Today started with touring and trying to understand the Alamo. It reminded me a lot of the Tippecanoe Battleground in Indiana. Not because it looks the same or is in a similar area or setting - it most certainly isn’t. It reminded me in the sense that how we understand history, monuments, and historical sites depends largely on who is telling the history we’re listening to. I realize I’m writing this in a time of our history where we seem to have a penchant for tearing down monuments or decrying those who do as trying to erase history. I’ll be honest, as a white CIS male I’ve largely decided to sit this one out. I couldn’t imagine Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA - a city that still has my heart in many ways - without the statues down that beautiful road. But at the same time, as a Yankee, I have no real attachment to the men immortalized in the statues. I just thought they looked beautiful. I’m fine with new statues.
Today, however, solidified some thoughts I’ve been percolating ever since my friend Dave took me to Tippecanoe the first time. The First People’s story of that battle, of why it happened, and of what happened is very different than the story I was presented in history class growing up. As I toured the Alamo with a dear friend and clergy member who grew up in Mexico, it wasn’t of much surprise that the battle at the Alamo would be taught very differently to her with a very different understanding of what happened there and why.
Now listen. I don’t know what happened at the Alamo. I’m not a historian. My knowledge of it before this trip consisted of knowing Davey Crockett and James Bowie of Bowie Knife fame were locked in a church with like ten other guys and they were surrounded by millions of Mexicans and fought them off until they couldn’t. That’s about as accurate as saying David Bowie was there with Molly Hatchet performing to a sold-out Mexican audience.
One thing I’ve been learning in life is that there’s a difference - sometimes a BIG difference - between facts and truth. The truth is that facts don’t always determine truth and just because something is truthful doesn’t mean it’s factual. For instance, it is NOT fact that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and told his father he couldn’t lie about it. However, what that story is trying to convey about the character of George Washington may be true. I suppose it depends on who you ask and therein lies the problem.
The fact of the Alamo is that in 1836 men from Texas, the US, and Mexico fought the Mexican Army. They lost and every last one of them were killed either in battle or execution. The numbers aren’t clear but it looks like 800-1000 people on both sides were killed or wounded. Why? Depends on who you ask. It was either for very noble or very nefarious reasons. Some say it was for freedom. Others say to protect the institution of slavery and oppression. Still others point to reasons and thoughts somewhere in the middle. The truth is the Alamo is still contested ground to this day and the battle of the Alamo is still being fought except now it’s for who gets to tell the true story of what happened and why. And who tells that story matters because it can dramatically change our understanding.
History isn’t objective. It never has been. It never can be. But we can invite more voices to the table to help us see and understand the story we try to tell ourselves about who we are through history. History deals in perspective. It’s looking at the past and reflecting on it. Yes, facts should and do play a part in forming the historical narrative, but we’re mistaken if we think that narrative is purely fact. I wonder what we’re worried about when we limit differing perspectives than our own to help us understand history. I have to think it’s wrapped in identity and being afraid that if our understanding of history changes then our understanding of ourselves with have to change. Or maybe we feel that we have to be right and on the right side of history because if the alternative is true - that maybe our ancestors have done abhorrent things for abhorrent reasons - it’s just too much for us to bare…
I don’t know… What I do know is that regardless of how you view or feel about the Alamo and it’s events, many people who could have done great things to make this world better lost their lives maybe serving some greater good; maybe not. But each life lost there was a tragic loss that took something and someone from this world no matter the uniform or color of their skin. And because of that, it’s sacred and holy ground and should be treated as such. I just hope we invite more people to give us their perspective on what it means and why it happened because I want to hear what they have to say. I want to better understand.
Maybe I should have just gone to the wax museum or the Ripley’s Believe it or Not, bought a nice Texas shot glass and a Big Mac, and paid the guy to take my photo right in front of the chapel and just called it a day. After all, it may be a sacred space but it is also distinctly American in that it’s been commercialized to Hell. All that’s left is for Disney to whitewash and make a movie of it… oh wait…
