If Forget the Alamo becomes a definitive text of revisionist Texas history, there’s a serious question of whether non-white writers, activists, and scholars will ever get their due. There’s also a question of whether the truth they’ve voiced for generations will prevail: When will it finally be normal within Texas history scholarship to call the whole foundation rotten?
Still, the book provides strong, provocative critiques of U.S. imperialism and colonialism. The writers make clear that even before Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821, U.S. presidents and Washington insiders were invested in—and had a hand in—destabilizing the region in the hopes of eventually annexing Texas. Forget the Alamo also turns to LBJ, who once said, “Hell, Vietnam is just like the Alamo,” and suggests that the patriotic, pioneering myth of the Alamo has been used to buttress justifications for war across the globe and to the present.
The myth of the Alamo, as we know it, is a lie. It’s been a part of the lie students have learned in school, and animates the lies peddled by legislation like the 1836 Project and the critical race theory bill. But if you want to truly remember the past, you first have to forget it.
May 8, 2023
UPDATE (March 24, 2022)
It happened again. If I ever write a book, it is my fervent wish that a politician attempts to censor it, or that a government bans it.
HEADLINE:
Sen. Ted Cruz May Have Just Boosted Sales For The Anti-Racist Children’s Book He Attacked (Huffpost)
"Antiracist Baby" is a No. 1 bestseller on Amazon a day after the GOP senator railed against it during Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing.
UPDATE (February 2, 2022)
HEADLINE:
Banned by Tennessee School Board, ‘Maus’ Soars to the Top of Bestseller Charts ( Smithsonian Magazine)
UPDATE (November 26, 2021)
The Battle of the Alamo continues:
Burial Ground Under the Alamo Stirs a Texas Feud
Native Americans built the Alamo and hundreds of converts were buried there. Descendants are now fuming because Texas has rejected efforts to protect the site
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/25/us...
******
I done drew the line. Just like the Alamo. You’re either one side of the line or the other. I don’t want to leave Texas again! – Bum Phillips, NFL coach (Houston Oilers and New Orleans Saints)
******
I’ll read just about anything that pertains to the history of Texas, especially if it includes the Alamo. I’m sure that sooner or later I would have become aware of this book, but I first learned of it when I read a news story about the Bob Bullock Texas State History Museum in Austin cancelling a book event featuring the three co-writers of Forget the Alamo: The Rise and Fall of an American Myth. It should be noted that all three writers are Texans.
The museum is a division of The State Preservation Board, which also oversees the Texas State Capitol, Texas Cemetery, and Governor’s mansion.
The next day after the cancellation one of the board’s directors, Dan Patrick, took full credit for putting the quietus to the event. The name might be familiar to you; he is the state’s Republican lt. governor. However, I’m sure that he had the support of the other four members of the board: Greg Abbott, the state’s Republican governor, two Republican members of the state legislature, and one citizen member, about whom I know nothing.
In a statement released by the lt. governor, he wrote:
After learning that the authors of the book 'Forget the Alamo,' which is highly critical of the defenders of the Alamo, had been scheduled to make a presentation at the Texas State History Museum without any rebuttal or critique, I immediately made sure the event was canceled.
This was done even though by statute programs and events at the museum are to be planned and conducted independent of the board.
Among Patrick’s gripes about the book, in addition to its title and its unflattering depiction of the Alamo’s legendary trinity of defenders – David Crockett, Jim Bowie, William Travis -- is the fact that the authors support the proposition that the main reason the Texans revolted against Mexico was to protect their right to own slaves.
So, just like Col William B. Travis at the Alamo, not to mention Bum Phillips, the lt. governor drew a line in the sand.
One of the book’s co-writers, Jason Stanford, responded:
Apparently, the state history museum was no place to discuss state history …. If Texans were tough enough to fight at the Alamo, they should be tough enough to talk about why.
What we have here is another in a long line of battles of the Alamo. The authors of Forget the Alamo cover all but this last one that occurred after the book was published and in which they are personally involved.
There is a lesson here that has to be learned over and over and over again. It is that those who seek to censor books should remember that earlier efforts spurred increased sales of the book that they wished to suppress. This instance was no exception.
After the museum’s cancellation of the event, sales of the book shot up like a roman candle, eventually reaching number twenty-four in popularity on Amazon, while prior to the controversy it was down in the thousands. The writers should send a thank you note to the lieutenant governor for drawing that line in the sand.
By the way, all of these lines drawn in the sand arise from the legend that William Travis drew a line in the sand just prior to the attack on the Alamo, asking those who were willing to stay and fight to cross the line to his side. There is no solid evidence that it happened and that it is just that – a legend. But it did occur in Disney’s Davy Crockett TV mini-series in the 50s and in the John Wayne film in 1960, as well as numerous other movies, novels, and histories.
And then there is this: Phil Collins (yes, that Phil Collins) plays an important role in the current conflict involving a planned multi-million dollar museum that is to tell the story of the Alamo, assuming there will ever be any consensus on how the story should be told.
Even Ozzy Osbourne makes a cameo appearance at Alamo Plaza, and although it was a controversial one, he expressed no opinion about the battle or its defenders. Well, maybe he did – in a symbolic way.
It happened again. If I ever write a book, it is my fervent wish that a politician attempts to censor it, or that a government bans it.
HEADLINE:
Sen. Ted Cruz May Have Just Boosted Sales For The Anti-Racist Children’s Book He Attacked (Huffpost)
"Antiracist Baby" is a No. 1 bestseller on Amazon a day after the GOP senator railed against it during Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing.
UPDATE (February 2, 2022)
HEADLINE:
Banned by Tennessee School Board, ‘Maus’ Soars to the Top of Bestseller Charts ( Smithsonian Magazine)
UPDATE (November 26, 2021)
The Battle of the Alamo continues:
Burial Ground Under the Alamo Stirs a Texas Feud
Native Americans built the Alamo and hundreds of converts were buried there. Descendants are now fuming because Texas has rejected efforts to protect the site
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/25/us...
******
I done drew the line. Just like the Alamo. You’re either one side of the line or the other. I don’t want to leave Texas again! – Bum Phillips, NFL coach (Houston Oilers and New Orleans Saints)
******
I’ll read just about anything that pertains to the history of Texas, especially if it includes the Alamo. I’m sure that sooner or later I would have become aware of this book, but I first learned of it when I read a news story about the Bob Bullock Texas State History Museum in Austin cancelling a book event featuring the three co-writers of Forget the Alamo: The Rise and Fall of an American Myth. It should be noted that all three writers are Texans.
The museum is a division of The State Preservation Board, which also oversees the Texas State Capitol, Texas Cemetery, and Governor’s mansion.
The next day after the cancellation one of the board’s directors, Dan Patrick, took full credit for putting the quietus to the event. The name might be familiar to you; he is the state’s Republican lt. governor. However, I’m sure that he had the support of the other four members of the board: Greg Abbott, the state’s Republican governor, two Republican members of the state legislature, and one citizen member, about whom I know nothing.
In a statement released by the lt. governor, he wrote:
After learning that the authors of the book 'Forget the Alamo,' which is highly critical of the defenders of the Alamo, had been scheduled to make a presentation at the Texas State History Museum without any rebuttal or critique, I immediately made sure the event was canceled.
This was done even though by statute programs and events at the museum are to be planned and conducted independent of the board.
Among Patrick’s gripes about the book, in addition to its title and its unflattering depiction of the Alamo’s legendary trinity of defenders – David Crockett, Jim Bowie, William Travis -- is the fact that the authors support the proposition that the main reason the Texans revolted against Mexico was to protect their right to own slaves.
So, just like Col William B. Travis at the Alamo, not to mention Bum Phillips, the lt. governor drew a line in the sand.
One of the book’s co-writers, Jason Stanford, responded:
Apparently, the state history museum was no place to discuss state history …. If Texans were tough enough to fight at the Alamo, they should be tough enough to talk about why.
What we have here is another in a long line of battles of the Alamo. The authors of Forget the Alamo cover all but this last one that occurred after the book was published and in which they are personally involved.
There is a lesson here that has to be learned over and over and over again. It is that those who seek to censor books should remember that earlier efforts spurred increased sales of the book that they wished to suppress. This instance was no exception.
After the museum’s cancellation of the event, sales of the book shot up like a roman candle, eventually reaching number twenty-four in popularity on Amazon, while prior to the controversy it was down in the thousands. The writers should send a thank you note to the lieutenant governor for drawing that line in the sand.
By the way, all of these lines drawn in the sand arise from the legend that William Travis drew a line in the sand just prior to the attack on the Alamo, asking those who were willing to stay and fight to cross the line to his side. There is no solid evidence that it happened and that it is just that – a legend. But it did occur in Disney’s Davy Crockett TV mini-series in the 50s and in the John Wayne film in 1960, as well as numerous other movies, novels, and histories.
And then there is this: Phil Collins (yes, that Phil Collins) plays an important role in the current conflict involving a planned multi-million dollar museum that is to tell the story of the Alamo, assuming there will ever be any consensus on how the story should be told.
Even Ozzy Osbourne makes a cameo appearance at Alamo Plaza, and although it was a controversial one, he expressed no opinion about the battle or its defenders. Well, maybe he did – in a symbolic way.
May 20, 2023
I’m not steeped in American history much less the history of Texas, so maybe it’s not all that impressive to say that I learned a lot from this book. More impressive perhaps is the fact that Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick canceled a book event at a Texas museum featuring this book and its authors. The book centers on the facts of the Alamo history rather than the myth that has risen from that blood scrabbled ground where the Alamo occupants died during that 13 day siege from February 23-March 6, 1836. People who believe in the old stories (aka myths) are called traditionalists. People who are delving into the truth of the matter are called revisionists. I have a problem with the word revisionists because to me revision means changing something, so my thought was what are these guys changing. Digging a little deeper took me to the definition of historical revisionism as a reinterpretation of history that challenges the commonly held or orthodox views held by scholars and others. It is a serious business and not to be taken lightly. Revisionists can be wrong if they misinterpret events and/or motivations or have an agenda that leads them to present disinformation. The authors of this book seemed to me to be following a disciplined path to reveal the truth of events as they actually occurred.
Burrough, Tomlinson, and Stanford show how early Texians clashed with the Mexican government over the issue of slavery. Mexico gained its freedom from Spain in 1821 and in 1829 conditionally abolished slavery in its Mexican territories. The early Texas colony led by Stephen Austin settled in the rich bottomlands west of Houston, a place where they could grow cotton. And for that, they depended on slaves.
Here I am presenting dry, sad little facts, little branches without any leaves, whereas the authors fill in everything brilliantly until you are looking at what not only seems to be a glorious fully leafed tree, but a whole forest of them.
Slavery hadn’t been an issue under Spanish law, which allowed it. Wealthy Tejanos like the Sequins owned slaves themselves. But slavery would be a problem in the new country of Mexico. As backward as many Americans liked to portray it, the new Mexican government was dedicated to liberal ideals. Equal rights for all races had been the revolution’s rallying cry; in a land where 60 percent of the population was of mixed race, this was a powerful message…
…The best biography of Austin devotes fifteen pages to the year he spent lobbying in Mexico City, but of his efforts attempting to make sure his people could keep their slaves, there is but a single sentence. Austin was no some pro-slavery zealot. He belonged to a long line of Southern intellectuals going back to Thomas Jefferson who understood slavery was morally repugnant but who nevertheless owned slaves because it was the best way to make money. In other words, Stephen F. Austin was a sellout, a not-uncommon kind in his day.”
The sellout is a common feature in today’s landscape as well, particularly in the political landscape where politicians are afraid of people learning the true history of how we got here and all the bad things that happened and were done along the way. Do they think that people who don’t know the facts are more easily manipulated?
”Nothing is wanted but money,” Austin wrote in one letter, adding in another, “and negros are necessary to make it.”
The authors will show the reader how the issue of slavery underpinned the events that led to the Alamo. When it comes to the Alamo itself, the authors continued to disentangle myth from fact. How the Alamo story was told and how it was used to pump up the men fighting at San Jacinto a month and a half later, spurring them on to victory, became part of the Alamo lore. I was especially interested to hear the role the Tejanos played, which is often left out.
The moment the battle ended, the Alamo became a story, and a story told in times of war can be a powerful thing. It becomes propaganda, and in this way it can be viewed almost as a weaponized virus…
The first part of the book leading up to and about the Alamo and the battle at San Jacinto was most interesting to me. During the second part of the book my interest ebbed, with certain parts like how the Alamo is taught in Texas schools reigniting it again. An intriguing history that I read, then mostly listened to as an audiobook.
Burrough, Tomlinson, and Stanford show how early Texians clashed with the Mexican government over the issue of slavery. Mexico gained its freedom from Spain in 1821 and in 1829 conditionally abolished slavery in its Mexican territories. The early Texas colony led by Stephen Austin settled in the rich bottomlands west of Houston, a place where they could grow cotton. And for that, they depended on slaves.
Here I am presenting dry, sad little facts, little branches without any leaves, whereas the authors fill in everything brilliantly until you are looking at what not only seems to be a glorious fully leafed tree, but a whole forest of them.
Slavery hadn’t been an issue under Spanish law, which allowed it. Wealthy Tejanos like the Sequins owned slaves themselves. But slavery would be a problem in the new country of Mexico. As backward as many Americans liked to portray it, the new Mexican government was dedicated to liberal ideals. Equal rights for all races had been the revolution’s rallying cry; in a land where 60 percent of the population was of mixed race, this was a powerful message…
…The best biography of Austin devotes fifteen pages to the year he spent lobbying in Mexico City, but of his efforts attempting to make sure his people could keep their slaves, there is but a single sentence. Austin was no some pro-slavery zealot. He belonged to a long line of Southern intellectuals going back to Thomas Jefferson who understood slavery was morally repugnant but who nevertheless owned slaves because it was the best way to make money. In other words, Stephen F. Austin was a sellout, a not-uncommon kind in his day.”
The sellout is a common feature in today’s landscape as well, particularly in the political landscape where politicians are afraid of people learning the true history of how we got here and all the bad things that happened and were done along the way. Do they think that people who don’t know the facts are more easily manipulated?
”Nothing is wanted but money,” Austin wrote in one letter, adding in another, “and negros are necessary to make it.”
The authors will show the reader how the issue of slavery underpinned the events that led to the Alamo. When it comes to the Alamo itself, the authors continued to disentangle myth from fact. How the Alamo story was told and how it was used to pump up the men fighting at San Jacinto a month and a half later, spurring them on to victory, became part of the Alamo lore. I was especially interested to hear the role the Tejanos played, which is often left out.
The moment the battle ended, the Alamo became a story, and a story told in times of war can be a powerful thing. It becomes propaganda, and in this way it can be viewed almost as a weaponized virus…
The first part of the book leading up to and about the Alamo and the battle at San Jacinto was most interesting to me. During the second part of the book my interest ebbed, with certain parts like how the Alamo is taught in Texas schools reigniting it again. An intriguing history that I read, then mostly listened to as an audiobook.
July 11, 2021
Forget the ‘Heroic Anglo Narrative’ of Texas history! Burrough, Tomlinson, and Sandford have written a fact-based revisionist history of what really led up to the fiasco that occurred at the Alamo and the myth-making that followed the disaster.
When Spain controlled the territory, it encouraged immigration from the United States by offering free land, totally ignoring the presence of the indigenous population already there. The fertile land was perfect for raising cotton, but that required lots of cheap labor to produce—i.e., slaves. That became a sticking point when Mexico finally gained independence in 1821. Mexico was an abolitionist nation, and wanted to ban slavery in Texas. It also would have liked to have the Texians pay their taxes. The Tejanos, the local people of Spanish descent, wanted a less centralized/more federalist approach from the Mexican government. So, the Anglo immigrants and the Tejanos joined forces to advocate for Texan Independence.
The defense of the Alamo was suicidal from the start. The ‘Holy Trinity’ of the Alamo were less than heroic. Jim Bowie was a knife-wielding murderer, swindler, and slave trader. William Barret ‘Buck’ Travis was a racist syphilitic that boasted of having bedded 56 women. Davy Crockett was a former U.S. Congressman and self-promoter. Contemporaneous evidence shows that he surrendered to the Mexican Army before being executed.
Needless to say, a significant number of Texans are loathe to question their belief that the Alamo is the ‘Shrine of Texas Liberty’. The myth of the Alamo started with Sam Houston, who created a narrative that helped to mobilize support for Texan independence. The Alamo myth grew to support white supremacy, completely ignoring the Tejanos that died at the fort. Oh yes, and the plaza covers a Native American cemetery, that Texans also like to ignore.
Sadly, the Texans have not protected their national landmark as it deserves. The second half of the book recounts the squabbling among the various groups that have a vested interest in the Alamo. And then there is Phil Collins, an avid collector of all things Alamo-related (but many of questionable provenance) that has requested a $450 million museum to display them. [Good luck!]
Highly recommend this fascinating account.
When Spain controlled the territory, it encouraged immigration from the United States by offering free land, totally ignoring the presence of the indigenous population already there. The fertile land was perfect for raising cotton, but that required lots of cheap labor to produce—i.e., slaves. That became a sticking point when Mexico finally gained independence in 1821. Mexico was an abolitionist nation, and wanted to ban slavery in Texas. It also would have liked to have the Texians pay their taxes. The Tejanos, the local people of Spanish descent, wanted a less centralized/more federalist approach from the Mexican government. So, the Anglo immigrants and the Tejanos joined forces to advocate for Texan Independence.
The defense of the Alamo was suicidal from the start. The ‘Holy Trinity’ of the Alamo were less than heroic. Jim Bowie was a knife-wielding murderer, swindler, and slave trader. William Barret ‘Buck’ Travis was a racist syphilitic that boasted of having bedded 56 women. Davy Crockett was a former U.S. Congressman and self-promoter. Contemporaneous evidence shows that he surrendered to the Mexican Army before being executed.
Needless to say, a significant number of Texans are loathe to question their belief that the Alamo is the ‘Shrine of Texas Liberty’. The myth of the Alamo started with Sam Houston, who created a narrative that helped to mobilize support for Texan independence. The Alamo myth grew to support white supremacy, completely ignoring the Tejanos that died at the fort. Oh yes, and the plaza covers a Native American cemetery, that Texans also like to ignore.
Sadly, the Texans have not protected their national landmark as it deserves. The second half of the book recounts the squabbling among the various groups that have a vested interest in the Alamo. And then there is Phil Collins, an avid collector of all things Alamo-related (but many of questionable provenance) that has requested a $450 million museum to display them. [Good luck!]
Highly recommend this fascinating account.
June 6, 2021
I particularly enjoy reading histories that complicate over-simplified myths we tell ourselves. Plus I grew up in Texas and remember how we were taught the 'history' of the Alamo in school and visiting the site.
This book is both a history and a historiography--writing the history of the history itself. It begins with the background and context of the battle at the Alamo. The second part reveals the various strands of storytelling that created the myth. The last part of the book centers on our culture wars, showing how revisionist tellings slowly emerged and then the ever-present backlash locked in against dismantling the myth.
What I particularly appreciated was the connection of the battle to the larger context. Mexican politics, chaotic after its independence, wrestled with similar issues to the U.S., also a new nation: states rights versus federalism; how to make slavery 'palatable' (particularly in abolitionist Mexico); and the role that Texas played in attracting American Southerners and flame-outs from the U.S. looking to make money without scruples.
What I found most distracting was the flippant tone the authors interjected. Woven into the historical writing were phrases like "pissing people off" and "We're not huge fans of." Each time, I found this writing choice jarring, disrupting the arguments and undermining the seriousness of the subject matter. The authors seemed to think they needed a pop culture reference to engage readers, using Phil Collins and his Alamo-object collection as a hook in the beginning. Rather than entice me to read further, I wondered if the book would be worthwhile.
With these caveats, it was. I made some interesting connections and appreciated the wide-ranging discussion of the politics of mythology.
Thank you to NetGalley and Penguin Press for the opportunity to read an advance review copy.
This book is both a history and a historiography--writing the history of the history itself. It begins with the background and context of the battle at the Alamo. The second part reveals the various strands of storytelling that created the myth. The last part of the book centers on our culture wars, showing how revisionist tellings slowly emerged and then the ever-present backlash locked in against dismantling the myth.
What I particularly appreciated was the connection of the battle to the larger context. Mexican politics, chaotic after its independence, wrestled with similar issues to the U.S., also a new nation: states rights versus federalism; how to make slavery 'palatable' (particularly in abolitionist Mexico); and the role that Texas played in attracting American Southerners and flame-outs from the U.S. looking to make money without scruples.
What I found most distracting was the flippant tone the authors interjected. Woven into the historical writing were phrases like "pissing people off" and "We're not huge fans of." Each time, I found this writing choice jarring, disrupting the arguments and undermining the seriousness of the subject matter. The authors seemed to think they needed a pop culture reference to engage readers, using Phil Collins and his Alamo-object collection as a hook in the beginning. Rather than entice me to read further, I wondered if the book would be worthwhile.
With these caveats, it was. I made some interesting connections and appreciated the wide-ranging discussion of the politics of mythology.
Thank you to NetGalley and Penguin Press for the opportunity to read an advance review copy.
February 17, 2023
Fantastic book that explores the myth vs the facts about the Alamo. The Alamo is an iconic symbol of nationalism and tempers flare between traditionalists and revisionists of history.
Singer Phil Collins collected Alamo artifacts and donated them to the Alamo with an understanding that a world-class museum would be built on Alamo grounds.
History doesn't change but the way we view it changes. The issue surrounding the battle of the Alamo was around slavery. The Mexican government had an ingrained opposition to slavery. For Texans, slavery was a requirement for wealth creation.
The defeat at the Alamo became Sam Houston's rallying cry for the troops at the battle of San Jacinto. Sam Houston became the President of Texas. Texas joined the US in December 1845.
Jeff Long researched the history of the Alamo for over five years and wrote a book called Duel of Eagles in 1990. The Houston Chronicle wrote, "If he isn't careful, Jeff Long may become the Salman Rushdie of Texas." Long received death threats because he challenged the Texas creation myth of the Alamo.
Controversy and protests have continued to occur at and about the Alamo.
Highly recommend!
Singer Phil Collins collected Alamo artifacts and donated them to the Alamo with an understanding that a world-class museum would be built on Alamo grounds.
History doesn't change but the way we view it changes. The issue surrounding the battle of the Alamo was around slavery. The Mexican government had an ingrained opposition to slavery. For Texans, slavery was a requirement for wealth creation.
The defeat at the Alamo became Sam Houston's rallying cry for the troops at the battle of San Jacinto. Sam Houston became the President of Texas. Texas joined the US in December 1845.
Jeff Long researched the history of the Alamo for over five years and wrote a book called Duel of Eagles in 1990. The Houston Chronicle wrote, "If he isn't careful, Jeff Long may become the Salman Rushdie of Texas." Long received death threats because he challenged the Texas creation myth of the Alamo.
Controversy and protests have continued to occur at and about the Alamo.
Highly recommend!
December 3, 2021
Forget the Alamo' by Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson, and Jason Stanford is a historiography. The book is about what really happened at the Alamo, and how this actual history, which is known from a number of reliable sources, has been completely buried under a lot of creative messaging by politicians and sweetening by Disney TV shows. The weirdest part of all of this to me is how educated Texans who know the historical truth of the battle story at the Alamo still insist on writing textbooks and making celebratory monuments, and have created state laws, that enforce the teaching of beliefs in junk Alamo history. Texas school children and dazzled tourists never know what really happened at the Alamo because almost all Texans prefer the inspirational version for a variety of reasons.
Texas was not an American territory. Texas was first claimed by Spain, and then by Mexico. However, both countries were not able to move very many settlers to Texas. Americans came in waves, depending on circumstances of what was happening in the U.S or Mexico. A Mexican government would decide to encourage Americans to come to be absorbed into Mexican culture and citizenship. A Mexican coup would bring another Mexican government which changed course and would decide to discourage Americans. However, Mexico was not able to control Texas except in periodic episodes when military troops were sent to restore Mexican authority. Mexico was undergoing quite a few political problems which are discussed in this book. But throughout most of the times that Mexico was enduring yet another political turn of events, slavery was forbidden to Mexicans by law, which American immigrants were expected to obey.
The Americans who arrived in Texas brought their slaves with them. Parts of Texas had soil which was perfect for growing cotton. Cotton farming was a profitable business only if slaves harvested the cotton. Americans ignored the laws of Mexico forbidding slaves, and established cotton farms wherever whenever. Becoming a citizen of Mexico and being absorbed into Mexican culture was not the plan, especially since most Americans of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries believed White people were superior to any other races. Americans came to Mexico to make money and/or also often running away from their pasts. Many of these immigrant Americans had committed crimes or left a lot of debts or failed businesses behind them.
The 'heroes' of the Alamo - especially Davy Crockett, James Bowie, William Travis - were people with a lot of charisma and very checkered pasts. Except for Travis, it appears many of the heroes were drunks and criminals and con artists who had worn out their welcome in America. From the book, it seems they got caught up in a moment of 'saving the Alamo'. As the book tells the story of what really happened, I was amused. Yes, they died at the hands of Mexican troops commanded by Santa Anna. But they all died very stupid deaths, and they were all fighting for the right to own slaves.
Even more amusing is how this military skirmish became blown entirely out of proportion and meaning. Once the book begins discussing how the true history of the battle at the Alamo was reshaped over and over, my amusement turned into shocked amazement!
And, apparently, no one much cared about what happened at the Alamo for fifty years after the event because, hello, it was a stupid unnecessary 'last stand' undertook by ridiculous American fighters fighting against a legal government struggling to capture pro-slavery insurrectionists. This true history was well known at the time and had been discussed factually in memoirs and letters. Even after "The Alamo" became immortalized as a extremely bent Founding Myth of Texas, no money was spent on the actual Alamo to keep it maintained, and parts of the buildings have been torn down and built over by new structures and shops to sell Alamo "real artifacts!" and manufactured gimcracks. Tourists today often find a visit to the Alamo a very disappointing twenty-minute guided tour ending in the opportunity to buy stuff.
However, I am horrified that current Texas politicians are requiring a fairy-tale story of the military fight at the Alamo to be taught in elementary and secondary school textbooks! They are knowingly doing this! Because they think the fairy tale important to maintaining conservative politicians in office, of course. The fact that all of the Alamo "heroes" were fighting for the right to own slaves has been completely eliminated from the narrative. Many Mexican-Americans also fought battles with Mexico to make Texas an American territory as well, and this has been eliminated from the story too.
O _ o
Plus, Disney Inc. also has much to answer for in this debacle of lies and fairy-tale history. The inspirational story of Davy Crockett, as seen by children watching Disney TV shows, has led to millions of liberal baby boomers fighting for civil rights! What do you think of that, gentle reader?
Wow. I mean, wow.
In spite of the extensive scholarship, the writers maintain a mainstream vernacular throughout and there isn't a lot of unfriendly obsessive detail without reason to be there. The chronology of actual historical events and the following rewrites of the actual past in history are in an easily discerned timeline. Sometimes, though, the writers are obviously as astonished as readers are in reading about the sheer chutzpah of various historical figures in spinning and reshaping the true history of the Alamo for a variety of amazing and horrible reasons.
"Forget the Alamo" has maps of Texas in 1836, the March of Santa Anna, the campaign of San Jacinto and the Alamo. It also has extensive Notes and Bibliography sections, with lots of acknowledgments and an Index. They used primary documents, Spanish interpreters and factcheckers.
Texas was not an American territory. Texas was first claimed by Spain, and then by Mexico. However, both countries were not able to move very many settlers to Texas. Americans came in waves, depending on circumstances of what was happening in the U.S or Mexico. A Mexican government would decide to encourage Americans to come to be absorbed into Mexican culture and citizenship. A Mexican coup would bring another Mexican government which changed course and would decide to discourage Americans. However, Mexico was not able to control Texas except in periodic episodes when military troops were sent to restore Mexican authority. Mexico was undergoing quite a few political problems which are discussed in this book. But throughout most of the times that Mexico was enduring yet another political turn of events, slavery was forbidden to Mexicans by law, which American immigrants were expected to obey.
The Americans who arrived in Texas brought their slaves with them. Parts of Texas had soil which was perfect for growing cotton. Cotton farming was a profitable business only if slaves harvested the cotton. Americans ignored the laws of Mexico forbidding slaves, and established cotton farms wherever whenever. Becoming a citizen of Mexico and being absorbed into Mexican culture was not the plan, especially since most Americans of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries believed White people were superior to any other races. Americans came to Mexico to make money and/or also often running away from their pasts. Many of these immigrant Americans had committed crimes or left a lot of debts or failed businesses behind them.
The 'heroes' of the Alamo - especially Davy Crockett, James Bowie, William Travis - were people with a lot of charisma and very checkered pasts. Except for Travis, it appears many of the heroes were drunks and criminals and con artists who had worn out their welcome in America. From the book, it seems they got caught up in a moment of 'saving the Alamo'. As the book tells the story of what really happened, I was amused. Yes, they died at the hands of Mexican troops commanded by Santa Anna. But they all died very stupid deaths, and they were all fighting for the right to own slaves.
Even more amusing is how this military skirmish became blown entirely out of proportion and meaning. Once the book begins discussing how the true history of the battle at the Alamo was reshaped over and over, my amusement turned into shocked amazement!
And, apparently, no one much cared about what happened at the Alamo for fifty years after the event because, hello, it was a stupid unnecessary 'last stand' undertook by ridiculous American fighters fighting against a legal government struggling to capture pro-slavery insurrectionists. This true history was well known at the time and had been discussed factually in memoirs and letters. Even after "The Alamo" became immortalized as a extremely bent Founding Myth of Texas, no money was spent on the actual Alamo to keep it maintained, and parts of the buildings have been torn down and built over by new structures and shops to sell Alamo "real artifacts!" and manufactured gimcracks. Tourists today often find a visit to the Alamo a very disappointing twenty-minute guided tour ending in the opportunity to buy stuff.
However, I am horrified that current Texas politicians are requiring a fairy-tale story of the military fight at the Alamo to be taught in elementary and secondary school textbooks! They are knowingly doing this! Because they think the fairy tale important to maintaining conservative politicians in office, of course. The fact that all of the Alamo "heroes" were fighting for the right to own slaves has been completely eliminated from the narrative. Many Mexican-Americans also fought battles with Mexico to make Texas an American territory as well, and this has been eliminated from the story too.
O _ o
Plus, Disney Inc. also has much to answer for in this debacle of lies and fairy-tale history. The inspirational story of Davy Crockett, as seen by children watching Disney TV shows, has led to millions of liberal baby boomers fighting for civil rights! What do you think of that, gentle reader?
Wow. I mean, wow.
In spite of the extensive scholarship, the writers maintain a mainstream vernacular throughout and there isn't a lot of unfriendly obsessive detail without reason to be there. The chronology of actual historical events and the following rewrites of the actual past in history are in an easily discerned timeline. Sometimes, though, the writers are obviously as astonished as readers are in reading about the sheer chutzpah of various historical figures in spinning and reshaping the true history of the Alamo for a variety of amazing and horrible reasons.
"Forget the Alamo" has maps of Texas in 1836, the March of Santa Anna, the campaign of San Jacinto and the Alamo. It also has extensive Notes and Bibliography sections, with lots of acknowledgments and an Index. They used primary documents, Spanish interpreters and factcheckers.
August 22, 2023
Sadly, what I know about the Alamo comes almost exclusively from Brian Kilmeade’s book “Sam Houston and the Alamo Avengers”, a book that I actually enjoyed, despite the fact that it was written by Kilmeade, a FOX News anchor who has said and done some boneheaded things in his career.
The fact that Kilmeade’s book—-and what Texans have been, and are still, taught about the Alamo in schools—-is mostly horseshit shouldn’t be surprising, given what we know about Kilmeade and Texas. And the United States, for that matter.
History is wonderful and exciting, but you couldn’t tell that from listening in on an average American middle school or high school history class. Mostly, it’s the sound of crickets or students snoring. The teachers aren’t necessarily to blame, either, as there are so many factors—-outdated textbooks, lousy content standards, more class time devoted to standardized testing than actual learning—-that make history so boring for kids. We are basically raising a nation of children to not give a shit about history, which is not only shameful but dangerous.
Thankfully, there are historians out there who still give a damn. Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson, and Jason Stanford have collaborated on one of the best history books I have read in a while, “Forget the Alamo: The Rise and Fall of an American Myth”. It’s a lightening-rod title, and it’s meant to be.
Much of this book may not resonate too strongly with anyone who is not a history buff or from Texas, as it is almost exclusively an issue that affects only Texas historians and academics, but it has repercussions for all Americans and encompasses a lot of hot-button issues such as the rise of white supremacy, political correctness, and critical race theory.
It’s more than a book of history. To be clear, this book is actually more historiography than history. Historiography is the study of the way history is told and the different methodologies through the years that have shaped history. It is the way history is interpreted and revised through the lens of any particular era.
For example, for many decades following the famous 1836 battle at the Alamo Mission near what is now San Antonio, TX, Texans considered the fallen defenders (estimated between 180-260 men) against an army of roughly 1800 Mexican soldiers to be heroes. Indeed, the Hero mythology surrounding men like Sam Houston, William Travis, Jim Bowie, and Davy Crockett elevated them to almost God-like status, and any criticism of them was akin to sacrilege.
Now, historical revisionists are looking at these so-called “heroes” in a different light and pointing out that much of their “heroic” actions they are known for probably didn’t actually happen and was based solely on fictional accounts in popular novels, movies, and TV shows. Much like the events of the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral in Tombstone, AZ, a lot of what we think we know about the event was simply not historically accurate.
There is also the strong element of racism in the Alamo’s historiography, as many Texans of a certain generation grew up calling Mexicans “murderers” in much the same way that ignorant Christians still brand Jews as “Christ’s murderers”. In truth, the cruelty and viciousness of the Mexican army was, in many ways, exaggerated tenfold, simply to create a narrative in which Mexicans were the villains of a story where, truthfully, there were no actual heroes or villains.
And, of course, there is the over-arching shadow of slavery that covers this entire story, a shadow which has—-up until recently—-been all but erased from much of Texan’s knowledge of the Alamo. That early Texans engaged in a violent revolution against Mexico primarily over the right to own slaves is still an important piece of information that tends to get glossed over in Texas school books.
Historical revisionists have, in the past couple decades, tried to set the record straight, but they are getting major push-back from a largely conservative right-wing contingent who deride the revisionists as leftists who are taking “political correctness” too far.
The good news is that many more voices are being heard that lend a different and fresh viewpoint to the story of the Alamo. More Mexicans, blacks, Native Americans, and women are entering the story, none of which take away from the importance of the event. If anything, their voices simply add more depth to a story that has always been slightly one-sided.
“Forget the Alamo” is a must-read for anyone who loves history. It’s also a must-read for anyone who has a hard time accepting the “official story”. True history often shows itself when enough people dig deep to find the actual story.
The fact that Kilmeade’s book—-and what Texans have been, and are still, taught about the Alamo in schools—-is mostly horseshit shouldn’t be surprising, given what we know about Kilmeade and Texas. And the United States, for that matter.
History is wonderful and exciting, but you couldn’t tell that from listening in on an average American middle school or high school history class. Mostly, it’s the sound of crickets or students snoring. The teachers aren’t necessarily to blame, either, as there are so many factors—-outdated textbooks, lousy content standards, more class time devoted to standardized testing than actual learning—-that make history so boring for kids. We are basically raising a nation of children to not give a shit about history, which is not only shameful but dangerous.
Thankfully, there are historians out there who still give a damn. Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson, and Jason Stanford have collaborated on one of the best history books I have read in a while, “Forget the Alamo: The Rise and Fall of an American Myth”. It’s a lightening-rod title, and it’s meant to be.
Much of this book may not resonate too strongly with anyone who is not a history buff or from Texas, as it is almost exclusively an issue that affects only Texas historians and academics, but it has repercussions for all Americans and encompasses a lot of hot-button issues such as the rise of white supremacy, political correctness, and critical race theory.
It’s more than a book of history. To be clear, this book is actually more historiography than history. Historiography is the study of the way history is told and the different methodologies through the years that have shaped history. It is the way history is interpreted and revised through the lens of any particular era.
For example, for many decades following the famous 1836 battle at the Alamo Mission near what is now San Antonio, TX, Texans considered the fallen defenders (estimated between 180-260 men) against an army of roughly 1800 Mexican soldiers to be heroes. Indeed, the Hero mythology surrounding men like Sam Houston, William Travis, Jim Bowie, and Davy Crockett elevated them to almost God-like status, and any criticism of them was akin to sacrilege.
Now, historical revisionists are looking at these so-called “heroes” in a different light and pointing out that much of their “heroic” actions they are known for probably didn’t actually happen and was based solely on fictional accounts in popular novels, movies, and TV shows. Much like the events of the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral in Tombstone, AZ, a lot of what we think we know about the event was simply not historically accurate.
There is also the strong element of racism in the Alamo’s historiography, as many Texans of a certain generation grew up calling Mexicans “murderers” in much the same way that ignorant Christians still brand Jews as “Christ’s murderers”. In truth, the cruelty and viciousness of the Mexican army was, in many ways, exaggerated tenfold, simply to create a narrative in which Mexicans were the villains of a story where, truthfully, there were no actual heroes or villains.
And, of course, there is the over-arching shadow of slavery that covers this entire story, a shadow which has—-up until recently—-been all but erased from much of Texan’s knowledge of the Alamo. That early Texans engaged in a violent revolution against Mexico primarily over the right to own slaves is still an important piece of information that tends to get glossed over in Texas school books.
Historical revisionists have, in the past couple decades, tried to set the record straight, but they are getting major push-back from a largely conservative right-wing contingent who deride the revisionists as leftists who are taking “political correctness” too far.
The good news is that many more voices are being heard that lend a different and fresh viewpoint to the story of the Alamo. More Mexicans, blacks, Native Americans, and women are entering the story, none of which take away from the importance of the event. If anything, their voices simply add more depth to a story that has always been slightly one-sided.
“Forget the Alamo” is a must-read for anyone who loves history. It’s also a must-read for anyone who has a hard time accepting the “official story”. True history often shows itself when enough people dig deep to find the actual story.
June 20, 2021
This book is great for its telling of the long and colorful Battle OVER the Alamo, which is almost as fascinating as the Battle OF the Alamo. For a look at historiography and how the telling of history changes over time, this book does well.
However, the writers make virtually no effort to hide their anti-white, Woke agenda in the telling of their imaginary version of Texas revolutionary history. If you’re looking for a historically accurate account of the Battle of the Alamo, then this book isn’t for you. But if you’re looking for somebody to call out John Wayne’s Alamo bullshit, only to litter its pages with a whole new load of bullshit, then you are in luck!
You can advocate for a telling of Alamo history that is inclusive to all races, people, and parties involved, even the Mexican army. I believe most Texans want that. The story is, as the authors point out, way more interesting that way. By all means, include the fact that a large part of the justification for the fight was slavery. Definitely include the fact that the Texian army was a band of misfits, for the most part, who were seriously flawed people. It goes with the territory – it’s called the Wild West for a reason. The Texians were mostly fleeing the United States because they were derelicts. Also, it was a totally different time. I mean, Santa Anna was literally the sitting President of Mexico, when he rode 3,000 miles round-trip on horseback to handle the matter personally. Can you imagine Richard Nixon riding a tank through Saigon, lobbing grenades at people?
The history of the Texas Revolution is deeply complicated, with plenty of warts to go around. By all means, dwell on those warts. Put them in the museum. After all, they’ve already been covered in the 7th Grade Texas History curriculum the writers despise so much, since at least as early as the 1980s, when I took the course. We all learned about the slaves then, about Lorenzo de Zavala’s and Juan Seguin’s contributions then, and about the personal faults of most of the Texian leaders (and Mexican leader, whose faults the writers apparently don't know about). Let’s continue to have the conversation, because the conversation is an outstanding one.
But what you SHOULDN’T do is: pretend the Alamo was historically irrelevant and unimportant. That’s what the writers here have done, and they are wrong. They claim that militarily, the Alamo didn’t play a major role. That it was in vain. That the people who died defending it were not heroic (I guess, because one of them was a slave trading dirtbag and another one had an STD, which they mentioned three different times, for some reason).
They say that because Santa Anna expected to be in San Antonio by March 2, the whole battle only bought Texians 4 days, and was therefore a waste of time and lives for the Texians. Irrespective of when Santa Anna expected to be in San Antonio, he was still delayed 13 days trying to defeat the Alamo. He still lost 1,000 soldiers in the process. This was critical to the success of Sam Houston’s army, who had 13 additional days to prepare, and who faced 1,300 men at San Jacinto instead of 2,300 men. In fact, Sam Houston likely would not have won at San Jacinto without the actions of the defenders of the Alamo, and without the rallying cry, “Remember the Alamo!” which the writers deem racist. Never mind the fact that Santa Anna was a despotic war criminal (who couldn’t get along with his own Mexican brethren, let alone anybody else). Never mind that he was literally committing war crimes at Goliad, Gonzales, and San Antonio, while he was on his way to commit more war crimes against Sam Houston’s army.
So yes, the Alamo was important to Texas’ creation. Yes, the defenders were heroic (white AND Tejano defenders, of course). Yes, the events there led to one of the largest transfers of power, land, and sovereignty in the history of our species. And no, you cannot pretend it didn’t happen because slavery was somehow involved.
For trying to cancel the Alamo, the writers of this book are hereby canceled, effective immediately. They are free to leave the State of Texas as soon as possible.
However, the writers make virtually no effort to hide their anti-white, Woke agenda in the telling of their imaginary version of Texas revolutionary history. If you’re looking for a historically accurate account of the Battle of the Alamo, then this book isn’t for you. But if you’re looking for somebody to call out John Wayne’s Alamo bullshit, only to litter its pages with a whole new load of bullshit, then you are in luck!
You can advocate for a telling of Alamo history that is inclusive to all races, people, and parties involved, even the Mexican army. I believe most Texans want that. The story is, as the authors point out, way more interesting that way. By all means, include the fact that a large part of the justification for the fight was slavery. Definitely include the fact that the Texian army was a band of misfits, for the most part, who were seriously flawed people. It goes with the territory – it’s called the Wild West for a reason. The Texians were mostly fleeing the United States because they were derelicts. Also, it was a totally different time. I mean, Santa Anna was literally the sitting President of Mexico, when he rode 3,000 miles round-trip on horseback to handle the matter personally. Can you imagine Richard Nixon riding a tank through Saigon, lobbing grenades at people?
The history of the Texas Revolution is deeply complicated, with plenty of warts to go around. By all means, dwell on those warts. Put them in the museum. After all, they’ve already been covered in the 7th Grade Texas History curriculum the writers despise so much, since at least as early as the 1980s, when I took the course. We all learned about the slaves then, about Lorenzo de Zavala’s and Juan Seguin’s contributions then, and about the personal faults of most of the Texian leaders (and Mexican leader, whose faults the writers apparently don't know about). Let’s continue to have the conversation, because the conversation is an outstanding one.
But what you SHOULDN’T do is: pretend the Alamo was historically irrelevant and unimportant. That’s what the writers here have done, and they are wrong. They claim that militarily, the Alamo didn’t play a major role. That it was in vain. That the people who died defending it were not heroic (I guess, because one of them was a slave trading dirtbag and another one had an STD, which they mentioned three different times, for some reason).
They say that because Santa Anna expected to be in San Antonio by March 2, the whole battle only bought Texians 4 days, and was therefore a waste of time and lives for the Texians. Irrespective of when Santa Anna expected to be in San Antonio, he was still delayed 13 days trying to defeat the Alamo. He still lost 1,000 soldiers in the process. This was critical to the success of Sam Houston’s army, who had 13 additional days to prepare, and who faced 1,300 men at San Jacinto instead of 2,300 men. In fact, Sam Houston likely would not have won at San Jacinto without the actions of the defenders of the Alamo, and without the rallying cry, “Remember the Alamo!” which the writers deem racist. Never mind the fact that Santa Anna was a despotic war criminal (who couldn’t get along with his own Mexican brethren, let alone anybody else). Never mind that he was literally committing war crimes at Goliad, Gonzales, and San Antonio, while he was on his way to commit more war crimes against Sam Houston’s army.
So yes, the Alamo was important to Texas’ creation. Yes, the defenders were heroic (white AND Tejano defenders, of course). Yes, the events there led to one of the largest transfers of power, land, and sovereignty in the history of our species. And no, you cannot pretend it didn’t happen because slavery was somehow involved.
For trying to cancel the Alamo, the writers of this book are hereby canceled, effective immediately. They are free to leave the State of Texas as soon as possible.
February 18, 2024
The only time I give one star reviews on a non-fiction book is if I feel as if the author(s) are guilty of academic malefeasance or intentional dishonesty as I do here.
Before you discard me as somebody who is giving this book a 1 star review because I don't like the hypothesis or position being argued, let me set that record straight.
I am a student of history and love Texas History. But I also believe that Texas history has been blind to reality. I 100% agree with the authors that Texas history is not the myth that we've been taught. I 100% agree that the role of slavery in Texas history has been swept under the rug and that the Texas laws requiring the romantic view of Texas history are flawed.
In short, the principles and ideas behind the book are ones that I firmly agree with.
Unfortunately, when I read this book, I couldn't help but think that the authors intentionally used inflamatory language and rhetoric to make an emotional appeal rather than an intellectual one. In my opinion, they used bias words and phrases to make the argument, rather than letting the facts speak for themselves. This undermined their argument as it emphasized the author's lack of objectivity and shere comtempt for those who don't accept it.
I was really hoping for a coherent argument that presented the facts (and hopefully cited other sources to show that these facts were known, but hidden). Other historians have touched upon the issue, but shied away from it.
Instead, I found a book that was preaching to the choir---a book that was written for those who wanted to see what the authors were arguing---a book whose goal is to inflame rather than educate. Kind of like listening to a political commentator on the radio.
Again, *I* was profoundly disappointed in the delivery.
EDIT: Just finished the book South to Freedom: Runaway Slaves to Mexico and the Road to the Civil War. The title is a little deceptive as the book didn't really talk about slaves escaping to Mexico, (which cost the book a star) but that book is what this book wanted to be. An academic survery on the subject of Texas and Slavery. Very good coverage without the infamatory nonsense that this book presented. Here is my review:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Before you discard me as somebody who is giving this book a 1 star review because I don't like the hypothesis or position being argued, let me set that record straight.
I am a student of history and love Texas History. But I also believe that Texas history has been blind to reality. I 100% agree with the authors that Texas history is not the myth that we've been taught. I 100% agree that the role of slavery in Texas history has been swept under the rug and that the Texas laws requiring the romantic view of Texas history are flawed.
In short, the principles and ideas behind the book are ones that I firmly agree with.
Unfortunately, when I read this book, I couldn't help but think that the authors intentionally used inflamatory language and rhetoric to make an emotional appeal rather than an intellectual one. In my opinion, they used bias words and phrases to make the argument, rather than letting the facts speak for themselves. This undermined their argument as it emphasized the author's lack of objectivity and shere comtempt for those who don't accept it.
I was really hoping for a coherent argument that presented the facts (and hopefully cited other sources to show that these facts were known, but hidden). Other historians have touched upon the issue, but shied away from it.
Instead, I found a book that was preaching to the choir---a book that was written for those who wanted to see what the authors were arguing---a book whose goal is to inflame rather than educate. Kind of like listening to a political commentator on the radio.
Again, *I* was profoundly disappointed in the delivery.
EDIT: Just finished the book South to Freedom: Runaway Slaves to Mexico and the Road to the Civil War. The title is a little deceptive as the book didn't really talk about slaves escaping to Mexico, (which cost the book a star) but that book is what this book wanted to be. An academic survery on the subject of Texas and Slavery. Very good coverage without the infamatory nonsense that this book presented. Here is my review:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
May 3, 2021
I received this as an e-galley from NetGalley.
I always tell people I lived in Texas just under a year- and I took Texas history 2x. It is literally taught to every grade every school year- point being Texas takes their history SERIOUSLY.
This was a heavily researched book about the myth of Alamo, historiography, and Phil Collins trivia?! But it all works. I couldn't stop talking to my Dad about this book the whole time I was reading it- which is a good sign for a history book.
I always tell people I lived in Texas just under a year- and I took Texas history 2x. It is literally taught to every grade every school year- point being Texas takes their history SERIOUSLY.
This was a heavily researched book about the myth of Alamo, historiography, and Phil Collins trivia?! But it all works. I couldn't stop talking to my Dad about this book the whole time I was reading it- which is a good sign for a history book.
May 22, 2023
Caveat: This book first came to my attention when I read reports that Texas Governor Greg Abbott canceled a book event at the Texas State History Museum because it featured a discussion about this book. I tend to consider any attempt to ban or limit the distribution of any book as an invitation to read it, so here we are.
I have long held the opinion that in wartime, anything we hear, we hear because someone on one side of the war or the other wants us to hear it. They don’t tell us things for our own edification but to further promote their agenda. This has always been so and probably always will be.
This is especially true about the Alamo, a militarily insignificant battle that took place during the Texas Revolt, an insurrection advocating the secession of Texas from Mexico. In a move that presaged the American Civil War, the instigators were mostly young bachelors, passionately pro-slavery Southerners deeply suspicious of seemingly all authority, Mexican or Anglo. From the very start, the economy of American settlements in Texas was heavily dependent on slavery. They came to Texas to farm cotton and to do that, they needed slaves. Under Spanish law that wasn’t a problem as Spain allowed slavery. But when Mexico gained independence from Spain, its platform of social egalitarianism led it to outlaw the practice, the Texians (American residents of Texas) exhausted all legal efforts of overturning the ban and then began talking about open rebellion, forcing the Mexican government to send troops to suppress the uprising.
It's interesting that the villain in this story, General Antonio López de Santa Anna, was once considered Texas’s best hope for a peaceful resolution to the problem. Some months before the revolt began, Stephen Austin described him to a friend, writing that “He is very friendly to Texas and it would be an advantage to that country if he would pay it a visit.” I wonder if he ever came to regret that invitation.
I’m not going to go into the character of those who fought and died at the Alamo other than to say that whatever they did in life, they died well. True, the commonly-held misconception that they died fighting to the last man on the ramparts has been largely discredited. Multiple Mexican accounts report that as many as half of the defenders attempted to break out, only to be run down and killed by Santa Anna’s crack cavalry units. Others, including Crockett, apparently surrendered but were subsequently executed. In the end, the very fact that they chose to remain should quash any suggestion of cowardice, regardless of whether they stood their ground or attempted to break out. But as the authors write:
To this day, the Alamo has never been more than a propaganda tool, first to Houston, whose troops swooped down on their unprepared enemy at San Jacinto shouting Remember the Alamo, but later on more unlikely occasions as Walt Disney’s war against the trade unions, the Cold War, Vietnam and even Afghanistan. Most disturbing, though, is how the battle has become a shrine and a rallying cry by the forces of white nationalism.
The authors penned this book in an offhand, humorous manner that seemed to make fun of many of the people involved. While it may have boosted sales, I think it detracted from the seriousness of the topic. They summarized the book with the following lines.
I’ll close this review with a quote from a truly great Texas warrior, newspaper columnist Molly Ivins. I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag.
My thanks to the late Mike Sullivan, aka Lawyer, and all the folks at the On the Southern Literary Trail group for giving me the opportunity to read and discuss this and many other fine books.
I have long held the opinion that in wartime, anything we hear, we hear because someone on one side of the war or the other wants us to hear it. They don’t tell us things for our own edification but to further promote their agenda. This has always been so and probably always will be.
This is especially true about the Alamo, a militarily insignificant battle that took place during the Texas Revolt, an insurrection advocating the secession of Texas from Mexico. In a move that presaged the American Civil War, the instigators were mostly young bachelors, passionately pro-slavery Southerners deeply suspicious of seemingly all authority, Mexican or Anglo. From the very start, the economy of American settlements in Texas was heavily dependent on slavery. They came to Texas to farm cotton and to do that, they needed slaves. Under Spanish law that wasn’t a problem as Spain allowed slavery. But when Mexico gained independence from Spain, its platform of social egalitarianism led it to outlaw the practice, the Texians (American residents of Texas) exhausted all legal efforts of overturning the ban and then began talking about open rebellion, forcing the Mexican government to send troops to suppress the uprising.
It's interesting that the villain in this story, General Antonio López de Santa Anna, was once considered Texas’s best hope for a peaceful resolution to the problem. Some months before the revolt began, Stephen Austin described him to a friend, writing that “He is very friendly to Texas and it would be an advantage to that country if he would pay it a visit.” I wonder if he ever came to regret that invitation.
I’m not going to go into the character of those who fought and died at the Alamo other than to say that whatever they did in life, they died well. True, the commonly-held misconception that they died fighting to the last man on the ramparts has been largely discredited. Multiple Mexican accounts report that as many as half of the defenders attempted to break out, only to be run down and killed by Santa Anna’s crack cavalry units. Others, including Crockett, apparently surrendered but were subsequently executed. In the end, the very fact that they chose to remain should quash any suggestion of cowardice, regardless of whether they stood their ground or attempted to break out. But as the authors write:
The moment the battle ended, the Alamo became a story, and a story told in times of war can be a powerful thing. It becomes propaganda, and in this way it can be viewed almost as a weaponized virus, something that can be contained or spread, something that can trigger panic or destroy an enemy’s morale, even prompt defections.
The Alamo narrative would never be as important as it was in those first weeks after the battle. From the outset, Santa Anna and Sam Houston understood its potential impact and strove to mold it for their own uses. Santa Anna hoped the tale of a crushing loss would sap the will of Houston’s fighters. Houston would shape it into a rallying cry.
To this day, the Alamo has never been more than a propaganda tool, first to Houston, whose troops swooped down on their unprepared enemy at San Jacinto shouting Remember the Alamo, but later on more unlikely occasions as Walt Disney’s war against the trade unions, the Cold War, Vietnam and even Afghanistan. Most disturbing, though, is how the battle has become a shrine and a rallying cry by the forces of white nationalism.
For generations Mexican Texans simmered mostly in silence, suffering the indignity of an Anglocentric narrative that implied they were the murderers of Travis, Bowie, and Crockett. Even today, many Tejanos describe the history class Texas children take in middle school as a humiliating experience.In a state where Hispanics will soon become the largest ethnic group, the version of events that state law insists should be taught is unconscionable. One woman remembered her experience being taught about the Alamo in school. “We felt like crawling under the desks. We didn’t know we were different until they told us we killed Crockett.” As appalling as this practice is, it’s even worse when you realize that politicians are still using this false version of events to further their political careers and agendas.
The authors penned this book in an offhand, humorous manner that seemed to make fun of many of the people involved. While it may have boosted sales, I think it detracted from the seriousness of the topic. They summarized the book with the following lines.
The Alamo is a story we’ve learned to tell ourselves to justify violence, both real and threatened, first against Mexicans, then Tejanos, then Mexican-Americans, and eventually the Vietcong and al-Qaeda. “Remember the Alamo” was a battle cry that we recycle long past the fight’s utility.
I’ll close this review with a quote from a truly great Texas warrior, newspaper columnist Molly Ivins. I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag.
My thanks to the late Mike Sullivan, aka Lawyer, and all the folks at the On the Southern Literary Trail group for giving me the opportunity to read and discuss this and many other fine books.
May 27, 2023
I generally prefer to read fiction over non-fiction history, so you don’t find a lot of non-fiction books among my reviews. I think I just like the escape into other lives, other times and other places.
Like others of my generation, I grew up with the traditional myth of the Alamo, shaped by Fess Parker, Walt Disney and John Wayne.
I listened to this modern history and found it enlightening, fascinating at times, and even funny. (“What do you call a Texas history teacher? — Coach!”) When I learned that cotton demand inspired the migration of Anglos west into what was then Mexico, it gave me a new understanding of the economics of the times. When I learned that slavery was a motivating factor for the clash (read insurrection) between Anglo settlers and the Mexican government, it changed my perception of the great Alamo myth. When young Tejanos learn how Texans blame them for the death of Davey Crockett, I find it heartbreaking and maddening at the same time.
This book will turn your head around. Read Tom’s review. I cannot top that!
Like others of my generation, I grew up with the traditional myth of the Alamo, shaped by Fess Parker, Walt Disney and John Wayne.
I listened to this modern history and found it enlightening, fascinating at times, and even funny. (“What do you call a Texas history teacher? — Coach!”) When I learned that cotton demand inspired the migration of Anglos west into what was then Mexico, it gave me a new understanding of the economics of the times. When I learned that slavery was a motivating factor for the clash (read insurrection) between Anglo settlers and the Mexican government, it changed my perception of the great Alamo myth. When young Tejanos learn how Texans blame them for the death of Davey Crockett, I find it heartbreaking and maddening at the same time.
This book will turn your head around. Read Tom’s review. I cannot top that!
May 10, 2023
3.5 stars
For the best and most succinct review I will direct you to Howard's. The battle of the Alamo has been raging for almost 200 years now with no end in sight. There are known facts and a lot of unanswered questions, battling against the myths and unwillingness to give them up. As always, a lot of it is political.
I particularly enjoyed the skewering of Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie, two "heroes" who weren't that at all, until Walt Disney and John Wayne got ahold of them and created the legends we all know today. "Bowie was a murderer, slaver, and con man: Crockett was a self-promoting old fool who was a captive of his own myth.",
I was greatly surprised at how much I enjoyed learning how much I never knew. As much as I'd like to make fun of racist Texas politics and their educational system, I can't, because I live in Charleston, SC, and it's just more of the same here. So touche.
For the best and most succinct review I will direct you to Howard's. The battle of the Alamo has been raging for almost 200 years now with no end in sight. There are known facts and a lot of unanswered questions, battling against the myths and unwillingness to give them up. As always, a lot of it is political.
I particularly enjoyed the skewering of Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie, two "heroes" who weren't that at all, until Walt Disney and John Wayne got ahold of them and created the legends we all know today. "Bowie was a murderer, slaver, and con man: Crockett was a self-promoting old fool who was a captive of his own myth.",
I was greatly surprised at how much I enjoyed learning how much I never knew. As much as I'd like to make fun of racist Texas politics and their educational system, I can't, because I live in Charleston, SC, and it's just more of the same here. So touche.
February 17, 2023
It would be fair to call this the book the Texas Governor doesn’t want you to read, considering that the Governor and Lt. Governor used muscle to get a presentation cancelled. It should be noted that neither man actually looks good in the last few chapters.
Burrough, Tomilson, and Stanford’s book is not a history of the Alamo but more of a history about how the history of the Alamo was used, seen, and abused. Therefore, if you are interested in historiography or folklore, this would be of greater interest to you than say someone who is interested in history in general. The authors are upfront and direct about how they are using the work of other writers and historians when presenting the outline of the battle. So to call this “setting the record straight” or even “revisionist history” isn’t actually quite right. It’s more of presenting the revisionist work of other authors while examining the issues surrounding the telling of the historical record. The authors, to their credit, are upfront about this. Critics who saying this book is trying to rewrite the history of the Alamo aren’t correct. This book draws on books that have already done that to discuss how history is used and abused in society. It is a history of the history of the Alamo.
Forget the Alamo is really about what happened after the battle, how the myth won out over the historical record (the disregarding of the Tejano defenders, the debate over whether it was really an important battle) and looks more at the PR surrounding the Battle and how various people – politicians, Disney and John Wayne among others used the myth for their own ends.
In other words, if the Battle was so important to Texas why was the site left to ruin for so long? And in this, the book enters into dealing the Daughter of The Texas Republic, which under the control of some members sounds like another version of the DoC. In fact, I left the book wanting more of comparison between how the Confederacy in particular the DoC and certain Texas politicians who were Confederates and then used the Alamo myth after the Civil War. Are the two linked in more than surface ways?
Of particular interest is the modern analysis of Texas education and how it relates to the Alamo, from including racist cartoons that were used in classrooms to furor over how to teach about the Battle. In fact, education is an important component, and not just of children, considering the groups that use misinformation to initiate protests, such the UN taking over the Alamo to the fort being sold to foreigners.
It’s hard not looking at what is occurring places like Texas and Florida right now without thinking of this book and how education and politics place a role. We have a Texas school who had to find a loophole to have a mask mandate (they are making a mask dress code). We have a museum that is opening to celebrate the Alamo that may include artifacts that actually aren’t from the Alamo. We have a Texas governor who believes only heroes should be taught about, and heroes means white people at least according to how the history has been taught. They feed into each other. Teach people to distrust history that doesn’t say what you think the myth is only a short step to distrusting science. Control and limit education, and you control the population. And this book does a good job of showing that.
Burrough, Tomilson, and Stanford’s book is not a history of the Alamo but more of a history about how the history of the Alamo was used, seen, and abused. Therefore, if you are interested in historiography or folklore, this would be of greater interest to you than say someone who is interested in history in general. The authors are upfront and direct about how they are using the work of other writers and historians when presenting the outline of the battle. So to call this “setting the record straight” or even “revisionist history” isn’t actually quite right. It’s more of presenting the revisionist work of other authors while examining the issues surrounding the telling of the historical record. The authors, to their credit, are upfront about this. Critics who saying this book is trying to rewrite the history of the Alamo aren’t correct. This book draws on books that have already done that to discuss how history is used and abused in society. It is a history of the history of the Alamo.
Forget the Alamo is really about what happened after the battle, how the myth won out over the historical record (the disregarding of the Tejano defenders, the debate over whether it was really an important battle) and looks more at the PR surrounding the Battle and how various people – politicians, Disney and John Wayne among others used the myth for their own ends.
In other words, if the Battle was so important to Texas why was the site left to ruin for so long? And in this, the book enters into dealing the Daughter of The Texas Republic, which under the control of some members sounds like another version of the DoC. In fact, I left the book wanting more of comparison between how the Confederacy in particular the DoC and certain Texas politicians who were Confederates and then used the Alamo myth after the Civil War. Are the two linked in more than surface ways?
Of particular interest is the modern analysis of Texas education and how it relates to the Alamo, from including racist cartoons that were used in classrooms to furor over how to teach about the Battle. In fact, education is an important component, and not just of children, considering the groups that use misinformation to initiate protests, such the UN taking over the Alamo to the fort being sold to foreigners.
It’s hard not looking at what is occurring places like Texas and Florida right now without thinking of this book and how education and politics place a role. We have a Texas school who had to find a loophole to have a mask mandate (they are making a mask dress code). We have a museum that is opening to celebrate the Alamo that may include artifacts that actually aren’t from the Alamo. We have a Texas governor who believes only heroes should be taught about, and heroes means white people at least according to how the history has been taught. They feed into each other. Teach people to distrust history that doesn’t say what you think the myth is only a short step to distrusting science. Control and limit education, and you control the population. And this book does a good job of showing that.
November 24, 2022
This engaging history does a persuasive job of deconstructing the Alamo myth. I visited it in the late 1990s and don't remember very much. Somebody fussed at us not to talk because it's a chapel/church. Okay... The neighborhood was kind of skeevy, and we saw the SAPD arrest somebody for something while we stood waiting at a bustop. At any rate, the book says slavery and a land grab played a big part in the Alamo. Evidently, the battle was nothing like the John Wayne movie. It's become very political. Phil Collins (the rock singer) paid of lot of money on the relics allegedly from the Alamo and donated it to the State of Texas. The only problem is a lot of the collection's items are fake and of questionable origins.
June 19, 2021
This is an important book, for an important reason: it examines the underpinnings of fortresses built on lies over hundreds of years, now used as outposts in an all-out culture war mounted by white supremacists as a last-gasp effort to preserve the old, antiquated, and systemically racist order of things.
I grew up in Texas and so I went through the 7th-grade history propaganda campaign which is Texas history, most of which focuses on the Alamo and the heroic Anglo narrative. As a kid, I questioned plenty about the world around me, particularly how, growing up in a small Texas town, every aspect of life seemed geared towards a smotheringly white and evangelical point of view.
I did not, however, think much about the Alamo, or about whether what we were taught was true or biased, the same way that I did not really question much about what we were taught about other historical figures in public school like Christopher Columbus. Now, 42 years old, I have only really been literate or competent enough to interrogate how American history is commonly presented for the last 15 years or so, and even THEN I hadn't really gone back to think critically about the narrative I'd been taught about the Alamo.
This book does terrific work on the historiographical front, being solidly reported and written for a lay audience. This offers accessibility beyond what you might find within scholarly or academic work, while still being committed to factual accuracy and a deep examination of primary and secondary sources. This results in a critical deep-dive into the history - of the history - of the Alamo.
What you read about Critical Race Theory being the next front in the culture war that now fully engulfs American politics is true. The manufactured panic against CRT, pushed by everyone from elected officials who definitely know better to Tucker Carlson to an unending line of C.H.U.D.s on 4chan - is even more powerful than past efforts to force bias and surreality on to academics, such as (successful) drives to require the teaching of intelligent design, or to ban sex education, or to ban trans kids from sports. What kids learn and experience in school is formative, powerful, and important. White supremacy, classism, misogyny, systemic racism, and the deeply, critically flawed idea of American Exceptionalism aren't going to pass from the world without a serious fight.
In our modern America, a book like Forget The Alamo is a targeted strike against ignorance. It is also a stalwart defense of objective reality against those who would have us believe lie after lie in the interest of consolidating power and the continued oppression of anyone who isn't white, wealthy, Christian, and straight. If we're going to make it as a country (or as a small-d democracy), we're going to need more books like this in the future, and I'm glad this one was written.
I grew up in Texas and so I went through the 7th-grade history propaganda campaign which is Texas history, most of which focuses on the Alamo and the heroic Anglo narrative. As a kid, I questioned plenty about the world around me, particularly how, growing up in a small Texas town, every aspect of life seemed geared towards a smotheringly white and evangelical point of view.
I did not, however, think much about the Alamo, or about whether what we were taught was true or biased, the same way that I did not really question much about what we were taught about other historical figures in public school like Christopher Columbus. Now, 42 years old, I have only really been literate or competent enough to interrogate how American history is commonly presented for the last 15 years or so, and even THEN I hadn't really gone back to think critically about the narrative I'd been taught about the Alamo.
This book does terrific work on the historiographical front, being solidly reported and written for a lay audience. This offers accessibility beyond what you might find within scholarly or academic work, while still being committed to factual accuracy and a deep examination of primary and secondary sources. This results in a critical deep-dive into the history - of the history - of the Alamo.
What you read about Critical Race Theory being the next front in the culture war that now fully engulfs American politics is true. The manufactured panic against CRT, pushed by everyone from elected officials who definitely know better to Tucker Carlson to an unending line of C.H.U.D.s on 4chan - is even more powerful than past efforts to force bias and surreality on to academics, such as (successful) drives to require the teaching of intelligent design, or to ban sex education, or to ban trans kids from sports. What kids learn and experience in school is formative, powerful, and important. White supremacy, classism, misogyny, systemic racism, and the deeply, critically flawed idea of American Exceptionalism aren't going to pass from the world without a serious fight.
In our modern America, a book like Forget The Alamo is a targeted strike against ignorance. It is also a stalwart defense of objective reality against those who would have us believe lie after lie in the interest of consolidating power and the continued oppression of anyone who isn't white, wealthy, Christian, and straight. If we're going to make it as a country (or as a small-d democracy), we're going to need more books like this in the future, and I'm glad this one was written.
September 5, 2021
I was looking forward to reading this book after hearing about it in the local news several times. I knew there was controversy about it and that it was stirring up always-sensitive sentiments about the Alamo. If you are not from San Antonio, you do not understand the role the Alamo plays in our city's history and perception of itself!
The book was even better than I expected! It covers everything from Texas history before the Battle of the Alamo to current times. That sounds ambitious - and it is - but the writing is so good that I was engaged the entire time.
I learned so much. The war against Mexico for Texas independence was largely based on the goal of making more money off the land and allowing slavery. Bowie, Travis, Crockett, and the others were not the stalwart, responsible, heroes generations of Texans have been taught they were. Personally, I grew up with movies like Davy Crockett and Heroes of the Alamo IMAX. The book's recounting of the battle is very different from how I was taught as well. There was likely no "line in the sand" speech because they were surrounded and could NOT leave. It wasn't brave to stay and fight because they had no choice.
The book also discussed the collection and interpretation of information regarding the Battle, how the history is taught in Texas schools, and more recent upkeep and renovations of the Alamo area itself. One of the most important and interesting parts is how the myth of the Alamo has been used to justify prejudice against Latinx populations in Texas for decades.
I highly suggest this book for anyone interesting in Texas history! If you read it, please let me know what you think :)
The book was even better than I expected! It covers everything from Texas history before the Battle of the Alamo to current times. That sounds ambitious - and it is - but the writing is so good that I was engaged the entire time.
I learned so much. The war against Mexico for Texas independence was largely based on the goal of making more money off the land and allowing slavery. Bowie, Travis, Crockett, and the others were not the stalwart, responsible, heroes generations of Texans have been taught they were. Personally, I grew up with movies like Davy Crockett and Heroes of the Alamo IMAX. The book's recounting of the battle is very different from how I was taught as well. There was likely no "line in the sand" speech because they were surrounded and could NOT leave. It wasn't brave to stay and fight because they had no choice.
The book also discussed the collection and interpretation of information regarding the Battle, how the history is taught in Texas schools, and more recent upkeep and renovations of the Alamo area itself. One of the most important and interesting parts is how the myth of the Alamo has been used to justify prejudice against Latinx populations in Texas for decades.
I highly suggest this book for anyone interesting in Texas history! If you read it, please let me know what you think :)
September 22, 2021
History is told from the perspective of the survivors, and especially from the view of the winners, and for that very reason we should look back with skepticism. Historical events can be twisted and manipulated to fit current narratives, and that seems to be exactly what happened to the 1836 Battle of the Alamo according to this book. Reading Forget the Alamo makes one question why we need these flawed stories in the first place, and what other lies and embellishments lay in our history books.
Specifically, the Alamo has been showcased as an example of the "heroic Anglo narrative", which is used to place white male pioneers at the top of Texas history and mythology, while downgrading the importance of blacks, native Americans and especially Hispanics, or Tejanos as they are called in the state. Texas schoolchildren are drilled on this narrative from an early age, and the phrase "Remember the Alamo" is everywhere. Schools are named after Alamo legends and a huge monument has been constructed on the site. This book tells a much more layered and complex story that contradicts the heroic Anglo narrative, claiming that the battle for the San Antonio mission was a senseless slaughter with its goal to preserve the right to own slaves in Texas against a Mexican government that wanted to emancipate them.
The ironies of this story as detailed in this book are delicious. As most people know, the land we know as Texas was a part of Spanish territory in 1776 when the country was born. In 1810, Mexico gained its independence from Spain, and Texas was still sparsely populated. White settlers crossed into Texas, mostly illegally, from the United States in pursuit of slave-enhanced cotton plantations or to run away from legal and financial problems. Mexico outlawed slavery, and threatened to shut it down, but put up with white immigration because it helped them with a different problem, marauding Comanche Indians that were terrorizing small villages.
Forget the Alamo does a great job setting the scene of early Texas history to give some perspective on why the battle ever happened in the first place. White settlers did not mix well with Mexican culture, preferring their own language, values, and views on race. They refused to pay taxes to the Mexican government and eventually decided to revolt, which is what led to the Alamo. It makes you wonder about today's political struggle in Texas, a state where Hispanics are well on their way to becoming a majority.
White Anglo militias took over San Antonio and the Alamo in 1835, forcing the Mexican authorities out. Santa Ana and the government responded with a huge army that retook San Antonio while the revolutionaries, led by a holy trinity of Davy Crockett, William Travis, and James Bowie held the Mexicans at bay from inside the old Alamo mission. The book goes into the backgrounds of the three heroes of the Alamo and paints them as fools, crooks, or slavers, and anything but the larger-than-life figures that Texas mythology promotes today.
The Battle of the Alamo takes up only one chapter of this book, and the authors see it as mostly an unnecessary last stand that provided no military value except for its propaganda use. The story, as told multiple times, was of much more value than the battle itself. The Alamo mission was hard to defend, and the soldiers knew full well that they would be hopelessly outnumbered well before Santa Ana arrived. They held out on the hopes of reinforcements that never came. The book attempts to shoot down many cherished Alamo myths- that Travis drew a line in the sand and asked volunteers who wanted to stay to cross it, - that Crockett fought valiantly to the very end (many think he surrendered and was killed), and that the defenders fought down to the last man. (Evidence is presented that Travis tried to surrender and that men tried to slip away after the battle was lost.)
The second part of this book goes beyond the days of the Alamo battle to show how politicians and historians have since used its story for their own purposes. The authors tell of huge battles between women who had different ideas of museums that should commemorate the Alamo. Politicians from LBJ to Donald Trump used the Alamo myth to their own purposes, all in service to the bigger narrative- American Exceptionalism, that excused any and all American aggressions- just because they were American. (and white, and male, and Christian)
The Alamo has become a lightning rod for debates about Texas history, complicated by the fact that it's believed to be on top of an American Indian burial site, next door to a historic lunch counter that figured into 1960's civil rights protests, and a huge thorn in the side of Texas's growing Hispanic population, most of whom dispute the heroic Anglo narrative that paints their ancestors as the bad guys.
The power of the Alamo story led to two major motion pictures, the worst of which was John Wayne's epic 1960 presentation that he hoped would shoot down JFK's election. Walt Disney came up with a Davy Crockett television production that embellished the shady reputation of Crockett and showed him to be a hero of the Alamo. Many textbooks and historical accounts were made about the event, all showcasing the heroic Anglo narrative and making Mexicans the bad guys.
Perhaps the most bizarre and fascinating chapter of the story is the last, where a rich British rock legend, Phil Collins, becomes so entranced by the Alamo legend that he becomes a fixture in San Antonio and a collector of Alamo souvenirs. Collins even offered to donate his bounty of ancient swords, pistols, and Texas memorabilia to a new, expanded museum that's been debated now for over 10 years. The main problem- the authors believe that most of Collin's treasure trove of artifacts to be fakes and forgeries and not worthy of a museum.
For now, the Alamo remains a small fraction of what it once was, surrounded by seedy tourist traps, and the hotbed of a story that is central to Texas history. Was Texas founded by brave settlers fighting off oppressive Mexican tyranny, or was it founded by violent opportunists who thumbed their noses at the law, enslaved blacks to make cotton, and eventually turned their backs on the Hispanic and Native American peoples who were there first? I guess it depends on who is writing the history.
I loved this book and had trouble putting it down. It made me question everything I think I know about history, and helped me to understand why Texans seem so different from other Americans.
Specifically, the Alamo has been showcased as an example of the "heroic Anglo narrative", which is used to place white male pioneers at the top of Texas history and mythology, while downgrading the importance of blacks, native Americans and especially Hispanics, or Tejanos as they are called in the state. Texas schoolchildren are drilled on this narrative from an early age, and the phrase "Remember the Alamo" is everywhere. Schools are named after Alamo legends and a huge monument has been constructed on the site. This book tells a much more layered and complex story that contradicts the heroic Anglo narrative, claiming that the battle for the San Antonio mission was a senseless slaughter with its goal to preserve the right to own slaves in Texas against a Mexican government that wanted to emancipate them.
The ironies of this story as detailed in this book are delicious. As most people know, the land we know as Texas was a part of Spanish territory in 1776 when the country was born. In 1810, Mexico gained its independence from Spain, and Texas was still sparsely populated. White settlers crossed into Texas, mostly illegally, from the United States in pursuit of slave-enhanced cotton plantations or to run away from legal and financial problems. Mexico outlawed slavery, and threatened to shut it down, but put up with white immigration because it helped them with a different problem, marauding Comanche Indians that were terrorizing small villages.
Forget the Alamo does a great job setting the scene of early Texas history to give some perspective on why the battle ever happened in the first place. White settlers did not mix well with Mexican culture, preferring their own language, values, and views on race. They refused to pay taxes to the Mexican government and eventually decided to revolt, which is what led to the Alamo. It makes you wonder about today's political struggle in Texas, a state where Hispanics are well on their way to becoming a majority.
White Anglo militias took over San Antonio and the Alamo in 1835, forcing the Mexican authorities out. Santa Ana and the government responded with a huge army that retook San Antonio while the revolutionaries, led by a holy trinity of Davy Crockett, William Travis, and James Bowie held the Mexicans at bay from inside the old Alamo mission. The book goes into the backgrounds of the three heroes of the Alamo and paints them as fools, crooks, or slavers, and anything but the larger-than-life figures that Texas mythology promotes today.
The Battle of the Alamo takes up only one chapter of this book, and the authors see it as mostly an unnecessary last stand that provided no military value except for its propaganda use. The story, as told multiple times, was of much more value than the battle itself. The Alamo mission was hard to defend, and the soldiers knew full well that they would be hopelessly outnumbered well before Santa Ana arrived. They held out on the hopes of reinforcements that never came. The book attempts to shoot down many cherished Alamo myths- that Travis drew a line in the sand and asked volunteers who wanted to stay to cross it, - that Crockett fought valiantly to the very end (many think he surrendered and was killed), and that the defenders fought down to the last man. (Evidence is presented that Travis tried to surrender and that men tried to slip away after the battle was lost.)
The second part of this book goes beyond the days of the Alamo battle to show how politicians and historians have since used its story for their own purposes. The authors tell of huge battles between women who had different ideas of museums that should commemorate the Alamo. Politicians from LBJ to Donald Trump used the Alamo myth to their own purposes, all in service to the bigger narrative- American Exceptionalism, that excused any and all American aggressions- just because they were American. (and white, and male, and Christian)
The Alamo has become a lightning rod for debates about Texas history, complicated by the fact that it's believed to be on top of an American Indian burial site, next door to a historic lunch counter that figured into 1960's civil rights protests, and a huge thorn in the side of Texas's growing Hispanic population, most of whom dispute the heroic Anglo narrative that paints their ancestors as the bad guys.
The power of the Alamo story led to two major motion pictures, the worst of which was John Wayne's epic 1960 presentation that he hoped would shoot down JFK's election. Walt Disney came up with a Davy Crockett television production that embellished the shady reputation of Crockett and showed him to be a hero of the Alamo. Many textbooks and historical accounts were made about the event, all showcasing the heroic Anglo narrative and making Mexicans the bad guys.
Perhaps the most bizarre and fascinating chapter of the story is the last, where a rich British rock legend, Phil Collins, becomes so entranced by the Alamo legend that he becomes a fixture in San Antonio and a collector of Alamo souvenirs. Collins even offered to donate his bounty of ancient swords, pistols, and Texas memorabilia to a new, expanded museum that's been debated now for over 10 years. The main problem- the authors believe that most of Collin's treasure trove of artifacts to be fakes and forgeries and not worthy of a museum.
For now, the Alamo remains a small fraction of what it once was, surrounded by seedy tourist traps, and the hotbed of a story that is central to Texas history. Was Texas founded by brave settlers fighting off oppressive Mexican tyranny, or was it founded by violent opportunists who thumbed their noses at the law, enslaved blacks to make cotton, and eventually turned their backs on the Hispanic and Native American peoples who were there first? I guess it depends on who is writing the history.
I loved this book and had trouble putting it down. It made me question everything I think I know about history, and helped me to understand why Texans seem so different from other Americans.
June 29, 2022
Forget The Alamo is historiography rather than history. That is, it is a history of the history of the Alamo. What happened, how it happened, why it happened - these things have been debated since shortly after the last shot was fired. From propaganda used to win a battle, a war, and a republic, to heroic mythology to prop up white supremacy, the stories told about the Alamo have always had more to do with what people needed it to mean than the facts of what actually happened.
This book dives in to the thorniest issues surrounding the story, from the suppressed reality that the purpose of the Texan Rebellion was to protect the right to own slaves to the present day use of the Alamo’s physical grounds and potent symbolism to advance the political career of George P. Bush. The writers accomplish this with an informal, cheeky style (they open the first chapter with Ozzy Osbourne pissing on the Alamo) that makes for fun and easy reading. This isn’t John Wayne’s Alamo, and that’s kind of the point.
This book dives in to the thorniest issues surrounding the story, from the suppressed reality that the purpose of the Texan Rebellion was to protect the right to own slaves to the present day use of the Alamo’s physical grounds and potent symbolism to advance the political career of George P. Bush. The writers accomplish this with an informal, cheeky style (they open the first chapter with Ozzy Osbourne pissing on the Alamo) that makes for fun and easy reading. This isn’t John Wayne’s Alamo, and that’s kind of the point.
September 30, 2021
Formulaic woke revisionism. At one time, this kind of deconstruction would have been interesting to me, but most of the the popular history produced by the Left has become so predictable and neurotic, it’s hardly worth consideration.
If you’re tempted to find this book compelling, just ask yourself this question: is it likely that the figures of yesteryear are nearly indistinguishable from the modern day boogeymen that the Left finds so objectionable? Were William B. Travis, James Bowie, David Crockett, Stephen F. Austin, and Sam Houston just gun-worshipping alt-right hicks born 200 years too soon? Of course not.
A pretty standard Leftist practice (and also the habit of this book) is to treat the past as though it only existed to serve as a prelude to the present-day crusade of progressivism. The conflicts of the present are projected onto history, the inconvenient differences of context are excised, and the people of the past are treated like stand-ins for contemporary figures, though with slightly different clothing and facial hair. In this understanding, history is no longer valuable in itself—it just serves as an arena upon which to score points about current events. This warped view of history is what enabled the doomsayers of not-so-long-ago to say with complete seriousness that there was a “literal Nazi” in the White House; it’s the perspective that drives the historically illiterate to confess with utter confidence that Robert E. Lee was a “literal traitor”; it’s the engine behind the silly simplicity of the 1619 Project; and it’s the lifeblood of this fatuous book. History is not unexacting.
Having grown up in Texas and having undergone a good bit of instruction about Texas history both in and out of the classroom, I can tell you I was never subjected to a misinformation campaign bent on erasing the contributions of Tejanos, I was never misled into believing the heroes of the Texas Revolution were immaculate, and I was never expected to offer unquestioning obeisance to the Texas revolutionaries. But I was taught to appreciate history, to celebrate what is true and valuable in it, and to recognize that people are fragile and failing all the time. This book is not a sincere attempt to reckon with any of those truths. Rather, it is a simplistic daydream, far more naive than the myth it purports to correct. Don’t waste your time.
If you’re tempted to find this book compelling, just ask yourself this question: is it likely that the figures of yesteryear are nearly indistinguishable from the modern day boogeymen that the Left finds so objectionable? Were William B. Travis, James Bowie, David Crockett, Stephen F. Austin, and Sam Houston just gun-worshipping alt-right hicks born 200 years too soon? Of course not.
A pretty standard Leftist practice (and also the habit of this book) is to treat the past as though it only existed to serve as a prelude to the present-day crusade of progressivism. The conflicts of the present are projected onto history, the inconvenient differences of context are excised, and the people of the past are treated like stand-ins for contemporary figures, though with slightly different clothing and facial hair. In this understanding, history is no longer valuable in itself—it just serves as an arena upon which to score points about current events. This warped view of history is what enabled the doomsayers of not-so-long-ago to say with complete seriousness that there was a “literal Nazi” in the White House; it’s the perspective that drives the historically illiterate to confess with utter confidence that Robert E. Lee was a “literal traitor”; it’s the engine behind the silly simplicity of the 1619 Project; and it’s the lifeblood of this fatuous book. History is not unexacting.
Having grown up in Texas and having undergone a good bit of instruction about Texas history both in and out of the classroom, I can tell you I was never subjected to a misinformation campaign bent on erasing the contributions of Tejanos, I was never misled into believing the heroes of the Texas Revolution were immaculate, and I was never expected to offer unquestioning obeisance to the Texas revolutionaries. But I was taught to appreciate history, to celebrate what is true and valuable in it, and to recognize that people are fragile and failing all the time. This book is not a sincere attempt to reckon with any of those truths. Rather, it is a simplistic daydream, far more naive than the myth it purports to correct. Don’t waste your time.
June 12, 2021
“He died at the Alamo”. Those words bind the lives of such men as Davy Crockett and Sam Bowie together as they died to protect Texas and its liberty. At least that has been the story since 1836, when 189 American men were killed defending the mission in San Antonio against the troops of Mexican President-General Antonio Santa Anna. The truth is a lot murkier than the legend and that’s what three Texas authors set out to explore in their new book, “Forget the Alamo: The Rise and Fall of An American Myth”.
I’m pretty sure that most people reading this review are familiar with legend of heroics at the Alamo. We know such American heroes like Crockett and Bowie and others for their deeds during the Mexican Revolution, when Texas was trying to gain its freedom from Mexico. A myth was developed over the years which left out crucial parts of both the Revolution and the battle at the Alamo. First of all, slavery and the wish of white Texans to keep slaves was an important part of the Revolution. Also involved were Tejanos, or Mexican Texans. Money and property rights were at stake, too, in those years when Texas went from being a part of Mexico, to independent country status, and finally to statehood in the United States. The 1830s and 1840s were turbulent times in the Southwest. After Texas became a state, Texans wanted to celebrate the battle and murders at the Alamo, even though “our side” lost. Hey, look, let’s show our lost as “martyrs” to the cause of...well, Texas.
Over the next hundred or so years, San Antonioians were busy rewriting history and making the battle to be more than it was in reality. There have been several movies made - including one starring John Wayne - and books written about it. Meanwhile, the Alamo site had been left to ruin and groups wanted to spruce up the area to make it more attractive to tourists. Money and scholarship were at war with each other as subsequent Texas political entities attempted to make some progress for everyone involved.
And then comes George P Bush and English singer/actor Phil Collins. Both had an interest in seeing the Alamo be developed. Bush for political reasons - he was aiming for higher state political office, and maybe national office, too. Phil Collins had had a long interest in the Alamo (and it’s “legends”) and had long been a collector of Alamo-related relics. The three authors have a fine time bringing Collins back to earth with some truth about the authenticity of his claimed relics.
Actually, the three authors - Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson, and Jason Stanford - have fun with their whole subject. Their writing is good and the reader gets a good view of the whole Alamo-contretemps.
I’m pretty sure that most people reading this review are familiar with legend of heroics at the Alamo. We know such American heroes like Crockett and Bowie and others for their deeds during the Mexican Revolution, when Texas was trying to gain its freedom from Mexico. A myth was developed over the years which left out crucial parts of both the Revolution and the battle at the Alamo. First of all, slavery and the wish of white Texans to keep slaves was an important part of the Revolution. Also involved were Tejanos, or Mexican Texans. Money and property rights were at stake, too, in those years when Texas went from being a part of Mexico, to independent country status, and finally to statehood in the United States. The 1830s and 1840s were turbulent times in the Southwest. After Texas became a state, Texans wanted to celebrate the battle and murders at the Alamo, even though “our side” lost. Hey, look, let’s show our lost as “martyrs” to the cause of...well, Texas.
Over the next hundred or so years, San Antonioians were busy rewriting history and making the battle to be more than it was in reality. There have been several movies made - including one starring John Wayne - and books written about it. Meanwhile, the Alamo site had been left to ruin and groups wanted to spruce up the area to make it more attractive to tourists. Money and scholarship were at war with each other as subsequent Texas political entities attempted to make some progress for everyone involved.
And then comes George P Bush and English singer/actor Phil Collins. Both had an interest in seeing the Alamo be developed. Bush for political reasons - he was aiming for higher state political office, and maybe national office, too. Phil Collins had had a long interest in the Alamo (and it’s “legends”) and had long been a collector of Alamo-related relics. The three authors have a fine time bringing Collins back to earth with some truth about the authenticity of his claimed relics.
Actually, the three authors - Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson, and Jason Stanford - have fun with their whole subject. Their writing is good and the reader gets a good view of the whole Alamo-contretemps.
April 21, 2022
My Texan / Mexico credentials: (1) fourth-generation Texan, (2) third-generation Houstonian, (3) first boyfriend, Mexican, (4) long-time resident of Austin, (5) short-time resident of Galveston, and Laredo at the border, (6) two years in Mexico, and (7) last but not least, rode a mule past the Alamo in a trail ride parade.
Oh, and on the way to our cousins, we kids would gauge the time by watching the San Jacinto monument move slowly by in the distance.
So this story was all over my stomping grounds.
My seventh-grade Texas history class was in the ancient past and long-forgotten, so I started this book fresh and eager to learn. And it was amazing! The hero myth is so stilted compared to the larger, all-encompassing story about real people, which is always more interesting. Heroes can be such one-dimensional, cardboard characters. But these "heroes" became more interesting as their flaws were revealed -- and they had some major flaws!
Thank you to these authors who brought Texas history alive, and to Dan Patrick, the Texas Lieutenant Governor, who canceled the book presentation in Austin, causing a spike in book sales which included my purchase.
Oh, and on the way to our cousins, we kids would gauge the time by watching the San Jacinto monument move slowly by in the distance.
So this story was all over my stomping grounds.
My seventh-grade Texas history class was in the ancient past and long-forgotten, so I started this book fresh and eager to learn. And it was amazing! The hero myth is so stilted compared to the larger, all-encompassing story about real people, which is always more interesting. Heroes can be such one-dimensional, cardboard characters. But these "heroes" became more interesting as their flaws were revealed -- and they had some major flaws!
Thank you to these authors who brought Texas history alive, and to Dan Patrick, the Texas Lieutenant Governor, who canceled the book presentation in Austin, causing a spike in book sales which included my purchase.
May 11, 2023
" I have said that Texas is a state of mind, but I think it is more than that. It is a mysteque closely approximating a religion"
John Steinbeck
John Steinbeck
June 29, 2021
I'm writing this review from Denton, Texas and I've lived in Texas since 2017. Texas is never a place I thought I would live and it's never a place I had any desire to live in, but family circumstances have taken me here. There is a popular bumper sticker in Texas that reads "I wasn't born here but I got here as fast as I could". If Texas wasn't heavily populated by armed right-wing nuts riding around in pickup trucks I'd create my own bumper sticker "I wasn't born here, I didn't wanna come here, and I'm getting out as soon as I can".
Growing up in St. Louis I don't recall ever hearing about The Alamo in school. I believe that my first knowledge of The Alamo perhaps came from the old John Wayne movie and hearing about it in other cowboy movies. I definitely had no idea who James Travis was until reading this book and the only Bowie I knew was David and hearing about the knife. David Crockett I'd heard of in movies and such and had no idea he died at The Alamo. The only Sam Houston I knew was a skinny pro wrestler and brother of Jake "The Snake" Roberts. I've only been to San Antonio once and that was to see a boxing match. Mexican star Canelo Alvarez was fighting Austin Trout, a Black man from New Mexico, at the Alamodome. I decided to visit The Alamo while in town and spent probably a total of ten minutes there while wearing a "Let's Mess With Texas" tshirt from the 2011 World Series in which the St. Louis Cardinals defeated the Texas Rangers.
My level of information about The Alamo before reading this book was minimal as was my interest. Sensing this book may make Texans angry and resentful of having to live here I decided to give this book a read. However, there is another reason. Living in Texas I see people all of the time who are fanatical about their Texas pride and take every chance to tell you they're Texan. In Missouri and other states I've lived such as New York you only see a state flag when you have to renew your driver's license- in Texas you see the flag hundreds of times a day in people's lawns, clothing, jewelry, tattoos, and bumper stickers. This Texas enthusiasm isn't just about generational white Texans either. Some of the most fanatical pro-Texan "build the wall" people I meet are of Mexican descent. The Dallas and Houston suburbs have also become the hot place to be for many Muslims in America and many are adopting local attitudes. The Texas Lieutenant Governor proudly defends Texas culture in his native Baltimore accent and recently a Republican politician showed up and became a cowboy with a Texas accent within weeks despite being born and raised in New Jersey. And of course who can forget the Bush Family of Connecticut.
When I see all of this pride I have to admit I'm pretty mystified. I just don't get the appeal. The cities are sprawling and chaotic, the suburbs all look alike, the architecture is awful, and character is very hard to find. Most of the state has nothing to write home about in the way of nature either. It's explained to me that Texas was once an independent country and has a glorious past. A review of history will show Texas was briefly a country, had the most pro-slavery documents of any state, was on the losing side of the Civil War, was a backwater until oil was discovered, and then has proceeded to have a negative influence upon American politics and culture ever since. Some Texan highlights include opposing civil rights, assassinating President John F. Kennedy in 1963, giving us George W. Bush in 2000, chili without beans, and subjecting the country to the Dallas Cowboys (which was founded by a racist supporter of the John Birch Society).
This Texas pride is largely rooted in a fake history and racism and at the center of that fake history and racism is their fairy tale version of the events of The Alamo. The book does a good job in laying out the simple facts:
- Anglo Texas was founded on slavery. A number of St. Louisans actually played a key role in this. Cotton farming with slave labor is the foundation of Anglo Texas.
- the Native American/Mexican/Anglo relationship had many complexities.
- From the beginning Texas was seen as a place for white people to escape to and many were on the run, swindlers, drunks, or disgraced in other places as were most of the leading figures at The Alamo.
- the Texas myth is the fight to defend The Alamo was a fight for freedom and liberty. In fact it was the opposite. Mexico had outlawed slavery and an ultimate Mexican victory would've meant emancipation. Texas waged war because they didn't want to pay their taxes and they wanted to protect their "property" which of course meant slaves.
- it's unlikely Crockett and many others went down fighting. It's pretty clear they fought from a defensive position, inflicted casualties upon their Mexican attackers, and were then overrun. Most probably surrendered.
- the symbol of The Alamo is completely rooted in race and White Nationalist thinking. As the book makes clear few Texans are interested in the real history and are more than happy to settle for Disney movies and fairy tales that match their politics and pride.
The weirdest thing I found out in this book is that studying The Alamo is a hobby for many and they refer to themselves as "Alamoheads". Apparently the biggest nutter Alamohead is none other than British rock star Phil Collins. Go figure! I also learned that the politics of The Alamo has grown increasingly a part of the local culture and identity wars and that two politicians have squabbled over just who is more pro "heroic narrative"- George P. Bush (Florida native) and Dan Patrick (Baltimore native). This is a very weird place.
I highly recommend this book especially for anyone who was unfortunate enough to attend middle-school in Texas.
Growing up in St. Louis I don't recall ever hearing about The Alamo in school. I believe that my first knowledge of The Alamo perhaps came from the old John Wayne movie and hearing about it in other cowboy movies. I definitely had no idea who James Travis was until reading this book and the only Bowie I knew was David and hearing about the knife. David Crockett I'd heard of in movies and such and had no idea he died at The Alamo. The only Sam Houston I knew was a skinny pro wrestler and brother of Jake "The Snake" Roberts. I've only been to San Antonio once and that was to see a boxing match. Mexican star Canelo Alvarez was fighting Austin Trout, a Black man from New Mexico, at the Alamodome. I decided to visit The Alamo while in town and spent probably a total of ten minutes there while wearing a "Let's Mess With Texas" tshirt from the 2011 World Series in which the St. Louis Cardinals defeated the Texas Rangers.
My level of information about The Alamo before reading this book was minimal as was my interest. Sensing this book may make Texans angry and resentful of having to live here I decided to give this book a read. However, there is another reason. Living in Texas I see people all of the time who are fanatical about their Texas pride and take every chance to tell you they're Texan. In Missouri and other states I've lived such as New York you only see a state flag when you have to renew your driver's license- in Texas you see the flag hundreds of times a day in people's lawns, clothing, jewelry, tattoos, and bumper stickers. This Texas enthusiasm isn't just about generational white Texans either. Some of the most fanatical pro-Texan "build the wall" people I meet are of Mexican descent. The Dallas and Houston suburbs have also become the hot place to be for many Muslims in America and many are adopting local attitudes. The Texas Lieutenant Governor proudly defends Texas culture in his native Baltimore accent and recently a Republican politician showed up and became a cowboy with a Texas accent within weeks despite being born and raised in New Jersey. And of course who can forget the Bush Family of Connecticut.
When I see all of this pride I have to admit I'm pretty mystified. I just don't get the appeal. The cities are sprawling and chaotic, the suburbs all look alike, the architecture is awful, and character is very hard to find. Most of the state has nothing to write home about in the way of nature either. It's explained to me that Texas was once an independent country and has a glorious past. A review of history will show Texas was briefly a country, had the most pro-slavery documents of any state, was on the losing side of the Civil War, was a backwater until oil was discovered, and then has proceeded to have a negative influence upon American politics and culture ever since. Some Texan highlights include opposing civil rights, assassinating President John F. Kennedy in 1963, giving us George W. Bush in 2000, chili without beans, and subjecting the country to the Dallas Cowboys (which was founded by a racist supporter of the John Birch Society).
This Texas pride is largely rooted in a fake history and racism and at the center of that fake history and racism is their fairy tale version of the events of The Alamo. The book does a good job in laying out the simple facts:
- Anglo Texas was founded on slavery. A number of St. Louisans actually played a key role in this. Cotton farming with slave labor is the foundation of Anglo Texas.
- the Native American/Mexican/Anglo relationship had many complexities.
- From the beginning Texas was seen as a place for white people to escape to and many were on the run, swindlers, drunks, or disgraced in other places as were most of the leading figures at The Alamo.
- the Texas myth is the fight to defend The Alamo was a fight for freedom and liberty. In fact it was the opposite. Mexico had outlawed slavery and an ultimate Mexican victory would've meant emancipation. Texas waged war because they didn't want to pay their taxes and they wanted to protect their "property" which of course meant slaves.
- it's unlikely Crockett and many others went down fighting. It's pretty clear they fought from a defensive position, inflicted casualties upon their Mexican attackers, and were then overrun. Most probably surrendered.
- the symbol of The Alamo is completely rooted in race and White Nationalist thinking. As the book makes clear few Texans are interested in the real history and are more than happy to settle for Disney movies and fairy tales that match their politics and pride.
The weirdest thing I found out in this book is that studying The Alamo is a hobby for many and they refer to themselves as "Alamoheads". Apparently the biggest nutter Alamohead is none other than British rock star Phil Collins. Go figure! I also learned that the politics of The Alamo has grown increasingly a part of the local culture and identity wars and that two politicians have squabbled over just who is more pro "heroic narrative"- George P. Bush (Florida native) and Dan Patrick (Baltimore native). This is a very weird place.
I highly recommend this book especially for anyone who was unfortunate enough to attend middle-school in Texas.
June 12, 2021
This fascinating book was written by people who love the myth while respecting the facts. For political (or possibly insane) reasons, it was attacked by 1-star review bombs. It's a notorious risk writers endure these days. But this book deserves far better treatment. The writers' thoughtful description of a complicated history is chock full of interesting tidbits. I laughed out loud at the mention of Phil Collins being one drumstick short of a pair due to his obsession with the Alamo.
August 12, 2021
An interesting, but ultimately uneven look at the Alamo, its history and the greater story of Texas and the myths that have propelled it into the public consciousness. Forget the Alamo is a history of the history, and is told in a (thankfully) loose and occasionally humorous manner.
Aside from learning all of this in seventh grade Texas History class, I appreciated another look at this period of history. One key piece of information that was sorely lacking in our textbooks was the Mexican government's vehemently abolitionist stance on slavery, something that Texians (white people living in Mexican Texas) were not about to give up and was conveniently left out of public school teachings. This is a major key to understanding the authors' perspective, as they attempt to tell this history in an inclusive light. Some areas work well (the immediate aftermath of the battle and how the Heroic Anglo Myth became the de facto version of events and the "second battle" concerning the Daughters of Texas and Adina de Zavala), but there is a lot of time spent rehashing state politics and Phil Collins' (yes, that Phil Collins) dubious collection of artifacts from the battle. Plus, the optics of three white men writing this book in 2021 seems a little curious considering their stress over including Mexican-Americans into this story.
Definitely worth reading if you have an interest in the subject, and as a San Antonio resident, I felt compelled to pick this up since the Alamo and its symbolism is woven into nearly everything in this city. I don't think this book will sway any hardcore conservatives from their beliefs about the Alamo, but it's the type of book that will give you plenty to discuss at a party. 3.5/5
Aside from learning all of this in seventh grade Texas History class, I appreciated another look at this period of history. One key piece of information that was sorely lacking in our textbooks was the Mexican government's vehemently abolitionist stance on slavery, something that Texians (white people living in Mexican Texas) were not about to give up and was conveniently left out of public school teachings. This is a major key to understanding the authors' perspective, as they attempt to tell this history in an inclusive light. Some areas work well (the immediate aftermath of the battle and how the Heroic Anglo Myth became the de facto version of events and the "second battle" concerning the Daughters of Texas and Adina de Zavala), but there is a lot of time spent rehashing state politics and Phil Collins' (yes, that Phil Collins) dubious collection of artifacts from the battle. Plus, the optics of three white men writing this book in 2021 seems a little curious considering their stress over including Mexican-Americans into this story.
Definitely worth reading if you have an interest in the subject, and as a San Antonio resident, I felt compelled to pick this up since the Alamo and its symbolism is woven into nearly everything in this city. I don't think this book will sway any hardcore conservatives from their beliefs about the Alamo, but it's the type of book that will give you plenty to discuss at a party. 3.5/5
June 29, 2022
two key takeaways:
1. almost everything you learn about the alamo is a myth
2. however racist you thought the history of the alamo/texas was, it's actually like 10x more racist
1. almost everything you learn about the alamo is a myth
2. however racist you thought the history of the alamo/texas was, it's actually like 10x more racist
June 24, 2021
When I started reading this book, I couldn't help but think of all the die hard Alamo fans who would foam at the mouth about it. This book tells the truth about Travis, Bowie, and Crockett, which paints them in a very unflattering light compared to what I learned in seventh grade history growing up in South Texas. And that's as it should be. They weren't the perfect paragons of manliness they're made out to be. They're kind of terrible, actually. And the battle for Texas wasn't about shaking off oppression or fighting for freedom; it happened because Texas wanted to maintain slavery, and Mexico wanted to abolish slavery.
The book covered the era leading up the the Texas Revolution and after, all the way up to what was going on during 2020, when the authors were writing the book. It was not a dry recitation of facts, although sometimes I did lose track of people. But it was well presented, well researched, and filled in all of the many holes in my education.
The book covered the era leading up the the Texas Revolution and after, all the way up to what was going on during 2020, when the authors were writing the book. It was not a dry recitation of facts, although sometimes I did lose track of people. But it was well presented, well researched, and filled in all of the many holes in my education.
July 16, 2021
Full disclosure, I attended high school with one of the authors, where we collaborated on the school paper. That doesn't mean that I'm required to love "Forget the Alamo," but the good news is, I do! My only quibble is that the title isn't quite accurate - more on that later.
Like many Americans who did not grow up in Texas, I had a vague understanding of the Alamo. Born in the 1970s, I didn't grow up on Fess Parker's famous on-screen portrayals of Davy Crockett. Raised on the West Coast, my history classes didn't sear the legendary icons William Travis or Jim Bowie into my brain. And I didn't see an old church in downtown San Antonio as a sacred shrine.
But then I married a Texan and I gained an appreciation of what the Alamo means to many Texans. If you combine Lexington, Concord, Yorktown, Gettysburg, and Pearl Harbor (and throw in a splash of Thermopylae) into one icon of chest-bursting pride, you get the idea of the popular Alamo legend.
With "Forget the Alamo," Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson, and Jason Stanford tackle the problematic Alamo Legend. While generations of Texans believe that Travis, Bowie, Crockett, and nearly 200 other brave (White) souls gave their lives gallantly at the Alamo, fighting for Freedom, Justice and the American Way and, through their sacrifice, paving the way for Texan independence and All Things Good, the authors argue that the truth is more complicated.
First, they tackle the myth that the Three Saints of the Alamo (Travis, Bowie and Crockett) were all good men fighting for noble causes. The root cause of the fight at the Alamo was the Texians' desire to preserve slavery, which was not kosher in Mexico. (Mexico's peonage system has a lot to answer for, but the American model of slavery was outlawed.) The authors document thoroughly how important slavery was to the Texan economy and the great lengths people were going through to bring slavery to Texas. The authors also document the less-noble traits of Travis, Bowie and Crockett, which are far too many to list here. At best, you can conclude these men were . . . "complicated."
Second, they tackle the myth that Santa Ana was the Snidely Whiplash of the Alamo. The Mexican dictator (who, again, has a lot to answer for) was actually in the good graces of many Texans a few short months before the Alamo. While the Texan fight for independence is often compared by Texans to the American Revolution, Santa Ana was not King George and the build-up was nowhere near as protracted as the events leading to 1776.
Third, they tackle the battle itself. While the authors don't refight the entire war for Texan independence, the Alamo emerges as an interesting little battle but hardly the pivotal Thermopylae it is so often hyped as.
And then there is the battle for the Alamo legend. As the "Hamilton" musical observes, "Who lives, who dies, who tells your story" are paramount questions. And it's been clear that the Texas power structure wants to tell the Heroic Alamo Myth of the infamous John Wayne movie . . . which also has the unfortunate but direct consequence of promoting the White Hero Myth.
The continued battle over the Alamo, which became a sad tourist destination surrounded by tacky commercialism and unfettered by any concept of actual history, is a sad affair of politics and power. The battle has gone on for decades, and while one observer points out that if as many Texans had actually fought at the Alamo as are fighting "over" the Alamo, Santa Ana never would have attacked. It's also sad that the different players each seem far too willing to invoke a veto over the larger project of building a true world-class monument on what remains a fascinating site.
And this is where things get comical, as the former rock star Phil Collins gets involved. Collins owns one of the largest private collections of Alamo memorabilia in the world, and he agreed to donate it to San Antonio provided the city built a world class museum to house it. Unfortunately, there are many concerns over the provenance of many of the items in Collins' collection, so there is concern that the museum may be anchored by fraud. Even more unfortunately, the conservative power players in Texas only want the Heroic Myth to be taught at this museum, which has caused more than a bit of a stir with other interested groups. As of today, the inability to compromise has jeopardized the entire project.
This review is far too long, and I apologize to anyone who has made it this far. "Forget the Alamo" is just that good a book. Thoroughly researched and clearly written, the authors convey a lot of information but do so with journalistic wit and a refusal to honor Sacred Cows. It's no wonder that Dan Patrick, Lt. Governor of Texas, hates this book (he recently canceled a public forum of this book at the Bullock Museum in Austin).
With regard to the title, the authors clearly do not want us to forget the Alamo. The mission has an extensive history far beyond the battle, and the battle remains a famous event in the struggle for Texas independence. I submit that what the authors want is for us to forget the Alamo Myth and instead understand the Alamo's true story and what the Alamo means for all Texans. Just my two cents.
Highly recommended.
Like many Americans who did not grow up in Texas, I had a vague understanding of the Alamo. Born in the 1970s, I didn't grow up on Fess Parker's famous on-screen portrayals of Davy Crockett. Raised on the West Coast, my history classes didn't sear the legendary icons William Travis or Jim Bowie into my brain. And I didn't see an old church in downtown San Antonio as a sacred shrine.
But then I married a Texan and I gained an appreciation of what the Alamo means to many Texans. If you combine Lexington, Concord, Yorktown, Gettysburg, and Pearl Harbor (and throw in a splash of Thermopylae) into one icon of chest-bursting pride, you get the idea of the popular Alamo legend.
With "Forget the Alamo," Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson, and Jason Stanford tackle the problematic Alamo Legend. While generations of Texans believe that Travis, Bowie, Crockett, and nearly 200 other brave (White) souls gave their lives gallantly at the Alamo, fighting for Freedom, Justice and the American Way and, through their sacrifice, paving the way for Texan independence and All Things Good, the authors argue that the truth is more complicated.
First, they tackle the myth that the Three Saints of the Alamo (Travis, Bowie and Crockett) were all good men fighting for noble causes. The root cause of the fight at the Alamo was the Texians' desire to preserve slavery, which was not kosher in Mexico. (Mexico's peonage system has a lot to answer for, but the American model of slavery was outlawed.) The authors document thoroughly how important slavery was to the Texan economy and the great lengths people were going through to bring slavery to Texas. The authors also document the less-noble traits of Travis, Bowie and Crockett, which are far too many to list here. At best, you can conclude these men were . . . "complicated."
Second, they tackle the myth that Santa Ana was the Snidely Whiplash of the Alamo. The Mexican dictator (who, again, has a lot to answer for) was actually in the good graces of many Texans a few short months before the Alamo. While the Texan fight for independence is often compared by Texans to the American Revolution, Santa Ana was not King George and the build-up was nowhere near as protracted as the events leading to 1776.
Third, they tackle the battle itself. While the authors don't refight the entire war for Texan independence, the Alamo emerges as an interesting little battle but hardly the pivotal Thermopylae it is so often hyped as.
And then there is the battle for the Alamo legend. As the "Hamilton" musical observes, "Who lives, who dies, who tells your story" are paramount questions. And it's been clear that the Texas power structure wants to tell the Heroic Alamo Myth of the infamous John Wayne movie . . . which also has the unfortunate but direct consequence of promoting the White Hero Myth.
The continued battle over the Alamo, which became a sad tourist destination surrounded by tacky commercialism and unfettered by any concept of actual history, is a sad affair of politics and power. The battle has gone on for decades, and while one observer points out that if as many Texans had actually fought at the Alamo as are fighting "over" the Alamo, Santa Ana never would have attacked. It's also sad that the different players each seem far too willing to invoke a veto over the larger project of building a true world-class monument on what remains a fascinating site.
And this is where things get comical, as the former rock star Phil Collins gets involved. Collins owns one of the largest private collections of Alamo memorabilia in the world, and he agreed to donate it to San Antonio provided the city built a world class museum to house it. Unfortunately, there are many concerns over the provenance of many of the items in Collins' collection, so there is concern that the museum may be anchored by fraud. Even more unfortunately, the conservative power players in Texas only want the Heroic Myth to be taught at this museum, which has caused more than a bit of a stir with other interested groups. As of today, the inability to compromise has jeopardized the entire project.
This review is far too long, and I apologize to anyone who has made it this far. "Forget the Alamo" is just that good a book. Thoroughly researched and clearly written, the authors convey a lot of information but do so with journalistic wit and a refusal to honor Sacred Cows. It's no wonder that Dan Patrick, Lt. Governor of Texas, hates this book (he recently canceled a public forum of this book at the Bullock Museum in Austin).
With regard to the title, the authors clearly do not want us to forget the Alamo. The mission has an extensive history far beyond the battle, and the battle remains a famous event in the struggle for Texas independence. I submit that what the authors want is for us to forget the Alamo Myth and instead understand the Alamo's true story and what the Alamo means for all Texans. Just my two cents.
Highly recommended.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 890 reviews