Mexican-descent students in Texas classrooms who have Texas roots much longer than their Anglo-descent classmates are thus made to feel as foreigners in the classroom. The truth is that 1836-1848 incidents fit in a chronological chapter in México’s history, not the U.S.
Hence, the following theses tackle the many obstacles blocking access to the true beginnings of Texas in two ways. One, they go against the grain of conventional Texas history. Two, they make a case for reestablishing pre-1836 Texas people, places, and events as integral parts of this great place we call Texas, that by their own merit, they have truly earned that honor.
The first chapters of Texas history may be written in Spanish, but that only means that Texas history is by nature, bilingual and bicultural. In the words of Dr. Andrés Tijerina, History Professor, Austin Community College most of what Texas is famous for was established by Tejanos and Tejanas. After all, isn’t that the message of the Tejano Monument in Austin?
The mainstream viewpoint selectively records conventional U.S. and Texas history to include primarily Anglo Saxon details. Most mention of Spanish Mexican details, so vital in the founding of Texas, is done in a mediocre, dismissive manner.
It’s obviously hard for the Texas State Board of Education to admit that the majority of history teaching available today is faulty. Regardless of whether it’s in classroom instruction in fourth grade social studies, seventh grade Texas history, high school and university classrooms, or in library shelves, it is written using only an Anglo Saxon pen. Incredibly, their Anglophile attitude blinds them and makes them incapable of accepting Texas’ pre-1836 existence. That is, in the SBOE’s view, teaching pre-1836 Texas history is like teaching the history of Mexico. That stance is at the root of the faulty mainstream Texas history.
Thus, we must first override this formidable obstacle in order to rediscover the Spanish Mexican roots of so much of what is today the U.S. In short, the obvious bias presumes that Texas history begins at the 1836 Battle of the Álamo. Manifestly implied in mainstream history lessons, the truth is that Anglo immigrants migrated from the U.S. to Mexico beginning only in 1825.
These initially friendly family groups from the U.S. headed to Tejano communities in Texas. Most important, they were driven to Mexico by two highly emotional, motivating factors that usually go hand-in-hand -- want and despair. They did not come for Texas independence!
Although this cadre of U.S. immigrants came seeking a new way of life in Mexico, that idea is lost in the pages of history. Rather, embedded in most history books is the notion that nothing happened in Mexico (New Spain) before Anglo Saxon people arrived, especially after 1836.
That is what the following themes hope to dispel. It is not an easy task. The exclusive anti-Mexico method used to record U.S. history is formidable and has had several decades to set. Its unforgiving one-sided recording of history traces its roots to 16th Century Northern Europe.
The question is why would Spain’s European competitors go to such lengths to malign Spanish endeavors in the New World? The answer is two-fold: (l) to demonstrate their deep jealousy of Spain and (2) to simply to mask Anglo Saxon and northern Europe’s invasion and cruel displacement of Native Americans by conveying criticism only on the Spanish.
Not only is U.S. history heavily slanted toward its Northern European roots, but here in Texas and the Southwest, its Manifest Destiny perspective has long shaped local history at the expense of its real founders. Thus, students in Texas classrooms learn of the superiority that Anglo Saxons in the U.S. have over their Native American and Spanish-Mexican counterparts.
For the most part, each of the essays below reviews a key aspect of the one-sided view of mainstream U.S. and Texas history. It is with that thought in mind that the first deals with probably the most important topic of all – terminology.
Friendly Betrayal Essay 1
(Terminology)
Terminology is most probably the greatest aspect in effective communication. So it is in writing seamless Texas history. In short, mainstream historians have repainted the Texas panorama with thick coats of Anglophile New England hue in a deliberate attempt to hide its original beautiful earth tones. Ironically, mainstream U.S. and Texas historians insist on modifying Spanish named towns, rivers, and regions to fit their post-1836 paradigm.
However, the problem is deeper than that. No two words are more misused in U.S. history than “America” and “American”, casting a negative effect on the discussion of Texas (and U.S.) history by portraying U.S. “American” civilization as a dominant white Anglo Saxon society.
At its most hideous worst, that arrogance prompts student bodies in predominantly white high schools to scream “U.S.A., U.S.A.” as an ethnic slur directed in a taunting manner at opposing teams of predominantly Mexican-descent origin. It’s a cruel indication of the deep scars etched by some Anglos’ arrogance. That’s in spite of the fact that Spanish Mexican roots in Texas (and a large portion of the U.S.) have a longer pedigree than those of their Anglo Saxon counterparts.
In short, the claim to “America” and “American” is so absolute, that many Native Americans and Mexican-descent citizens themselves use the words to refer to Anglo and Northern European-descent U.S. citizens, and fail to realize that they have more right to the terms. In writing conventional history, then, America and American are used exclusively to refer only to the U.S. and its citizens. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The fact is that the U.S. is not “America”. The U.S. is in “America”. For example, there are thirty-six nations in the mainland Continent of America. Including island nations on both coasts, the number rises to over fifty-five. Thus, everyone born or living in the Continent of America, from Northern Canada to the tip of Tierra del Fuego in Argentina and Chile, is an American.
By the 1700s, the most visible Europeans here were the Spanish, English and French. Initially, Spain and England called their people here “Americans.” For example, in 1811, President Madison welcomed Texas’ Don José Bernardo Gutiérrez de Lara to Washington as a “fellow American” and referred to soon-to-be independent Mexico as a sister American republic.
Feeding itself on its Manifest Destiny oats, the U.S. colossus confiscated both terms, perhaps thinking that in time, they would “own” all of the Continent of America (Monroe Doctrine). Eventually, U.S. leaders and historians began to use “America” to refer only to the U.S. states and “American” to refer to their citizens. Their takeover of the term has been so successful that most Canadians and Mexicans (Americans themselves) also use the terms to refer only to the U.S. and its citizens. That’s why their biased definition will take time to change. Now, on to our discussion…
In reality, all European invaders arriving in America in the 15th and 16th centuries referred to themselves as “Americans” to distinguish themselves from “Europeans.” Yet, in flexing their muscle, the U.S. kidnapped the words to exclusively refer only to Anglo Saxon-descent citizens of the U.S. and its natural boundary (fifty states).
How did it occur? At the height of the grandiose aspirations of President James Monroe and the U.S. Congress claimed the entire Continent of America as their exclusive sphere of influence. There is no doubt that this bold move was meant as a warning aimed generally in the direction of one country in particular – Catholic Spain. There is little doubt that the document attempted to designate America as exclusive Anglo Saxon territory. Thus, when Anglos began to migrate to the west, Anglos came with pre-disposed goals. They wanted the land, but not its residents whom they collectively downcast as people of color, meaning Native Americans and Mestizo Mexicans.
In my view, this “superior-subservient” point of view gave rise to the term “Latin America”. That’s because the U.S. eventually gave up its claim to the entire continent. The reason is that the rest of America was heavily populated by Native Americans and Mestizo (Spanish-Mexican blend), two groups shunned by Anglo Saxons.
Thus, the Anglos coined a new term to distinguish themselves (Protestant Anglo Saxon U.S.) from the rest of Central and South American countries; predominantly Hispanic, Native American, and Catholic. What they overlooked then, and do so even today is that the U.S. Southwest from California to Texas also displays heavily Native American and Mexican-descent populations. That begs the question, is the U.S. Southwest part of “Latin America”. The response is an obvious “Yes”, but it’s a question that mainstream historians would rather ignore just because they can’t stand the answer.
Initially, several aspiring nations in the rest of America welcomed the Monroe Doctrine because they lacked means of naval and armed defense. At the same time, many were naturally suspicious of the land acquisition appetite of the U.S. and its “Big Brother” characteristic. These suspicions were later proven when many countries endured decades-long U.S. intervention in their internal affairs.
oOo
Another embedded anti-Hispanic example in mainstream U.S. history is in the telling of the 1836 Battle of the Álamo. This event is usually described as one of the most famous battles in U.S. history. That is not true! Actually, the battle is a chronological part of Mexico’s history, not the U.S. Texas did not join the U.S. until 1845 when the majority Anglo population traded Texas independence for U.S. statehood, joining as a slave state!
Mainstream historians have been successful in replacing real, serious character flaws in most Anglo “heroes” of 1836 Texas history. Sam Houston and other Anglo expatriates left the U.S. for good and came to Mexico for free land. That is the only reason they came.
Yet, conventional U.S. historians have perfected their attempt to inflate personas of Anglo Norman-descent immigrants who basically committed treason in Mexico. Sadly, it’s part of a runaway myth that is hard to dispel.
The truth is that the 1836 Battle of the Alamo, Goliad, and San Jacinto are part of a chronological chapter of Mexico’s history, not the U.S. Texas did not join the U.S. until 1845 as a slave state. Also, Mexico did not lose Texas to the U.S. until 1848. Still, when given the facts, historians prefer to consider pre-1836 people, places, and events in Texas as “foreign” history.
Suffice it to say that Anglo Saxon-biased historians insist on selectively claiming only nine years of Texas history before 1845. If the birth of Texas Independence is their standard, they must include 1810 events.
In fact, Don Bernardo Gutiérrez de Lara answered the call for Mexico’s and Texas independence. Thus, he became the first person to have a vision of Texas as independent, a feat he accomplished on April 6, 1813. It was on that date that he became the first President of Texas and signed the first Texas Declaration of Independence. He signed the first Texas Constitution a week later. You cannot get finer details of the birth of Texas independence than that.
This brings us to an interesting question. What exactly are Anglo historians trying to record; the serious, complete story of Texas independence, or continue to deceive everyone with their one-sided Anglophile view of Texas history? The answer is obvious. They wish to record everything using only Anglo Saxon ink. That’s the challenge we face in preserving the pre-1836 story of this great place we call Texas!
Friendly Betrayal Essay 2
(Inclusion of early Texas in mainstream Texas history)
For much too long, descendants of the Spanish Mexican pioneers that settled over half of what is now the U.S. have been a people without a history. In fact, Hispanics have endured over 150 years of a continuous Inquisition where every part of their heritage is treated with suspicion from non-Hispanic white U.S. citizens who misread pride in the unique Southwest history and see the speaking of Spanish as unpatriotic.
Little else encourages mainstream historians to continue their wrongful portrayal of Hispanics more than the raucous immigration debate. While indigenous Native American people are indeed causing a re-browning of America, the fear mongering is stoked daily by negative coverage of natural migrations by Native Americans looking for work.
Regardless, hate speech enables misinformation. For example, non-Hispanic white citizens think that if Spanish-surnamed U.S. citizens speak Spanish by choice or practice their centuries-old heritage in the U.S, they are either disloyal or recent immigrants or both. Having been fed several versions of the Big Lie approach for generations, almost the entire U.S. population has learned to mistrust (and more importantly, misunderstand) Hispanic culture.
The bottom line is that mainstream history books are written almost exclusively using an Anglo pen. It is that one-sided version of history that Tejanos in Texas and descendants of the Spanish Mexican pioneers are now attempting to fight.
Reacting to our interest in filling the missing pieces in U.S. history, defenders of the status quo are quick to ask “What is it that Hispanics in the U.S. want?” In a nutshell, we the descendants of the first citizens of Texas want historians to stop writing Texas history as if Texas was one of the 13 English colonies.
It never was, is not today, and never will be. There is no Plymouth Rock off the Texas coast. That’s because Texas and the Southwest are in New Spain, not New England.
Simply, the answer to the question above is twofold: (l) fairness in writing U.S. history and (2) stop spreading misinformation in entertainment and general media.
In the name of fairness, the question above may be reversed, “Why do mainstream historians so blatantly dismiss Spanish Mexican contributions in U.S. history?” For instance, most find it difficult to accept the fact that the first Europeans to set foot on much of what is now U.S. soil were indeed Spanish people. That is, most U.S. citizens know and understand little of the role that General Bernardo Galvez (the forgotten Lafayette) had in the U.S. war of independence against England.
Maybe one day the recording of U.S. history will be written in a fair and balanced manner. Until then, we must continue to ask the questions in order to ensure fair treatment in the writing of U.S. history.
In the words of an Anglo gentleman in the audience at one of my early Texas history presentations, “Because the state limits me on what I can teach, as a history teacher, I always find it difficult to clearly explain to the students the Spanish Mexican origins of Texas. I know why, but the curriculum doesn’t allow me to share my knowledge with them. It’s frustrating.”
Hopefully, that level of insight and curiosity by more non-Hispanic people will force current history writing rules to be modified. However, that brings up a good point. What are the rules in the writing of history? That is the next topic.
Friendly Betrayal Essay 3
(The need to accurately record History)
There are basic universal rules for writing history. Among them is the rule that says that if a person worthy of note existed and a significant historic event happened, it serves no purpose to pretend they didn’t.
For much too long, Spanish Mexican history in the U.S. has been ignored, diminished, or distorted. Very deliberately, historians holding this very exclusive view of U.S. history are driven by a compulsive paranoia to use only Anglo Saxon lenses for recording historical events. For example, they write “western” stories and movie scripts where only Anglo characters matter.
According to this narrow view, only white Anglo Saxon Protestant people hold redeeming qualities. Other primary groups in the U.S. history panorama possess unworthy traits and are basically treated as irrelevant in the story of the U.S. They are not admired in U.S. history, such as the two blood-related groups, Spanish Mexicans and Native Americans.
Another well-accepted rule in mainstream history writing is that victors get to write the history books with a prominent slant. Most often, the writing is at the expense of the vanquished. The history books are then used as spring boards to perpetuate the plethora of myths and legends that the victors have concocted through the years.
They then spread the misinformation through other means of communicati
on, such as, an overabundance of “western” novels, movies, TV programming, and other displays that perpetuate only myths and legends. These only serve to keep the propaganda alive, not historical figures and events. No manner of media depicts such an unfair, unequal writing of history more than the cinema.
Whenever Spanish Mexican and Native American characters are included, they are given only minor roles and possess negative character traits. The roles of Hispanic and “Indian” actors and actresses are given to non-Hispanic or Native Americans. Most often, they are included to elicit jeers or laughs from the audience. In short, Hollywood movies are notorious for showing Hispanics as nothing more than servants, maids, and thieves.
The level of disrespect is inexcusable. Never mind that the ranching and cowboy ways of life are entirely Spanish Mexican creations. That doesn’t matter to movie directors and producers who have been very successful in recreating the cowboy way of life using only the Anglophile image. Whenever Hispanic characters speak, they use gibberish nonsensical phrases intended to sound like Spanish.
Even when they are given grammatically correct phrases to speak, the Spanish accent doesn’t even fit. Through careless research, the Spanish language spoken may be from the Caribbean and not the distinct dialect spoken by Spanish Mexicans of the Southwest.
Audiences who don’t speak Spanish don’t know the difference. Those of us who do are offended by the brazen lack of respect. For generations, Spanish-speaking audiences in the Southwest have felt only discomfort when watching the movies.
Overall, movies and books as a rule treat the entire Spanish Mexican culture with a distinct lack of dignity and respect. Readers must by now realize that such unfairness is no secret. The unfair depiction is well documented.
This brings us to another rule used in the recording of U.S. history that goes hand in hand with the above. Mainstream historians have written U.S. history with a Mayflower mentality. That approach is a further extension of the Black Legend that is responsible for the historic Anglo Saxon dislike for the Spanish. It has it roots as a propaganda tool originated in sixteenth century Protestant Northern Europe to deflect attention from the hostile takeover of the new continent by northern European Protestant conquerors and their horrid abuse of Native Americans.
Friendly Betrayal Page 17