Revisionist History Remodeling the Texas Alamo on politically correct tourist trap lines?

The Texas Land Commission, now run by George P. Bush, is remodeling the Alamo in a project called "Reimagining the Alamo." Not everyone is happy about it.

According to John Griffing, writing in the Daily Caller:

Texas and its most sacred and iconic historical sites – like the Alamo – are under constant attack by patronizing pseudo-intellectuals who only seem to care about history when it involves blind and uncritical acceptance of "alternative facts" about our state's past.

Historians now "know" that the Lone Star State (along with the entire American Southwest) is built on land "stolen" from Mexico, that Jim Bowie was a staggering drunk and that Davy Crockett "may" have surrendered to the Mexican Army instead of being killed in action swinging "Old Betsy."

For some, these "alternative facts" make the Alamo a symbol of racism and imperialism that should be "re-imagined," at least according to the Texas Land Office.

Griffing is (and others are) right that the old Franciscan mission's most significant event was the fight to the death for freedom by 189 Texas patriots, including Jim Bowie and Davy Crockett in 1836, and that should be what is most treasured and featured. The Land Commission thinks different and wants all eras associated with the Alamo to be treated with equal weight.

There's some merit in recognizing and remembering the Franciscan missions as well, given that they were pivotal to Texas's settlement in a difficult territory, as well as the role of the native peoples, (some of whom were cannibals), but the pivotal event – the one that opened the gateway to the U.S. becoming a continental power – certainly includes the Alamo. Treating all of these events as equal not only smacks of political correctness, but also makes little sense from a tourism perspective, which is what the whole remodeling is about in the first place. Tourists come to the Alamo to see the place where the Texas patriots made their last stand.

Particularly galling is the Land Commission's plan to remove the Cenotaph, the traditional monument to the defenders of the Alamo, to some basement, to "protect" it. The commission says it really does mean to restore it, which opponents aren't buying.

And the intransparency of contract work with NGOs is disturbing. In Los Angeles, we all know that these partnerships in the restoration of the old mission in Los Angeles near Olvera Street was rife with thievery from these NGOs.

All the same, there may be some overheatedness in this ferocious desire to honor and protect Texas's history.

The commission itself says the spot will be preserved as the sacred place it is to Texans and won't be turned into a café-laden Disneyland of tourist-trap attractions as had been claimed. The commission actually makes a pretty good case that the Alamo as it is has become a tourist trap, as these photos on its front page show.

The plans to put a glass wall around it actually sound pretty good, even though the commission has said it has scrapped those plans, probably due to public pressure. The glass floor to reveal the original Franciscan mission layout seems good, too, although it may interfere with restoring the Alamo to the way the Texas patriots viewed it, so the conflict is obvious.

What does it show here? It shows that neither the Bushes nor the bureaucrats are particularly trusted to preserve the heritage of the Alamo in a way that allows for Texas heroism. They may think they are doing the right thing, but there is significant fury from the public and hair-trigger conclusions about what is intended. That's a sign of distrust. And with Antifa getting away with dismantling symbols of the Old South's heritage with the removal of Confederate statues in the name of a "reimagined" political correctness, it may be a well placed distrust.

Bush and company had better go well out of their way to start including people who cherish Texas history in his efforts instead of just malcontents and political correctness aficionados. Or else the discontent will just get bigger.


Views: 28

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

the Alamo was designated a world heritage site by UnitedNationsESCO last year. The next-in-line Bush (George Prescott - Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office {an idiotic move by Texas' voters}) is/was influential in receiving that designation and promoting it - and of course assures us it only means good things for the Alamo -...right. Trump withdrew the U.S from UNESCO a couple weeks ago. I'm curious what that means for it's U.S. based designated sites - especially the Alamo.




Clinton Donor And Tax Cheat Tied To Russia

“Do as we say, not as we do.”

That seems to be the slogan for Hillary Clinton and her political allies, and it’s especially apt in light of new information about one of Clinton’s largest campaign donors.

While the left is still trying to attack President Trump and his family over unproven business dealings and largely debunked connections to Russia, a new report indicates that it was Hillary Clinton’s team who were doing those exact things.

“Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the ‘Hillary Victory Fund’ (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio,” that outlet reported on Thursday.

“He has also been considered by California to be one of the state’s biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the (Russian) Kremlin,” Fox continued.

The man’s name is Edgar Sargsyan. His deep pockets greatly benefited Clinton’s campaign, with contributions of at least $250,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016.

He was also in charge of an elite fundraising dinner to benefit Clinton, where donors paid $100,000 per couple just to attend the ritzy event. But in true Clinton fashion, the money apparently went missing.

Sargsyan is now “being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company,” according to Fox.

Now, people are asking hard questions about Clinton’s buddy Sargsyan, including whether his contributions were part of a pay-to-play scheme and if he had shady connections to foreign governments.

“Nobody gave to the Hillary Victory Fund out of the goodness of their heart or some generalized desire to help 33 random state parties,” pointed out attorney Dan Backer from the Committee to Defend the President.

“They did so to buy access and curry influence — something the Clintons have been selling for nearly three decades in and out of government,” he continued.

Trying to buy political influence is sadly common, especially when it comes to the Clintons. What is raising more red flags than normal, however, is the evidence that Sargsyan is no run-of-the-mill campaign donor.

“The really scary question is, what did this particular donor with this strange web of connections hope to buy for his quarter-million dollars?” Backer asked Fox News.

That web of connections is strange indeed.

The Committee to Defend the President is now alleging that SBK, a major Sargsyan-linked company “is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia,” according to Fox.

“Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia,” the group claims.

“He worked for SBK, and SBK appears to have bid on some Crimean/Russian bridge project,” Backer said. “That’s usually an indicator of political favor and connections.”

It raises several chilling questions: Was Sargsyan paying a quarter million dollars to Clinton for political favors, and — more disturbingly — was that money actually from sources in Russia in order to smooth the way for its construction plans?

Nobody knows for sure. What is clear, however, is that there is a pattern of dirty money surrounding the Clintons, with the “Uranium One” and “Clinton Foundation” scandals just two of the most well-known examples.

“It reinforces how fast and loose the Clinton machine was when it came to ‘Hoovering up’ these megadonor checks, not just from questionable Hollywood and Wall Street elites but potentially from foreign influence peddlers using who knows what money,” Backer told Fox News.

“It reinforces the need to take a long hard look at not just the unlawful money laundering process, but the way in which they were solicited as well,” he continued. “The Clintons have never shown a great deal of concern for whomever it was cutting the checks — whether it’s foreign influence peddlers or Hollywood smut peddlers like Harvey Weinstein.”

If those claims are even partially true, then America dodged a bullet in November of 2016 — and it’s worth keeping the pile of foreign-connected Clinton scandals in mind the next time the left tries desperately to tie Donald Trump to Russia. Perhaps they should look in the mirror.


Washington Post Compares
Jeff Sessions To Slaveholder’

The Washington Post compared Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “slaveholders” after he quoted the Bible on Thursday while discussing his department’s policy of prosecuting all illegal immigrants who cross the border.

Sessions made the statement during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

WaPo ran a story entitled “Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families” by general assignment editor Keith McMillan and religion reporter Julie Zauzmer on Friday.

Rather than detailing the statistics Sessions cited in the speech that explain the immigration policy, the story quoted John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.

“This is the same argument that Southern slaveholders and the advocates of a Southern way of life made,” Fea said.

Sessions spent much of the speech discussing the numbers behind current immigration policy, including separating families at the Southwest border.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said.

“Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful.”

“The previous administration wouldn’t prosecute aliens if they came with children,” Sessions said.

“It was de-facto open borders if you came with children. The results were unsurprising. More and more illegal aliens started showing up at the border with children.”

Sessions laid out the numbers in the speech.

“In 2013, fewer than 15,000 family units were apprehended crossing our border illegally between ports of entry in dangerous areas of the country,” he said.

“Five years later, it was more than 75,000, a five-fold increase in five years. It didn’t even have to be their child that was brought, it could be anyone. You can imagine that this created a lot of danger.”

The U.S. has the “opportunity” to fix its broken immigration system now, Sessions said.

“I believe that’s it’s moral, right, just and decent that we have a lawful system of immigration,” he said. “The American people have been asking for it.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service