User talk:Lochalsh1912
Welcome![edit]
|
Please propose your changes on the article's talk page so they can be properly discussed. Mark Shaw (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Lochalsh here; You say "As harsh as it sounds, slaves were also not considered settlers. None of them purchased land" US slavery was one of the most extreme forms of 'chattel slavery' known to history. What you are describing is captive humans who the settlers forcibly brought with them from the USA and who the ‘settlers’ illegally held in captivity against the law that then applied in Tejas, that is Mexican law. I feel pretty confident in saying that those whites who entered Tejas in 1822-1832 who did not purchase land were, and still are, considered settlers! I am very sorry to say this, but your article seems hideously biases and totally ignores the fundamental causes of the Texan Revolution. You seem determined to avoid even mentioning slavery at all costs. Like many others, I first heard of the Battle of the Alamo when I saw the 1960 film (I even bought the record of the sound track) and so I then thought it was a matter of Texicans fighting for liberty against a Mexican authoritarian dictatorship. Later on, learning that Texas was a slave state and Mexico a free state I realised that it was not such a simple conflict. Then reading this article I found its John Wayne simplistic 'good v bad view of eventw very disturbung. I would submit that the overwhelming reason why ‘Background’ must include information on how the English-speaking settlers came to be in Tejas, their illegal importation of US style chattel slavery into Mexico and their refusal to honour the undertakings they made in order to enter Tejas,is that otherwise you are telling Texan folk tales not writing an historical account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.84.109 (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Lochals1912. I saw your edit summary "Giving a more balanced and detailie intro to 'Backgound' Just becouse the latest writers have ignored the role of slavery in the Texas Revolution does not mean that it is proper to do so". That's actually not the case. Wikipedia policies, specifically the one on original research, the one on verifiability, and the undue weight guideline state that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be a summary of information that is presented in reliable (preferably scholarly) sources. If scholarly sources present arguments A and B with only a little coverage of C, then WP articles should primarily present arguments A and B with only a little coverage of C. The article Battle of the Alamo is supposed to primarily cover the battle. The details of what led up to the battle should be covered in more depth in Texas Revolution and Mexican Texas - and they are, although those articles are incomplete. Karanacs (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hello Mark and Karanacs. I just cannot understand any ‘Backgound’ on the Battle for the Alamo/Texas Revolution that does not explain how the English-speaking settlers got to be in Tejas in the first instance. And that includes the conditions upon which they were allowed to settle, they fulfilment (or lack of) of these conditions and especially the role Mexico’s abolition of slavery as a motivating factor for the settlers. This issue of slavery is particularly important as ‘The Alamo’ has been presented as a fight for liberty when it objectively was a fight for the liberty of whites and the slavery of blacks and the Mexican were objectively fighting for the liberty of all. The existing ‘Background’ is, in my opinion biased and unhistorical. While one must acknowledging the limits of human frailty to which we are all subject anyone writing what they must wish to be seen as an historical account has to attempt to cover all of the relevant facts that have or may have a bearing on the events described. The conditions upon which the English-speaking immigrants were allowed into the Tejas region of Mexico by the Government of Mexico and the manner in which the settlers failed to honoured the conditions they had accepted are important as they provide background information not on how the settlers came to be in Tejas but also on the lead-up to the rebellion by the settlers. Even more important is the role of slavery, the fact that a significant number of the sellers had brought humans into Mexican territory after Mexico had abolished slavery and held those persons continued to be enslaved in Tejas when such an action was illegal under Mexican law is itself important as it gives them a very strong motive for the slave-owners and their sympathisers to overthrow Mexican law and adopt the then inhuman slave laws of the USA. When you state that the settlers were “accustomed to ....extensive individual rights” you simply ignore those amongst the settlers who were not accustomed to any individual rights at all and you do so risking the integrity of your whole article. To claim that “This material is well covered in the other articles referenced” has no value t he whole article is amply covered elsewhere, so why leave one aspect be so glaringly absence. And what does the claim that modern scholarship does not focus on slavery mean? Has no modern writer mentioned the conditions upon which the original settlers entered Tejas? or mention the slaves that the English-speaking settlers brought with them? or the fact that the cotton that the settlers set about farming was considered uneconomic unless produced with enslaved labour? So why exclude all these matters?
- While Wikipedia policy may be a good guide to writing articles, historical accuracy is far, far more important. How the English-settlers entered Mexico, how the slaves they brought with them were needed for cotton production, while that slavery was illegal in Mexico all these are important factors in the build up to the Texan Revolution.
- I loook forward to you comments, Regards, Lochalsh
- Hi Lochalsh. Thank you for engaging here on talk.
- First, I understand that WP policy can be frustrating - it's a different way of writing articles here than most people are used to, and it can take some adjustment (did for me!). WP requires that articles summarize most scholarly research and give the same general weight in the article as the scholarly works give it.
- WP also requires that articles remain focused on their subject. There is a lot of information that can (and has) been written on the overall causes of the Texas Revolution. Some of that you've seen in the article Texas Revolution and in Mexican Texas. Slavery, the refusal to learn Spanish or convert to Catholicism, the insistence on adhering to US laws/rights - all of that contributed to the desire for Mexicans and Texians to thump each other, and each of those reasons (and the rest) need to be well covered in the context of the topic of the Revolution.
- To provide 100% coverage of the battle, we could very well go back to 1826 and provide the full context for the Revolution. But we'd have to do that also in Battle of San Jacinto, Battle of Goliad, Battle of Gonzales, etc. That's a lot of repetition, and a tremendous amount of information to show in each of those articles (the articles could get huge). As part of the WP:Spinout guideline, we take that repetitive information and put it into its own article, then link to it (as is done at the top of the Background section in the Alamo article). That way, the article Battle of the Alamo can focus on what led directly to the battle. And while slavery and the other reasons contributed to the desire of people to rebel, the actual events at the Alamo took place because of what is listed in background. The reasons behind the original fighting got rolled up to "most of whom had made little effort to adapt to the Mexican culture" - which includes slavery, economic issues, etc.
- As harsh as it sounds, slaves were also not considered settlers. None of them had purchased land. Therefore, in the parlance of the time, they weren't settlers.
- I hope this helps explain a little more why some of the editing decisions were made and how WP writing differs from other kinds. Karanacs (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Lochalsh. Thank you for engaging here on talk.