Texas History VS Texan History

When I was four, my family moved to the Dallas area of Texas. We moved back to Wisconsin after living there for 10 years, essentially meaning that I was raised there. It was during the readings assigned in this film class that made me question much of what I was taught about Texas History. I had spent from before kindergarten until the end of my freshman year in high school under the Texas school system, and have found myself to have held beliefs about history that aren’t entirely accurate. It was this realization coupled with the purpose of this course that made me decide to write my final essay to explore the differences between ‘Texas History’ and ‘Texan History’.

My family traveled to San Antonio once on vacation, where we visited the actual Alamo site. It has been converted into a tourist attraction, historical site, and gift shop. In the historical site, there were weapons of the time, models of the stages of the battle, and numerous paintings of the battle. While there, I remember paintings of Davy Crockett standing at the gates of the Alamo, with the dark bayonets of the Mexican Army drawing closer from the bottom and sides of the frame. The site is a tribute to the heroism of the defenders. There is no mention of the reports of the last defender, Jacob Walker, hiding behind Susannah Dickinson before being bayoneted.

One major inconsistency is the way in which the relationship between Stephen F. Austin and the Mexican government is portrayed. I was taught that Austin was a bilingual intermediary of sorts, working to bridge the language gap and physical distance between the Texas settlers and the government. We were told how he would travel back and forth between them to negotiate, and how he was against a war for independence. His loss to Sam Houston in the race to be the first president of Texas after the war was taught to be somewhat tragic, and he is depicted as a man who gave everything for Texas and got little back.

History shows us a different picture though. In “A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America” by Ronald Takaki, one of the reading sources for this class, the chapter ‘Foreigners In Their Native Land’ quotes some of Austin’s more rebellious and intolerant remarks. These include references to the Mexican people as “mongrel Spanish-Indian and Negro race” and that Americans need to “redeem it from the wilderness --- to settle it with an intelligent honorable and enterprising people.” It further quotes him with “War is our only recourse. There is no other remedy.” This is a far cry from the moderate and cooperative Austin taught to me when I was a child…

One particular memory was during 7th grade Texas History. As we entered the room just before class, an overhead projection was displayed on the board. On it, the teacher explained her disappointment with the recent test score averages and lack of participation of the class. It listed several new rules each student must abide by or risk being kicked out of class. The list included coming in for so many extra hours every week, a series of quizzes that all needed to be passed, ect… Everyone in the class was shocked at the demands, while I myself was covered in a cold sweat and breathing heavily. As the teacher walked in and students began raising their displeasure and objections, she explained that this was what it was like for the Texas settlers when Santa Anna rescinded the 1824 Constitution of Mexico and replaced it with the 1835 Constitution. It was explained that this ‘sudden application of absurd requirements and not being able to change them’ condition was the trigger. It was this ‘up against the wall’ feeling the class felt that pushed the settlers to revolt. This was the given ‘reason’ for the Texas Revolution. In this way, it was tied to ideals of the American Revolution, which is almost unanimously seen as ‘good’ and ‘justified’.When studying the Civil War, it is made abundantly clear that slavery is morally wrong. But the fact that Texas was part of the Confederacy and owned slaves was downplayed, rationalized simply by “because it was in the south”. In the context of the colonization and the Texas Revolution, it was taught that slaves existed there but only as a footnote. It was not taught that the 1835 Constitution of Mexico banned slavery, which was one of primary points of conflict for the settlers.

Oddly enough, the Civil War is primarily taught as being fought over the issue of slavery, in which the victorious side was against. However, there were many other historical reasons for the conflict between the north and south. In the case of Texas, where the victorious side was pro-slavery, the issue of slavery in the conflict is not even mentioned. This is an odd historical trend I’ve come to notice in a history written primarily by white historians. This could possibly be attempts to push the image of the ‘benevolent’ white in cases where it can, while downplaying the attempts to propagate slavery by whites.

In the Battle of San Jacinto, the final battle in the war, Sam Houston attacked the Mexican Army during their siesta. Caught by surprise, the larger Mexican Army fell into disarray and was quickly defeated. General Santa Anna reportedly changed into a regular soldier’s uniform to avoid capture, but was caught when saluted and discovered to be wearing silk underwear. The battle is taught to have been determined by the overconfidence and lack of spirt of the Mexican Army, as opposed to the ferocity and spirt of the cornered Texas Army. The image of the proud absolute ruler of Mexico removing his ornate uniform and pretending to be a regular solider gives the impression that his pride was merely self-serving ego, which dissolves in the face of real danger in the interest of self-preservation. Coupled with the reports of not being on the frontlines during the Alamo, he is taught to be a ‘sheep in wolves clothing’. Even if all of these events are fact, the way in which they are spun has a massive impact on the way it can be interpreted, similar to what a good director can do to a movie script.

Humans take in their world through what they experience through their various senses, the culmination of which we call ‘reality’. ‘Reality’ can vary from person to person, which is why there are arguments and misunderstandings between them. The way in which ‘history’ is primarily written by the victor and how media imagery attempts to influence our thoughts and opinions are both derived from this principle of ‘reality’. The concept of school education is similar in that the young student’s mind, which is assumed to not yet been exposed to the historical data, can have its definition of ‘reality’ influenced by only allowing the mind to ‘experience’ certain aspects of the truth. This boils down to teachers depicting history in such a way that a similar collective image of ‘reality’ is imbued in the students. The desire for a Texan to teach Texas History in such a way as to depict Texans in a good light is clear. People don’t like to accept the bad parts about themselves, and the same extends to groups of people. We convince ourselves that we are correct and justified in our actions in order to protect ourselves. This is the reason I believe that I was taught such a one-sided view of Texas History.