If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(woai)   Nickelodeon airs spot claiming Battle of the Alamo was fought so white farmers could keep their slaves   (woai.com) divider line 278
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

19322 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 May 2005 at 3:42 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



278 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-05-10 09:11:02 AM
Hey, you cant do that on television!
 
2005-05-10 09:14:20 AM
Stop trying to confuse the children with facts. Geez.
 
2005-05-10 09:14:22 AM
It was so the white man could steal Texas from the Mexicans... DUH, GET IT RIGHT.
 
2005-05-10 09:14:24 AM
Pinwheel, pinwheel, spinning around.
Look at my network, running into the ground.
 
2005-05-10 09:14:38 AM
in related news, historians reveal that white American men actually killed Jesus, started the black plague, made the dinosaurs extinct, and canceled Sports Night
 
2005-05-10 09:17:18 AM
So my bike isn't in the basement?
 
2005-05-10 09:17:34 AM
Golf clap for Bostony.
 
2005-05-10 09:19:42 AM
So does this mean I can expect to see Hitler getting slimed on the History channel?
 
2005-05-10 09:21:51 AM
If you wanted to slam white Americans for something, there are so many better things to slam us for than the Battle of the Alamo.
 
2005-05-10 09:26:17 AM
Yeah, 'cause all white people owned slaves prior to the civil war. Then Martin Lex Luthor King fought this battle with bus drivers to save Rosa Parks to free the slaves from Superracistman and someone named Kennedy got killed in the crossfire.

It's true 'cause I sawed it on the TV.
 
2005-05-10 09:27:48 AM
Alastair: "Oh, Mooooose?"
Moose: "Yes, Alastair?"
Alastair: "Why do you think the Battle of the Alamo was fought?"
Moose: "I don't know, Alastair. Why was the Battle of the Alamo fought?"
Alastair: "So white farmers could keep their slaves!"
Moose: "I don't get it."
Alastair: "Erm. I mean, 'Lisa's getting real fat.'"
 
2005-05-10 09:30:13 AM
Weaver95: Yeah, 'cause all white people owned slaves prior to the civil war.

I know my ancestors did, and they were in Sicily. Of course, our slaves were goats. Does that count?
 
2005-05-10 09:33:27 AM
DrewFL: Of course, our slaves were goats. Does that count?

Dunno. Ask peck.
 
2005-05-10 09:35:44 AM
Nabb1: I was just down in Nawwlins last week.
 
2005-05-10 09:37:29 AM
Damn us white people for inventing slavery. Oh, wait a minute...
 
2005-05-10 09:39:03 AM
boohiss: So does this mean I can expect to see Hitler getting slimed on the History channel?



well...
 
2005-05-10 09:39:53 AM
Bostony: Oh, yeah? How was it? Here for Jazzfest? The weather was fantastic, but it's about to start getting hot.
 
2005-05-10 09:41:01 AM
the piece, called an 'interstitial,' was not meant to convey the full story of the Alamo.

Or even part of the actual story.

"We recognize that there were several key issues in the Battle of the Alamo and one of them was slavery," Lyons said.

This man obviously failed American History in High School. He probably thinks the Civil War was fought because of slavery too.
 
2005-05-10 09:41:11 AM
The St. Louis Arch always reminds me of McDonalds. Should that worry me?

/that was an interesting article.
 
2005-05-10 09:43:00 AM
Nabb1: It was... interesting. Burbon St was a bit overrated, but had a great time anyway. Lots of good food, gained about 20 pounds.
 
2005-05-10 09:43:22 AM
The History Channel had a much better show on the Alamo prior to the crappy movie coming out. It was more factual than the Nick Spin...
 
2005-05-10 09:44:19 AM
fred_chan:

This man obviously failed American History in High School. He probably thinks the Civil War was fought because of slavery too.

What is State's Rights vs. Federalism for $500 Alex?
 
2005-05-10 09:45:19 AM
 
2005-05-10 09:45:49 AM
sparked controversy and outrage in this city

This the first time that I have heard of this. This is just some bored news people on a slow news day.

Hey newsboy! STFU & GBTW!

/sitting in my office in south SA
 
2005-05-10 09:47:04 AM
I always thought the civil was launched because two guys got in an argument over "Tastes Great, Less Filling."
 
2005-05-10 09:49:39 AM
State's Rights
States rights to do what? - for $800.00
 
2005-05-10 09:52:05 AM
fred_chan:
"We recognize that there were several key issues in the Battle of the Alamo and one of them was slavery," Lyons said.
This man obviously failed American History in High School.

How so? Even the guy who complained about the piece -- an Alamo historian and "one of the country's leading experts on pre Civil War southwestern history" -- admits that "The slavery issue was a factor". It may not have been the main one, or even  a  main one, but it was a factor.

Honestly this is the first I've ever heard slavery mentioned in connection with the Alamo at all. No on is saying "white man bad". As a matter of fact, the constant white-washing (no pun intended) of history by neglecting to note the uglier aspects seems to say quite the opposite.

Lyons said, "We want to tell our viewers something they may not have known". And while the piece may have simplified things and omitted a whole helluva lot (obviously, given that it is a 50 second piece) it accomplished what they say they wanted.
 
2005-05-10 09:58:30 AM
ManThatHurts:

States rights to do what? - for $800.00

My comment doesn't defend slavery, but the war was fought over state right's vs. Federalism.

There's a lot of history behind State's Rights vs. Federalism going back to the Founding Fathers. If you don't know, I'm not going to explain it to you...do your own research (the Federalist Papers would be a good start).
 
2005-05-10 10:03:10 AM
ManThatHurts:

States rights to do what? - for $800.00



Didnt it have to do with the right to trade goods with foreign countries?
 
2005-05-10 10:04:54 AM
Big round of applause for CakeHunter. I could almost see those kids poking out of those lockers.

Bravo! Bravissimo!
 
2005-05-10 10:06:46 AM
This man obviously failed American History in High School

High School American History is in fact a huge failure. Mostly we are taught watered down, bland, and factually incorrect if not misleading crap about our own history. Most people leave high school hating history because it is so damn boring!

Check out this author
 
2005-05-10 10:07:54 AM
ArcadianRefugee
Lyons said, "We want to tell our viewers something they may not have known". And while the piece may have simplified things and omitted a whole helluva lot (obviously, given that it is a 50 second piece) it accomplished what they say they wanted.

But what they wanted it to convey is factually incorrect. From the article:
San Antonio, which had been the key urban center of the Spanish province and later the Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas, was almost entirely made up of Spanish-speaking people of Mexican and Spanish descent in the years before 1836. In fact, with the exception of Jim Bowie, who had married into the most prominent Tejano family in San Antonio, almost none of the Anglos who died in the Battle of the Alamo had any connection to San Antonio whatsoever, and many, including Davy Crockett, had arrived in Texas less than a year before the battle.

From that fact, they create this piece of non-truth:
By the early 1800s, most of the people living in San Antonio were white farmers who brought their slaves with them.

Nickelodeon or its contractors who are presenting a snapshot of history have a certain responsablity to get things as correct as possible. The statement above is 140 degrees from the actual reality of what the population makeup was in Texas at the time. It has some truth to it, but is it a correct statement based on the population breakdown of the area at that time? Nope. A little fact checking could have done wonders for that 50 second piece of tripe.

Again the dumbing down of history and news makes the Baby Jesus cry.
 
2005-05-10 10:13:51 AM
Again the dumbing down of history and news makes the Baby Jesus cry.

But the bias is kind of interesting to follow, don't you think?

man, I WISH my ancestors were half as interesting as biased crap like this makes it sound.
 
2005-05-10 10:14:15 AM
Nice work Honig. You took the time to make the point that I was too lazy to do this morning. Gracias.
 
2005-05-10 10:14:29 AM
ArcadianRefugee:

Even the guy who complained about the piece -- an Alamo historian and "one of the country's leading experts on pre Civil War southwestern history" -- admits that "The slavery issue was a factor"

As you have said, this idea isn't really that far-fetched. Areas of Texas were founded and overseen by empresarios. In many cases, this lead to a system of indentured servitude. Slavery, states rights, and economics are closely related.

I don't think you can say that any one of these factors was the single spark that caused the revolution. Most likely it was a combination. And, more to the point, the deciding factor was different for each person in the battle.
 
2005-05-10 10:23:57 AM
I don't think you can say that any one of these factors was the single spark that caused the revolution. Most likely it was a combination. And, more to the point, the deciding factor was different for each person in the battle.

Which still has nothing to do with Nickelodeon painting the Alamo as nothing more than an attempt to salvage slavery. That's some pretty vile stuff when you think about it.
 
2005-05-10 10:24:05 AM
vliam:

I don't think you can say that any one of these factors was the single spark that caused the revolution. Most likely it was a combination. And, more to the point, the deciding factor was different for each person in the battle.

That opinion is much in line with The History Channel special.
 
2005-05-10 10:28:24 AM
Bostony Didnt it have to do with the right to trade goods with foreign countries?

Um - yea, right, that's it, foreign countries, that's the ticket. You just go ahead and go with that.
 
2005-05-10 10:30:17 AM
slayer199: That opinion is much in line with The History Channel special.

Hmmm. I haven't seen it. I try to stay away from anything related to Hollywood's interpretation of history. (see Titanic)
 
2005-05-10 10:31:46 AM
2005-05-10 10:28:24 AM ManThatHurts


Bostony Didnt it have to do with the right to trade goods with foreign countries?

Um - yea, right, that's it, foreign countries, that's the ticket. You just go ahead and go with that


Relax. Have some ice cream.
 
2005-05-10 10:33:02 AM
Wait til they start whitewashing the reasons for our invading Iraq. Some of the doozies history is going to think up for that, like we wanted to create a democratic state and we wanted to help the iraqi people.

As for slavery it was part of states rights and part of the argument for every state joining the union between about 1820 and 1860. So if this was a fight over how to join the union I don't see how slavery wasn't in the argument. If you believed in States Rights you believed in slavery being an option a state could choose, if you were a Unionist you believed that moral law from Washington DC was superior than moral law locally. As it happened, moral law from Washington DC included (eventually) the idea that slavery was illegal.
 
2005-05-10 10:34:22 AM
vliam:

Hmmm. I haven't seen it. I try to stay away from anything related to Hollywood's interpretation of history. (see Titanic)

I'd put my money on the History Channel being more accurate in their documentaries than ANY of Hollywood's movies.
 
2005-05-10 10:36:24 AM
Jeez- the whole reason Texas is Texas is the slavery issue. Americans "immigrated" there when it was still part of Mexico- the state of Coahuila y Tejas. The 'Mericans brought their slaves with them and in an odd bit of progressivism, the Mexicans were ahead of us on the whole "slavery=bad" thing.
The disputes between the white settlers and the Mexican government were one of the bigger sparks that led to the creation of the Republic of Texas or whatever they called it.
 
2005-05-10 10:39:25 AM
Generation_D:

So if this was a fight over how to join the union I don't see how slavery wasn't in the argument.

Texans had no intention of joining the union at the time. Actually, they prefered being an state of Mexico.
 
2005-05-10 10:45:58 AM
yawn.

Didn't John Wayne die in this?
 
2005-05-10 10:57:19 AM
Commandancy of the Alamo
Bexar Feby, 1836

To the people of Texas and all Americans in the world
Fellow Citizens and Compatriots

I am besiged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Ana- I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded surrender at discresion, otherwise the garrison is to be put to the sword if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot and our flag still waves proudly from the walls.

I shall never surrender or retreat. Then I call upon you in the name of liberty, of patriotism, of everything dear to the American character to come to our aid with dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If the call is neglected, I am determined to sustain for as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his honor and his country- Victory or Death.

William Barrett Travis, LtCol. Comdt.

Send this to San Felipe by express day and night
Feb 27, 1836


Col Travis was killed a few days later, defending the breached wall of the Alamo at the age of 26.
 
2005-05-10 11:04:42 AM
slayer199
The question was "state's right to do what?"

Federalism is a cop out answer as it doesn't go to the one thing that would cause a group of states to throw in the towel and leave.

Federalism is the division of power between the Federal government and local/state governments. It is a balancing act that continues even today. How the powers would be seperated was settled decades before 1961. So you gotta ask yourself a couple of questions -
Why was the south okay with being a part of the system until 1861?
Why did they quit the union after Lincoln was elected? Would they have quit the union if Douglas (who was a clear supporter of slavery) were elected?
What other big events and debates were playing out that would cause the south to call it quits when Lincoln was elected?

Also, take a look at the Confederate Constitution. Pretty much the same division of power. The really huge differences -
Presidential term limit, one term of six years.
Slavery was a protected right.
International slave trade was abolished.
Debate in congress on slavery was banned.
Other than that, no huge differences.
So you gotta ask yourself, looking at their consitution, what were they most concerned about? Creating a new division of power? And looking at what changes they did make, why did they make those changes? What were they trying to protect about their society that the US constitution didn't protect?

In my opnion, you are partly right. It is about federalism. But so was the debate about the New Deal and today's privatization of federal programs. More correctly it is about what part of our system just didn't work for the southern states and why?
 
2005-05-10 11:07:55 AM
Bostony
Damn good suggestion!

/up since 3am. Gettin cranky . . . .
 
2005-05-10 11:13:04 AM
Children's program remembers the Alamo as a battle fought "so white farmers could keep their slaves." Davy Crockett surrenders

/please enjoy my late headline
 
2005-05-10 11:49:48 AM
I think that we are forgetting the real story here: whitey finally got his comeuppance at the Alamo.

What does it really say for the leadership of the Texas rebels at the Alamo that Santa Anna was so easily beaten at San Jacinto? He was surprised by what, a Sunday school outing armed with slingshots?
 
Displayed 50 of 278 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report