Happy San Jacinto Day! (why have we forgotten)

[doctorjef]

Well said (or well quoted), Pontificator. That's why people shouldn't automatically get up in arms about so-called revisionist history. Let me give an example that is removed from the sensitivies of Texas and the USA. At the end of WWII, the Nuremburg trials placed criminal responsibility on various leaders of the German Nazi regime for the Holocaust. This had the side-effect, however, of enabling the ordinary German populace to escape public self-examination for their own acts of complicity in the Nazi regime and in the persecution of the Jews, culminating in the Holocaust. It wasn't until the later 1960s and 1970s with the rise of the New Left throughout the Western World that German youth and younger academics started calling the German people to accountability for their complicity in the Hitler regime.

I'm not comparing any events in America or Texas to the Nazi regime (although the theft of the land of Native American tribes, the destruction of their ways of life and the genocidal policies against them might beg some comparison), but it's important to realise and to teach that history isn't as clean and simple as popular pieties might wish it to be. One can recongise the laudable ideals and virtues of a group of historical figures without having to absolve them of responsibility for some ulterior motives, and bad policies and behaviour.

[Willsson]

Here's the location of the 'Approximate Site of the Capture of Santa Anna' marker atop the Washburn Tunnel



And the location of Vince Bridge, the bridge of NO RETURN



The San Jacinto battle ground is 12.5 miles east

Camp Twenty of the San Jacinto Campaign
April 19, 1836

Remember, this was all on foot or horseback. There were no Humvee's for swift action.

[Willsson]

Texas Army of 1836 Dispatch set No. 10

Indeed the battle was fought the next day, about 3:30 in the afternoon. The Texian army surprised the resting Mexican army and routed them in approximately 18 minutes. The struggle for independence was won at that moment. Although General Houston and his staff ordered the men to stop and take prisoners, they ignored his command and continued revenge driven slaughter until dark. Although Generalissimo Santa Anna was not among the dead or captured that night, he was captured the following day on the 22nd, hiding in the tall grasses near Vince’s bayou. A Company under Deaf Smith had destroyed Vince’s bridge before the engagement and Santa Anna was trapped on the battlefield side of the bayou.

[MockingbirdHill]

Originally Posted by Pontificator

"The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice."

Mark Twain

What did Twain mean by this? (I can see two possible meanings.)

[doctorjef]

Originally Posted by MockingbirdHill

What did Twain mean by this? (I can see two possible meanings.)

ISTM that this is a broader variation on the more common saying, "History is written by the victors", i.e. a one-sided and oftentimes self-serving version of events.

I guess Twain's statement also points to the shifting winds of opinion and viewpoint over time. Taking a post-modernist approach, you could think also that Twain was way ahead of his time in explicitly proclaiming that there is no such thing as objectivity, because "truth" or perceptions are as reflective of the perceiver as of that which is perceived.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by doctorjef

ISTM that this is a broader variation on the more common saying, "History is written by the victors", i.e. a one-sided and oftentimes self-serving version of events.

I guess Twain's statement also points to the shifting winds of opinion and viewpoint over time. Taking a post-modernist approach, you could think also that Twain was way ahead of his time in explicitly proclaiming that there is no such thing as objectivity, because "truth" or perceptions are as reflective of the perceiver as of that which is perceived.

I couldn't agree more with THIS one; at least on the main levels.

There is no such thing as objective history. It is interpretted -- and written down -- by biased/predjudiced people -- after the fact. The winners of the conflicts usually write that of the wars...and the losers slip into romance...of sorts.

The prose of history is emotional and slanted because it is human. It is written by those who remembered it from their own experience and/or history as they absorb it. The yankees wrote from their point of view...as did the Southerners.

For myself? I absolutely, unabashedly, and unapologetically, take the Southern side and I have good reasons for doing so. The South was right in a constitutional sense...at the very least. It becaame complicated later on, but I would have been on the side of my people -- Texas/South -- not only by blood and soil...but by conviction.

The source of my own amimosity when it comes to this subject is NOT in the least to dismiss them. On the other hand? They were a brave and hardy people. I have nothing but the highest respect for those tough boys...

[doctorjef]

Well, the problem I have with the notion that there isn't any objectivity in the study of history - that it's all just biased interpretation - is that this ultimately leads us to a sort of nihilism.

By analogy there are a lot of models in the sciences that are workable approximations yet not literally accurate descriptions of ultimate reality. Twentieth Century theory of atomic structure started with the "plum pudding" model and then progressed on to the "orbital" model, but neither is an accurate description of the structure of atoms. However, the latter,especially, was close enough to lead to nuclear fission and fusion, to weapons and to power plants.

By the same token, in religion and philosophy there is much use of metaphor and simile. These are meant to express an approximation to reality - they point to the ultimate reality to which they refer - but they are by no means fully that reality.

If we get to the point of asking ironically and Pilate-like, "What is truth?", then we are adopting a nihilistic cyncisim that ultimately leads to overthrowing all possibility of constructing meaning.

[ScoPro]

Then again, some history can really be told in black & white terms as many of the original issues were. Plus one must relate to it in a contemporary context.

No need to overthink it too much.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

Then again, some history can really be told in black & white terms as many of the original issues were. Plus one must relate to it in a contemporary context.

No need to overthink it too much.

While at the same time remembering that those actually living it were in a context that was contemporary for themselves and the events had different meanings for them.

In other words, history isn't all about us.