I saw a new book highlighted on the Alamo while watching C span. There was a panel of Alamo experts discussing the book and the real Alamo and Santa Ana.
One segment was of the 'new' school, believing unwaveringly in the Diaries of the Santa Ana Officer found much later, that indicated some (one)of the Alamo members were cowards.
I'm no expert on the Alamo, but there were enough doubts about the Officer's account. The general concensus was that it was interesting and informative, BUT NOT TO BE TAKEN VER BATUM (sic) as the truth.
I have a couple observations as well:
Anyone who would voluntarily stay to the certain death defending the Alamo was no coward. They could have left at one point.
2) after sleep deprivation for many days and exhaustion, if a man broke and begged the Spanish afterwards I still do not count him a coward, even if that happened. In spanish culture being a 'coward' is the big deal, and calling your enemy one is as natural as drinking tequila. iN my experience, those most concerned with cowards more often are. The Spanish had a need to believe these hero's were cowards to justify themselves and the great loss of life.
3) finally, the lives of these men had other hisorical record behind them to verify their bravery on numerous occasion. That is fact. As I said, one moment of breaking, perhaps after torture, does not negate the whole life to me.
ONe more thing: why do so many rush to conclude the worst about Western Civilization and America?
munk
