Why do we teach little kids lies?

[Dom Pedro II]

First of all, the Alamo wasn't an important battle. Especially since Texas lost the battle but won the war. San Jacinto is much more important, and although I don't know if Santa Ana was dressed as a woman, I do know that the Mexican army was caught entirely off guard, and Santa Ana was enjoying his usual mid-afternoon screw with a couple of Mexican army-followers.

Anyway, as far as history as a young kid is concerned, Columbus was always taught in our school to have been trying to prove the roundness of the world in an age where everybody thought it was flat. In fact, most people accepted by this point that the world was round, it was just a matter of how big it was and whether the western sea was traversible given the distance. Ironically, Columbus's figures on the size of the world were completely off, and it was his opponents who were right. If somebody hadn't slapped a continent between Spain and Malaysia , those sailors would have been dead men.

As far as the founding fathers owning slaves is concerned, we were never taught that they didn't have slaves. Of course, we were never taught that they did. It was just never mentioned at all. Unfortunately, the plight of the American slave receives very little attention in most history courses until the arrival of the Civil War.

And yes, the Civil War did have a lot of bull attached to it for us. It was considered a war to free the slaves, which was certainly NOT how most Northerners saw it in 1862.

Of course, this is at a young age when trying to explain complicated politics, economic theory, and such would be very difficult indeed. Most kids by junior high got the facts straight if they ever even bothered to pick up the text book. American history for young children is taught in an idealistic way... it takes puberty to see the world with the kind of cynicism necessary to truly appreciate history.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kramerman
Unimportant how?

Despite claims that it delayed the Mexican army, it really didn't. Once the main body of the army arrived, the battle was over in like a day or so. It was a pointless stand that served no legitimate military purpose. But Texans are taught to revere the thing, and because it's part of your state curriculum, the rest of the country has it in their text books also.

[Dan Severn]

It showed brass balls, but the Alamo really needed at least 1000 men to defend it properly. The Texans had about 1?4 that number.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well it was a rallying cry that brought people over to the Texans' side. So, in that respect it was important. Just like 'the Maine' was important to the Spanish-American War.

[Dom Pedro II]

Yeah, that's a good point, Imran. It was a rallying cry, but militarily speaking, it had little importance.

I'm not saying it should be dumped. I mean, the legendary Davie Crockett did die there. It's a tribute to human heroism against overwhelming odds. I'm sure chegitz has cheered more than one lost cause in his day... would it be noteworthy if they had a red flag rather than the Texas one flapping over the fort?

[chequita guevara]

It's a tribute to human stupidity. They should have vamoosed when they heard Santa Anna was coming, along with the rest of the Texan army.

And what are we celebrating anyway? The right of the Texans to own slaves, which was illegal in Mexico.

[Dom Pedro II]

*Sigh* Alright... there's a thin line between bravery and stupidity, and I'm not going to argue over which side they were on since its a matter of personal perception.

Either way, I think its a point of interest. Something to visit as a tourist in Texas if not a student in a classroom.

[chequita guevara]

Bravery can be stupidity when it serves no useful purpose. The Battel of the Alamo served no useful purpose other than to get a couple of American heroes killed (Bowie and Crocket) along with a few hundred idiot drunks.

[Dom Pedro II]

I think its easy to condemn their choice to stay almost 170 years after the fact when you have all the facts in front of you. When you know when and where the Mexican army was at that point and in what force they were in. They didn't have all that information. It was a bad choice to stay, but I still think it was a brave act.

Anyway, we are both in agreement at least that the battle was not in any way helpful to the cause of Texan independence and that it had very little military significance.

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
along with a few hundred idiot drunks.

Like the idiot drunks who vote communist...

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's a tribute to human stupidity. They should have vamoosed when they heard Santa Anna was coming, along with the rest of the Texan army.

So running away is your answer? No wonder true communist states haven't survived. The drunk idiots there prefer the run away .

[chequita guevara]

If staying and fighting and dying would have done something other than providing a great rallying cry, then yeah, they should have stayed to fight. Since their sacrifice was pointless, they should have fled.

For example, the Battle of Marathon was a hopeless battle, but it delayed the Persians long enough for the Athenians to evacuate.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Despite claims that it delayed the Mexican army, it really didn't. Once the main body of the army arrived, the battle was over in like a day or so. It was a pointless stand that served no legitimate military purpose. But Texans are taught to revere the thing, and because it's part of your state curriculum, the rest of the country has it in their text books also.

The siege lasted about 13 days, actually. And it isnt so much that it stalled the Mexican army as that it hurt it badly. About 174 men, including such American Icons as Davey Crockett and Jim Bowie, defended an old spanish mission that would require 1000 men to defend properly. All the defenders were killed when the siege ended with a charge of the walls, but no before the defenders killed a ton of Mexican soldiers. The exact number ranges widely, fo some reason, but Ive heard everything from 2000 - 4000 Mexican casualties or somethn like that (their total force was 5000 IIRC). I guess technically since the Texans lost the position they lost the battle, but I would consider this a victory myself.

regardless, it is not an insignificant victory, because had it not taken place it is unlikely the Mexican army would have been taking a siesta on the day it was in San Jacinto where the Mexican army was ambushed and surrendered.

[chequita guevara]

The seige lasted 13 days because it was started by advance units of the Mexican army.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by loinburger
Boris and MrFun both get the "rolleyes" treatment for one-trick ponyism.

Oh please. The thread is about how schools continue to teach historical lies, half-truths and misconceptions. Here comes a poster talking about those, but in the same post continues the misconceptions by implying history in N. America didn't start until the Europeans arrived. Well, excuuuuuuuuuuse me for pointing out there were people here thousands of years before Europeans showed up. I think it's high time we stop propagating the idea Europeans "discovered" the Americas. They did not.