If you click on the main story and read Greg's story, you will find another one right below (or just go pick up the free copy if you are here in the metro area). The very provacative title (which I really don't like) hightlights what promises to be an important book on American history. Gary Anderson's The Conquest of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing in the Promised Land, promises to blow the lid off Texas worship. As someone who finds the Texas idolatry annoying, I am very intrigued. Anderson argues that Texas Rangers, far from being the "citizen soldiers" or romantic fighters, made a habit of attacking Indian villages for spoils and killing men, women and children in the process. In fact, reading the blurbs I have read reminds me of the California Indian story--where out of work miners turned to killing Indians to make money in the off season.
But the point of this post, besides the plug, was to call attention to the early response from the director of the Texas Ranger Hall of Fame and Museum, who said that "Anderson is jumping to conclusions." But here is my favorite part:
“A quick review of publications attributed to Mr. Anderson shows titles related to Native American history suggesting a predetermined point of view,” Johnson said to the Gazette. “History is rarely ‘us versus them’ but a complex tapestry of shades of gray. Our position is to examine both the considerable contributions of the Texas Rangers in Texas history, but also the lessons learned from their missteps.
There is so much wrong with this, but just a few points. A) Does anyone else find it ironic that the Texas Rangers museum is calling for a "complex tapestry of shades of gray?" Texas Rangers fans tend to be--other than angry when the pitching fails in the heat of August--dedicated to a mythic portrayal of Texas heroes. The Alamo is a sacred place to them. Second, I love how this learned critic can take so much from the titles of Anderson's publications to prove how biased he is. Don't get me wrong, I don't need to read Ann Coulter's book on "how to talk to a liberal (if you have to)" to know that it is biased. But I am not sure you can look at this book and simply assume that Anderson doesn't have the facts to back it up.
Kind of relates to our conversations on "ways of knowing." The Texas Ranger guy "knows" that, while the Rangers did some bad things, but they "learned from their missteps." He just knows that. So, there is no reason to accept that there might be a "theory" that explains it differently. But I have seen some of the pro-Texan books and their documentation. You would be amazed how many times assertions are made like "Commanche raped every woman they captured" or "during the Civil War, nearly 400 settlers were killed by Commanche in the vacuum left by the war"--all without a shred of documentation. Nothing. But we have documentation of Texas Rangers killing kids on raids. We have proof that California miners took body parts to redeem for bounty.
And yet Indians are the savages?
8 comments:
This is one of my favorite lines - Anderson's books have a predetermined point of view. Hmm, "Kinsmen of Another Kind," "Indians of the Southwest, 1530-1850," and others really seem controversial.
-- CIL, but Warming Up.
I can't wait to read this book! And I've done my share of promoting the Texas Ranger myths. My undergraduate thesis was in part about the Rangers; I've visited the Ranger museum; and I did research in the Ranger Collection in the Adjutant General Papers in the Texas State Archives. (The Archives, by the way, are housed in a beautiful building named for Lorenzo de Zavala, the first Vice President of the Republic of Texas and a symbol of a hope for positive Anglo/Latino relations and power sharing in early Texas, now sadly known to few Texans, Anglo or Latino.) I also visited Fort Parker on field trips as a schoolboy.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading my good friend Anderson's book.
No apologies needed -- Gary Anderson is an outstanding scholar.
I am outraged, OUTRAGED, however, that the chapter I was most eagerly awaiting, "If only the Alamo had a back door" was apparently the subject of vicious censorship.
Man, I love to mess with Texas. It's such a "lighen up, Francis" kinda place.
Hah, my three amigos! I think we can all agree that Texas has it coming. Just for the gift shop at the Alamo alone!
Yes, yes, the chapter highlighting cowardice at the Alamo (wonder if that will get any hits) seems to be lacking. Actually, in talking with the author, there is a grudging respect for the defenders of the Alamo, but they are contrasted very strongly with the murderous Rangers.
Hold on there, pardner. I said I couldn't wait to read the book. I didn't say I agreed with you. On anything.
Too late.
Texas has it coming. We all know it. YOu know it, I know it, Bob Dole knows it.
Hell, the American people know it. Texans? Well, it seems even they're not sure of they're Americans or not.
Texas. It's a whole other country!
Post a Comment