It isn't like they refused to mention that Mexicans fought with the Texans. They wanted the 9 Mexican privates listed by name simply because they were Mexican. Why is the logic behind that?
From the looks of things, to provide nine more heroic role models with whom young Mexican immigrants and natives of Mexican descent could identify.
SO 9 random guys who we know almost nothing about should be singled out as having dies in battle solely because of their race because some lefties think doing so would help the self image of Mexican immigrant children?
Fine make that claim but the implication was they were trying to down play the role of Mexican Americans in the battle when in actuality they complaint is they didn't want to artificially inflate because of some half baked notion that it would help immigrant children.
Sorry but they were not asking that Mexicans who fought in the Alamo be treated the fairly they were asking that they be treated special and be singled out solely because of their ethnicity. I know it was sort of hard to dig that of the biased NYT article but hey it is the NYT so what can you expect.
As for the Zavala thing, my parent live just outside of Zavala so I had to defend it for them 
Fair enough, though I believe you were the one who said calling it a city was "a bit of a stretch. "
I don't believe there is even a red light in the entire town and the one real store they have closes at 7 the two gas stations close at 11 so yes I wouldn't call it a city.
Texas Approves Curriculum Revised by Conservatives
- 13/03/2010 12:02:15 AM
1180 Views
"Impartial Historical Account" is an oxymoron
- 13/03/2010 12:21:20 AM
500 Views
So is "a sinless life," but that doesn't justify murder. *NM*
- 14/03/2010 12:22:16 AM
169 Views
Strange choice of analogies...
- 14/03/2010 12:17:03 PM
397 Views
I could be wrong, but I think his point was simply...
- 14/03/2010 03:53:23 PM
484 Views
I think it was that it just seems too out of place
- 14/03/2010 04:14:55 PM
524 Views
I dunno, you didn't elaborate much on your oxymoron statement.
- 14/03/2010 04:29:04 PM
516 Views
It didn't really seem something that needed elaborating
- 14/03/2010 05:20:33 PM
566 Views
- 14/03/2010 05:20:33 PM
566 Views
It's about time.
- 13/03/2010 01:17:25 AM
528 Views
Don't forget interned German-Americans in BOTH world wars. *NM*
- 13/03/2010 02:47:25 AM
292 Views
*NM*
- 13/03/2010 02:47:25 AM
292 Views
Oh I haven't, but being Italian myself it's an issue close to my heart. *NM*
- 13/03/2010 04:41:19 AM
244 Views
Yes, because this article is all about presenting the truth in an unbiased manner *NM*
- 13/03/2010 11:02:20 AM
168 Views
I'm assuming Art. 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli 1797 is banned from Texan history lessons, then?
- 13/03/2010 12:26:41 PM
444 Views
And, along similar lines, both Article VII of the US Constitution and Missouri v. Holland. *NM*
- 14/03/2010 12:26:10 AM
176 Views
*NM*
I would assume the Treaty of Tripoli 1797 would outside of the scope of a Texas history lesson
- 16/03/2010 07:54:53 PM
464 Views
Do the states just teach their own history, as opposed to that of what-was-then-the-USA? *NM*
- 16/03/2010 11:57:06 PM
245 Views
They teach both...at least at the college level. U.S. history and Texas History were requirements.. *NM*
- 17/03/2010 05:38:46 AM
245 Views
Texas history or Texas government?
- 18/03/2010 06:53:15 PM
380 Views
Good question....I don't remember if it was history or govt to be honest. *NM*
- 18/03/2010 07:59:10 PM
252 Views
When does revisionist history descend to the level of mere hypocrisy? I weep for my country.
- 15/03/2010 04:16:25 AM
649 Views
calling Zavala a city is a bit of a stretch don't you think?
- 15/03/2010 05:39:03 PM
470 Views
Seguin's a city, or at least town; Zavala is a county.
- 15/03/2010 09:00:54 PM
424 Views
Zavalla is a town as well and city is a bit of stretch for Seguin
- 15/03/2010 10:23:41 PM
382 Views
Fair enough, just trying to make clear I was speaking about municipality and county, respectively.
- 29/03/2010 03:49:30 PM
406 Views
See the problem is the argument is total BS
- 29/03/2010 05:27:53 PM
442 Views
Dunno if I'd go that far.
- 29/03/2010 08:50:40 PM
537 Views
I am sure you wouldn't
- 31/03/2010 04:19:09 PM
465 Views
Don't you guys essentially list all of the handful guys who fought at the Alamo already, anyway? *NM*
- 29/03/2010 08:55:34 PM
168 Views
There was 190 or so people there so no they are not all in the textbook
- 31/03/2010 05:31:41 PM
449 Views
Do you have any examples of where they are not teaching the truth?
- 15/03/2010 05:42:27 PM
416 Views
I think it is what they are leaving out that is worrisome.
- 15/03/2010 06:58:38 PM
431 Views
I don't see anything sayting they are leaving that out
- 15/03/2010 08:26:50 PM
430 Views
We were talking about this last night
- 15/03/2010 11:38:02 PM
591 Views
Still not sure I see a problem
- 16/03/2010 04:58:50 PM
370 Views
This thread is indeed making me wonder how textbooks are used in the US...
- 16/03/2010 05:05:13 PM
358 Views