Quote:
Originally Posted by _dgn_
Your version is the usual one, which is teached in Texas and in the United States : some valorous colonists, oppressed by a dictatorial authority, take guns and occupy a fort. They are all exterminated by brutal enemy soldiers. But their sacrifice needs a revenge and the fraternal United States run and bring peace and freedom.
|
Your history is the biased outsider's, and is no more accurate than you claim ours is. First, no Mexicans wanted to live in Texas, so they made a deal with some Americans who were willing to work the land (or at least make their slaves do it).
Second, Santa Ana (not Mexico itself) was indeed a dictator who was run out of office after the loss of Texas. He made his way back in and then got run out a second time. As for not speaking the local language, there were some Mexicans living there. Guess what? They, led by Juan Seguin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Segu%C3%ADn, joined the Texians against Santa Ana. Why? Because he really was the ruthless dictator you defend. After being elected to the presidency he wrote a new constitution and disbanded the congress. Not just Texas but several Mexican states rebelled. Texas was the one which defeated him,
without help from the United States. Santa Ana lost power and fled to the US, where he lived in exile.
When he was allowed to return he again made himself dictator. The Mexican-American war came about because Texas applied for US Statehood, and Santa Ana said he would not allow it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio..._de_Santa_Anna
Quote:
|
But a flattering (WASP ?) and mythical version ! What are thinking in Texas the Spanish speaking people, or the descendants of people who where living here before Union rules, about it ?
|
It would appear you don't know as much as you claim.
Quote:
|
In this case, it's no more history, only propaganda.
|
You saying it doesn't make it so. Please show your "true" history. Links, documents, anything.
Quote:
|
Insulting ? No, only disturbing !
|
No, it's insulting. Showing that something is wrong is neither insulting nor disturbing. You don't do that, you just claim that what you disagree with is propaganda and myth. A lot of it is, but if you are the historian you claim to be then you should know that you need to prove your claims, not just make them.