|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 16 January 2003
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Most mistakes in one article award!!!!!:
Archive through 16 January 2003
Author: chris scott
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 07:12 pm |        | Whilst trawling the net in I have found various articles which have fair taken my breath away!!!
I would like to propose an award for the article that contains the most errors in the shortest space!!!
To get the ball rolling, my nomination to start proceeding is
http://darter.ocps.net/classroom/who/darter1/ripper.htm |
Author: Garry Ross
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 07:36 pm | | Chris,
I'll second that one, I like the cones part 
take care
Garry |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 09:32 pm | | LOL, that's the problem with places that post lots of high school essays on the web. I don't see why someone would even bother, personally. They might as well just call the site "Lots of stuff that's just plain wrong mixed in with things that are misleading" so as not to confuse people.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: judith stock
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 02:12 pm | | EGAD, Chris..I like the "cones" part, too...but someone PLEASE, PLEASE tell me....which of the five was in her "seventies"???? Since the eejit posted all the womens' ages, I missed it amid my giggles.
Good thread!
J |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 02:16 pm | | Wow. That's quite an interesting link you found there Chris... I don't think I ever seen anything quite like that :-)
I like this bit under sources:
"Movie (biography on Jack the Ripper)"
I wonder what film he used?
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 03:25 pm | | Wow! Several things - - well four things actually - - are wrong with this picture. First, historical errors aside, the kid should have flunked due to grammar errors, this is not saying that I do not make my own but damn. Second, this site is âsupposedlyâ monitored by a Florida High School History teacher. At first glance, I thought these were elementary students! Third, I can not believe that the local school board would allow this to go on and allow the teacher to continue teaching. I have to question the teacherâs knowledge of history. And where are the parents!?! I check my sonâs homework, especially history, being that I am a History major.
Did anyone read the other articles that were posted to this site? The Alamo article is a hoot. The Alamo was Franciscan Mission ( which it was) but is now used as a monument. Truth be told, the Alamo was manned by 155 idiots. Sam Houston instructed Travis to let Santa Anna have it as he needed Travis and his men at San Jacinto. During the 20th century, the Alamo was used as a warehouse by the City of San Antonio. It did not become a shrine until after WWII when the Daughters of the Texas Revolution started the movement to âRemember the Alamo.â
O.K. Iâm calm. I noticed the site will post corrections, maybe we should send some. The truly sad part is that students the world over are probably cutting and pasting these reports and passing them off as their own.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Paula Wolff
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 08:54 am | | Scott,
Do you see that gauntlet at your feet? I demand immediate satisfaction on the Alamo issue. Meet me at dawn tomorrow in Waco, TEXAS. We don't consider the men "idiots", but very brave men who didn't have to stay to defend the very old falling down mission. They considered it a fort, of course. They were each and every one given a chance to leave. Never mind whether or not Travis drew a line in the sand; it was probably verbal. They chose to stay. Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, Bonham, Milam, Sequin, etc. idiots??? Flawed giants maybe. But brave. They had a idea and an ideal. Which side of the line would you have been on?
Where was Lorena Bobett when we needed her?? She would have come in handy when Ozzy Osbourne urinated on the Alamo steps!!
Watch it with the critique of what others did to secure our freedom from Mexico. Dead serious.
This, of course, does not mean you shouldn't put opinions up on the board but please! some of us like these guys. I cry when I go into the Alamo. Of course it was a lost cause but what a cause. What if Washington had given up after Valley Forge? Nope. The Alamo lives and breathes.
Excuse the emotion. No, on second thought, everyone else gasses about dwadle on here so no excuses offered. I'll just suffer the critics in silence.
Ta,
Paula of TEXAS |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 10:19 am | | Leave it to me Dept....
Here's the mission statement for the web site that hosts the article in question:
"The Technology Careers Academy began in August 1996 for tenth-grade students who expressed an interest in using and understanding the impact of technology in the world of work. Students who display an aptitude for problem-solving in a small group and individual setting and enjoy working with hands-on projects are encouraged to enroll."
Notice that there is no mention of learning historiology (the practical 'science' of history).
This is a web site made by 14-16 year olds FOR other 14-16 year olds who shop an interest in learning web technology. That's W-E-B T-E-C-H-N-O-L-O-G-Y, not history.
It's damned miracle the kid got as much detail in as he did, or treated the topic -- especially the victimology -- as seriously and respectfully as he did.
I would also direct your attention, as has Scott in a way, to the main page of the "World History Online":
"This website is the creation of tenth-grade world historystudents in the Technology Academy hereat Apopka High Schoolin Central Florida, a proud member of the Orange County Public Schools.It is intended to be an online reference of world history topicsfor students written by students. As such, there may be errorsthat need correcting. We will gladly fix any you notice if youwill simply e-mail the editors.This site was launched on April 2, 1997 and will be adding newtopics roughly every 2 months." {sic - but emphasis is mine}
Who here has written the kid to (dare I suggest, GENTLY) correct his errors -- both historical and grammatical? Who has written to offer praise that he has attempted at least to deal with a subject that is deep and complex; where few of us have ever bothered to read and do the research required to 'legitmately' offer an article on this subject from a web site?
How is the kid supposed to learn if, despite the offer to accept any and all criticism submitted by email, he (or she in other cases on that site, no doubt) receives nothing; meanwhile, we waste Stephen's electrons snickering about him here?
Herein endeth the sermon.
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 11:04 am | | Postscript--
Yeah, I practiced what I preached and sent a few suggestions to, I believe, the teacher responsible for Chris D.'s article on JtR. I offered suggestions on BOTH web tech issues and historical articles (oh yes, along with proofreading, as opposed to simple spell-checking).
If they diss me or show any response of any kind, I'll let you know.
You TOO can become a teacher AND, by doing it for free, earn only SLIGHTLY less than the real Magoo's paychecks!
Right, school teachers in our studio audience?
Yaz the Peripetetic (did I spell that right; methinks not?) |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 11:37 am | | Those students should probably spend more time in H-I-S-T-O-R-Y or E-N-G-L-I-S-H instead of W-E-B- T-E-C-H-N-O-L-O-G-Y.
There is a fine line between bravery and stupidity. Travis was an idiot. In terms of strategy, he did everything wrong. First and foremost, he occupied the low ground. One of the earliest and primary dictums of military strategy states, the army holding the high ground holds the advantage. General Houston ordered Col.Travis and his men to San Jacinto because, on a strategic basis, SJ was strategically more sound as it was high ground on all sides. Secondly he had no fallback position, secondary or supplemental fighting positions. And finally, he chose too large a piece of real estate to defend with the man power allocated to him. In military terms, that is called economy of force.
Until the post WWII movement to declare The Alamo a national shrine, The Alamo was actually a little more than a footnote in the Texas war for independence. In fact, the massacre at Goliad did more to rouse the ire of Texans than The Alamo, and the early cry of the war was Remember Goliad! and not Remember The Alamo! The War for Texas Independence was of course successful but it had more to do with the cunning of Gen. Houston than anything....well Santa Anna did help, the self named Napoleon of Mexico was a bigger idiot than Travis.
The reasons for the British defense of Roarkeâs Drift being so successful are:
1) Roarkeâs Drift occupied high ground.
2) Roarkeâs Drift had a natural boundry.
3) The British established a secondary fighting position and a fall back position.
At Thermopolye, the Spartans held the low ground and put up one hell of a fight. The pass at Thermopolye was bordered on the west by mountains and on the east by the sea. Xeres had to lead his Persian Army through the mountains to engage the Greeks. The only pass through the mountains was Thermopolye. Persian scouts later found subsequent passes with the aid of a local shepherd, and they eventually routed the Spartans but only after the Spartans inflicted massive casualties. Even though every last defender at Thermopolye died, the Spartans manning the pass were successful in their mission. Their job was to slow down the Persian advance in order to give the Greek city states time to unite and organize their army. The rest becomes history as the Greeks slaughter the Persians at Salamis.
Peace,
Scott
1984 Graduate of West Point |
Author: Timsta
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 11:48 am | | Scott:
As a resident of Travis Heights, Travis County, Texas, I think it only my duty to join Paula in the gauntlet tossing, whatever the historical facts of the matter.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 12:05 pm | | Timsta,
No problem...toss away.
Its also nice to see Travis finally found high ground
Peace,
Scott
The Vicar of Bray and Military Historian |
Author: Stan Russo
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 01:06 pm | | Yazoo,
I totally agree with your assessment. I have e-mailed the young author, or the teacher whose e-mail address is listed to explain some of the inaccuraccies.
Despite being wraught with errors we should be excited that a kid of only 15 or 16 should take an interest in crime history. He probably rented The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper video where all five panelists choose from 5 prime suspects.
Ten years from now he/she may correct their errors and write an outstanding book on the subject. When I first started reading about the case I believed 'JTR' was James Maybrick, because that was the first book I read regarding the case. Perhaps this young student has made a similar error and will supplement his learning of the case with better books. I applaud him for trying at such a young age.
STAN |
Author: Timsta
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 01:08 pm | | Scott:
And I live down the road from the bizarrely-named Alamo Heights, too.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 01:39 pm | | Timsta,
Hey, to show that I equally tick off everyone from time to time with the true historical facts, two years ago I had to attend a parent teacher conference after my son disagreed with his Louisiana History teacher and called Huey Long a communist.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 02:00 pm | | Hey Scott (in particular):
I again ask you to share your knowledge with a high school student instead of railing about such knowledge from the rather lofty advantage of being a West point graduate. Can you seriously be so aroused that a HS student knows much, much less than a WP grad? (And to be fair, having no interest in anything Texan -- it truly IS another country!! -- I did not read the Alamo article.)
And since there are no dates recorded on the site that I saw, for all we know these students might already have graduated from Harvard MBA or Law programs or, perhaps catastrophically for some, from West Point!
No one's laughter at the mistakes of these students does the children who wrote these article one iota of good.
Share your knowledge, please. Write to them. Especially since they asked for the public's input! That would be THE greatest benefit of these students learning web technology (as well as History and English)...you become one of their teachers. How many of us want to accept THAT responsibility versus ragging away in this thread?
I go now.
Yaz |
Author: Philip Rayner
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 02:53 pm | | I live in England and know nothing about the Alamo but following a long family tradition in that I am on the side of whoever is winning at the time.
Shallow- you betcha. |
Author: judith stock
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 03:11 pm | | Dear Scott, Paula and Timsta,
Scott, Huey was just a nut case...garden variety, plain old whacko..with a big mouth and some ideas that have never worked. Bless his little black heart! I do like the forensic exam they did, however, that pretty much concludes he was probably killed in the cross fire of his own guards!
AND, Paula and Timsta..I was born in Texas, educated there, heard all the rubbish in the 2nd grade, the 6th grade, junior high and high school, and got another large dose in university ....Texas history, ya' know. Scott is correct about the Alamo, and its' "defenders". Of course, I guess you still believe that Austin and the 400 "freed" Texas. That's what bad education does. Texas was stolen by Austin and his cohorts, and the Alamo was one of the silliest events of that war. Impossible to defend, impossible to relieve or supply, the battle at the Alamo only held Santa Ana up by thirteen days, and served no purpose other than to cause more loss of life. It MUST be made to be "glorious", or it would be condemned as one of the worst military choices ever made. Sorry about that, guys, but once you get out of Texas and read a real military history of the war, you see that Mexico had no chance to retain a territory so far away from the capital and supply routes, and that the battles were haphazard, random, and more like herding cats than undertaking a real "campaign" with goals.
No one is slamming Texas..it's not the only place with a history that is questionable, nor is it the only place that boasts of "glorious" engagements which were actually accidents. Take it all with a grain of salt....we still love you!
J |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 03:39 pm | | Hi all,
I agree with Yazoo.
Which is more damaged: an adult who "knows" things that are not true or a child who, in trying to learn, makes mistakes.
The youngster who wrote the article on Jack the Ripper made plenty of mistakes - but still has a firmer understanding than most people of the case. The same is true of the Alamo student.
A recent Gallup poll showed that 51% of Americans believe it was Iraqis who hijacked the airlines on Sept 11th (not even the reach that Iraqis were behind it - these are people who think it was Iraqi citizens on the planes!
These kids are unlikely to turn out like those who believe the Iraqis attacked the US on Sept 11th. Those who more readily accept misconceptions are those who don't bother to read history or try to post such information.
I hope these kids do not feel ridiculed or discouraged.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 03:50 pm | | The children are not the ones to blame. It is the adults. Apparently this website, that is supposed to be school backed, has no adult supervision, if it does, then I seriously have to question the credentials of those in charge, because they are the real idiots. And the real crime is that they are teaching in the school systems. Its not that they may know less than me, its that they are not being taught properly. I have had my share of parent/teacher conferences because my child comes home and regurgitates the same crap that these kids are learning. And he regurgitates it so that he can pass test necessary to raise the scores of the school. So again its not the kids I have a problem with, my problems lie with the teachers and administrators.
Letâs see....this is just a few misconceptions that I have corrected in my sonâs History lessons that have resulted in parent teacher conferences.
1) The US was founded on Christian Principles by God fearing men.
No, the founding fathers, notably Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were Deitist. They believed in God but did not accept Christ as the messiah. They view Christ as a highly morale man and not the Son of God. In fact Franklin believed that John the Baptist was the actual messiah.
2) The main issue of the Civil War was States rights and not slavery.
â The fundamental belief that the Confederate States is founded on, is that the black man will never be equal to the white man.â Alexander Stevens Vice President Confederate States of America
3) The Americanâs soundly defeated the British for their independence.
Due to the ineptness and cowardice of General Horatio Gates, the entire Southern Forces of the Continental Army was captured by the British and General Washington heavily considered surrendering the rest of the Continental Army to the British.
4) The Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery.
Kinda right. It outlawed slavery in the Northern States and the newly acquired Territories of Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska and Southern States under Union control. In fact, Lincoln wanted to steer away form the whole slavery issue in his presidential campaign as he felt abolitionist were only trying to stir up trouble.
5)The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to save lives and bring WWII to an end.
Iâll buy that philosophy with Hiroshima but not Nagasaki. Due to Hiroshima, the Japanese government was weighing their options and had already agreed to surrender to the allied forces. The problem was that Japan did not want to agree to a complete dismantling of their military with China so close. In order to speed up the Japanese thought process, the US dropped the second atomic bomb and eventually agreed to allow Japan to keep a small military force. Now from a military stand point, there is nothing wrong with civilian deaths - - I think the current catch phrase is collateral damage- - civilians have to die in order to gain total, unconditional surrender. People forget what war is about, they try to make the profane more humane. Nagasaki was just plain overkill and did not result in the conditions the US wanted in the surrender.
6) The Louisiana Purchase was an effort to promote westward expansion of the US.
Jefferson purchased Louisiana in order to keep Napoleon out of the US. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 04:31 pm | | Hi Scott,
I agree with your post completely - except for point number 5. (I realize this is somewhat off point).
The Japanese attempted to surrender prior to the dropping of th atomic bomb. However, FDR demanded "unconditional surrender." The Japanese had one condition - the retention of the Emperor.
Interestingly, after dropping the atomic bomb, and receiving a full and unconditional surrender, we allowed the Japanese to retain the Emperor.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 04:49 pm | | Scott,
I agree with most of your post, except for points number 2 and number 4.
#2. Stephen's opinion doesn't reflect the opinion of the majority of the people of the southern states, in my experience. While, of course, slavery was a cause of the war, it wasn't THE cause. The vast majority of the population in the south was like my family - poor whites, who fought because their homes were being invaded, not because they liked slavery. Must of them never had a slave. Politically, the perceived threat that Lincoln posed to maintaining slavery in the south - which was consdiered a "state issue", thus a "state's rights" issue - was what caused South Carolina to secede, and, after that, the others seceded after Lincoln's call for troops. Lincoln defeating Breckenridge for the Presidency was the straw that broke the camel's back and started the war.
I know it's splitting hairs, and history is written by the victors, but to say that the whole Civil War was because of slavery is an extreme oversimplification of the issue. And it makes me look bad, as a southerner.
#4. As for point four, the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY pertained to the Southern states in rebellion, including the ones that were not directly held by Federal troops. Many northern states had already outlawed slavery, but many others - namely the border states of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri - remained slave states until the passing of the 13 amendment. So the Emancipation Proclamation was basically a PR move, as it really didn't accomplish anything. Lincoln wasn't stupid - if he outlawed slavery throughout the country, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri would have seceded, and DC would have fell.
God...this is what happens when my two historical passions cross. ;)
B |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 04:52 pm | | The Emperor was part of the surrender package proposed. The US wanted total control over Japan, this included installing a new leader under a democratic form of government. Japan balked at the idea of being helpless and having to depend on someone else for their protection with China so close. As I stated and you also, we nuked them again and still did not get what we wanted, allowing them to keep not only their Emperor but a vast chunk of their military.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 05:24 pm | | Brian,
To say that the belief stated by Stevens was not held by the majority of southerners is to say that the belief of the Declaration of Independence was not held by the majority of Americans fighting in the Continental Army at the time of the Revolution. The views of Stevens were a basic belief that fueled the states rights issue and became the corner stone of the confederacy. The whole issue of States Rights was the States right to allow slavery. The belief was also held by Jefferson Davis when he stated; âAll states have the fundamental right to govern themselves, be they slave or be they free, but the black man shall never be equal in stature to the white man in any Confederate State.â
Now, most white people in the South were poor and uneducated farmers. The slave holders were the rich white planters and in Louisiana some rich black planters. It think this would eventually have come to a head, had the South won the war. However; most white people to this day, especially in Georgia and the Carolinas, fail to realize that their ancestors were no better than the slaves. Most of the poor whites in Georgia were of Irish or English heritage and they or their fore fathers were indentured servants that had their way paid here by a rich white planter. Native Georgians really need to do some researching as chances are, their family was brought here in chains by the British when Georgia was a debtors prison colony. In other words, you donât pay your bills in London and the next stop was a mosquito infested swamp in the colonies. I also remember reading a letter from a confederate soldier where he stated he knew his family was no better off than the black slaves, but the only thing he had to hold onto was the fact that he was white and free.
Some may argue that some Southern States made slavery illegal either before or during the war. Notably Virginia and Louisiana, however; one needs to read the actual legislation. In all cases where Southern states made slavery illegal, the law states that No new slaves would be brought into the state. That simply meant that owners already with slaves would be allowed to continue business as usual. The law also allowed for slaves to be bred, sold and traded among owners inside the particular state.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Howard Brown
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 06:33 pm | | | Had the South listened to the great Hinton Helper and ended slavery and repatriated the Negroes,the 96 percent of Southern people who didn't own slaves would never have fought for an elitist class system that treated them with disdain ....What a joke !!! White people who worked their asses off trying to compete with free labor/slavery and then going off to war for THEM,the plantation owners.. Helper was a writer who was hated by the slave system bosses. He advocated repatriation for the negroes,to develope better conditons for the White working people. Youse know the rest of the story....... Another thing: Regardless of why these guys died at the Alamo,they did and we should applaud their bravery,much like the Welshmen at Rorke's Drift. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 06:38 pm | | Judith, you say Texas was stolen by Austin from Mexico
ALL America was stolen from the Red Indians by the white man from all of Europe. But who did the Red Indians steal America from?.
Take Britain, the Romans stole it from the Ancient Britons, then they had to abandon it, trouble at home, then the Saxons tried to steal it from the Jutes and Celts who had some how appeared on the scene. Then along came William the Conk, he took it and kept it, but it ate him,--he became English, what does it all matter, it's history--it's, as you Yanks and Southerners say,-- "the way the cookie crumbles", we can't help what our ancestors did. But you surprise me in critizing the Battle of the Alamo, there isn't much to be proud of nowadays anywhere, but hang on to what you have , the story of the Alamo is a story of SACRIFICE, they knew they wouldn't win, they sacrificed themselves willingly, they didn't take anyone with them who didn't want to go. I've visited the Alamo, and I found it a beautiful place with a very moving atmosphere about it.
Rick |
Author: judith stock
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 06:56 pm | | While I appreciate your point of view, Rick, and I see what you are saying; I must reserve the right to feel the way I do. Yup, almost every place was stolen BY someone FROM someone else, and the history of humans on this planet reflects that. And while the theft of Texas certainly falls into that category as well, the Austin 400 were invited to settle, then decided they wanted to be "free". They didn't just march in, kill natives, and set up towns, uninvited and un-needed. It's a bit like asking a friend to stay the weekend, and when he decides he wants your house, he proceeds to take it and say you weren't taking proper care of it! I've seen the Alamo more times than I can count, and think it's a nice example of a monument to human frailty.
And at the risk of REALLY making everyone totally crazy......why is death such a glorious thing?
Sorry to have started this; we must agree to disagree, Rick..just colour me an old cynic.
J |
Author: Howard Brown
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 07:26 pm | | | Actually,if I may be so bold,both of you are correct in your observations. My Judy is dead-on with the scenario she described. It was part of Manifest Destiny...so she's correct. My man Rick is right on the money: we need examples of bravery in the face of death or defeat....Knowing what happened is important. Knowing that the participants accepted the consequences of their actions is likewise important. Too much irresponsibility going around today...I just didn't wanna see Rick and Judy go at it,really !! Your buddy,Howard |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 08:12 pm | | Howard,
We have all heard about the black slaves on the Southern plantations but while doing ripper research I found something that came as a surprise to me. In London and the South coast of England children were being kidnapped and smuggled by boat to the USA. I read one letter sent by a 14 year old girl in which she described her treatment. She worked the fields by day barefoot and her only clothing was a sack cloth. She slept in a barn and was fed on corn on the cob for most of the time. Folks tend to think that it was only black slaves who suffered at the hands of the plantation owners but many whites also faced the same fate. |
Author: Paula Wolff
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 08:19 pm | | Well, where to start?
TIMSTA- Thanks for the support. Always glad to met a fellow Texan.
YAZOO- You are right. Texas IS a different country. Why do you think so many people came here? And thanks for the words to Scott on behalf of TX.
BRIAN- I agree with a whole lot of what you pointed out about the points Scott made. My mom's people are all Georgians and South Carolians and Virginians. One side landed, one side so poor they wouldn't have known a slave from anything else. Many Northerner's in their diaries, etc. have been quoted as not fighting for freeing slaves but to retain the Union.
SCOTT- I'm so glad West Point has taught you so very much. You are a lucky man. If I had had the chance to finish college, I was going to be a history major and go into research, etc. I love war histories but have had to do reading rather than classwork plus reading. I do not take your attack against the stand at the Alamo as a personal insult. I wasn't there. But with some or most Texans, it's love me, love my homeland. Of course, I'm not asking you to love me or my Texas. Travis was an arrogant, bombastic aristocrat(in his eyes at least) who was going to do things his way, no doubt about it. Never have really liked him much. But he's the only one I can actually be critical of. The others followed their own conscience and stayed knowing it was foolish in the eyes of the world and any military historian,and knowing they would die, they had a different objective in heart. Davy was a lousy politician but a brave and larger-than-life figure. I know a little about high ground. Just think if Lee had taken it first like he could have at Gettysburg, Pickett's charge would have not been needed and we may have given the North something to think about it. And yes, Lincoln was more concerned about the Union than slavery, but he had to offer something. It helped in it's way. My 5th great uncle was John C. Calhoun, the one man more responsible for the War Between the States than anyone. A bigot, firebrand and brilliant man who got along with no one. But I like his uniqueness. He was a character. History is more than JUST facts - - it's fallible people.
The bomb was necessary. Nagasaki was necessary to finalize the thing as the Japanese government was still not giving up.
I am not a politically correct person. I am of Irish stock largely and if there was a persecuted race in this country besides the slaves, they were it. Free blacks moved from Chicago neighborhoods if the Irish moved in. So while slavery is an abomination against God and man, people never change. I'm sorry for them but not responsible for slavery. That is past and gone. I hope it never happens again here, but it's a problem all over the world.
RICK- Thanks to you too for your concise summing up of the Alamo. It was sacrifice, pure and simple. Spot on!
JUDITH- as a former Texan, I can handle you. I know you didn't like your time here in purgatory. But you still make wonderful points and with a wonderful sense of humor. Oh, and I do read all the long posts also. Then I weep. :D
Now, Scott, when man can get over human nature, we'll all be better off, but don't hold your breath. Thank you for listening and thank you for your input. Now I will ramble on somewhere else. The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You, You Can Not Get Away!
Ta,
Paula |
Author: Paula Wolff
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 08:27 pm | | Judith,
You are right again. There's nothing glorious in death itself. It depends on the situation as to whether the death was worth the dying. Or at least that's the way I see it.
War is all hell.
See ya,
Paula :>) |
Author: Paula Wolff
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 08:32 pm | | Oh, Scott, if I may add one thing. Rourke's Drift is one of my favorite battles, so to speak. The Welsh there gave better than they got and they had a wonderful victory. Real fighters even in the face of something that looked absolutley hopeless, but they made a victory of it. I have nothing but admiration for them and so glad they had the high ground and not some old falling down mission with which to deal. So shall we call it quits over some longhorn beef with leeks? ;)
Ta,
Paula |
Author: Howard Brown
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 08:34 pm | | | Ives....Absolutely,sir. Michael Hoffman wrote a book,entitled " They were White..and they were slaves...", precisely about that little discussed fact in American history... Obviously,95 percent of the Africans brought over were brought for one thing: to work in the sugar fields for the Spanish.. Had Amerinds been able to tolerate the Spaniard lash and severity,the Africans would never have been brought over. Slavery still exists as it always has in Africa and Africans control it as they always did. Funny,they won't mention in the upcoming month celebrating black achievement. Anyway,Hoffman provided valuable information on the utilization of Whites NOT just as indentured servants,but as actual slaves. No one can tell me that black slaves had it anywhere near as hard as immigrant Whites( Hunkies,Irish,Eye-talians,Jews,etc..) during the 19th Century. Now after the Civil War,thats another story...The reaction by Whites to Reconstruction in the South,set forth in motion some really terrible reprisals. Blacks(academicians) will admit that their TREATMENT during slavery,not their status,was better than during Reconstruction...Good post Ivor.... |
Author: Howard Brown
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 08:38 pm | | | Paula: You know Texas has to be a cool state/country.....I went to and graduated High School there !! Killeen '72 |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 09:23 pm | | Judith and Rick,
How right you both are in what you say about land theft and many wars have indeed been fought on that basis.
The Enclosure Act of 1750-1870 in England was responsible for the following statement,
They hang the fellow that steals the goose
from off the common.
but let the larger villian loose who steals
the common from the goose. |
Author: Paula Wolff
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 09:58 pm | | Howard,
Have you been to Killeen in the last few years? If not, it's a big, big place now compared to when you graduated. It's really pretty. So many times we can hear Ft. Hood doing their military games and I have often wondered how the people of Killeen stand it. It sounds like they are being wiped out, and we are an hour or more away as the crow flies. Well, thanks so much for the "support". I enjoy your posts.
bye.
Paula
PS. I'm not exactly sure that is the reason Texas is so cool. ;>) But if you say so..... |
Author: judith stock
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 11:09 pm | | CHEERS to everyone!! Do you realise we have had a disagreement over history, war, the Alamo and slavery....and NO ONE has even THREATENED anyone else!!! Maybe here is hope for us all.....
And to all of you.....we have GOT to get together in Baltimore! How can we go on not knowing what we all look like, when we are such friends???
I'm so proud of all of us tonight.
How's THAT for a self-serving pat on the back??
J |
Author: Billy Markland
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 01:02 am | | Gee, what a great conversation! Are we sure everyone is not mentally ill?
Killeen darn Texas! I was just down there in November. Great people, but a military town (I actually thought I was in Fayette-nam, NC).
Scott, I disagree with you on point 6. My belief is that Jefferson took advantage of Napoleon's problems on the continent to prevent further British incursions into what he (Jefferson) believed was destined to become American territory. Lewis & Clark's real purpose was to "show the flag" to prevent the British from appropriating the land under any European treaty signed with Napoleon.
Best,
Billy |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 03:33 am | | Paula,
The Borderers did not hold the high ground at Rorkes Drift,the Zulus did.Neither were they defending a better defensive position than the Alamo.
Well trained courageous troops,well disciplined and led by efficient N.C.O,s and officers.That is why they triumphed. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 06:40 am | | Judith, you're a darlin, already know what you look like.
Rick, |
|
|
|
|
