Jump to content

“Come and take it” deemed anti-Mexican

TonyTexas

By TonyTexas
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

formermav43

formermav43 4599

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Counterpoint: They deemed Santa Anna a tyrant, in part, because Mexico outlawed slavery in Texas.

 

Counter-counterpoint: 1) Slavery was outlawed in Texas by the Law of April 6, 1830, which predated Santa Anna’s Presidency by several years; 2) That doesn’t account for the numerous other Mexican states that rose in rebellion against him.

That the Texas “revolution” was partly motivated by slavery and that Santa Anna was an actual tyrant can both be true.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2036

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Counter-counterpoint: 1) Slavery was outlawed in Texas by the Law of April 6, 1830, which predated Santa Anna’s Presidency by several years; 2) That doesn’t account for the numerous other Mexican states that rose in rebellion against him.

That the Texas “revolution” was partly motivated by slavery and that Santa Anna was an actual tyrant can both be true.

Palabra!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Austin

Saint Austin 745

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

The more important topic on all of this is the world’s willingness to let fringe groups like white supremacists co-opt various cultural symbols. We need to stop those effers from doing that. 

No doubt, but unfortunately this isn't exactly a new phenomenon. 

Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871: Law being used to target Trump, Giuliani, Capitol mob for insurrection - The Washington Post

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23394

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

The more important topic on all of this is the world’s willingness to let fringe groups like white supremacists co-opt various cultural symbols. We need to stop those effers from doing that. 

I had no idea prior to this thread that the flag had been supposedly coopted by white supremacists. I don’t really give a shit about any of this nonsense and will continue to fly my Gonzalez flag. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54003

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I had no idea prior to this thread that the flag had been supposedly coopted by white supremacists. I don’t really give a shit about any of this nonsense and will continue to fly my Gonzalez flag. 

Perhaps if it means that much to you, you should learn to spell it correctly.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chico_SA

Chico_SA 521

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

They shouldn't have a Division 1 (or whatever its called now) team. I mean, come on, do we not have any standards?

 

 

 

 

Emoji not good enough. Fuck right off. 

Edited by Chico_SA
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

It was anti-Mexican first (kinda the whole fucking point), then it became a prop for white supremacists, and now it's back to being anti-Mexican. time IS a flat circle.

No, it's still very much a prop of white supremacists. 

It's been co-opted by fuck wits, rather than remain within the province of college sports rivalries. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27464

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Utsa losing a tradition that started way back in (check notes) 2016.

a lot of snowflakes seemed bothered by this.

That first year UTSA football was going was wild - went to the first ever game with some friends and the Alamo Dome staff just gave up and let folks bring in big ass 24 packs of beer lol. Good times

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hanrahan

Hanrahan 1306

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

What's the source for your text, OP? I still disagree with the decision but what I read was that it was made because of CATI's being coopted by white supremacist and insurrectionist groups. 

And the absurdity of saying that it has been "deemed" anti-Mexican when as others have noted anti-Mexicanism  was the entire point of the slogan is mesmerizing. What's next? Will we later come to learn that Don't Tread On Me is anti-English?

Plz no step on snek

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18659

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, formermav43 said:

Counter-counterpoint: 1) Slavery was outlawed in Texas by the Law of April 6, 1830, which predated Santa Anna’s Presidency by several years; 2) That doesn’t account for the numerous other Mexican states that rose in rebellion against him.

That the Texas “revolution” was partly motivated by slavery and that Santa Anna was an actual tyrant can both be true.

They can absolutely both be true and both should be taught. We skipped right over the slavery part when I was in 7th grade and went all in on the tyranny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 12846

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Captainant said:

That first year UTSA football was going was wild - went to the first ever game with some friends and the Alamo Dome staff just gave up and let folks bring in big ass 24 packs of beer lol. Good times

Really was an incredible atmosphere which I didn’t think was possible in the Alamodome 

1 hour ago, TonyTexas said:

This is not about UTSA

the hobbit bilbo GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macanudo

Macanudo 12928

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They can absolutely both be true and both should be taught. We skipped right over the slavery part when I was in 7th grade and went all in on the tyranny.

Are we talking about the Texas Revolution or the War of Northern Aggression?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotActuallyALonghorn

NotActuallyALonghorn 4968

Posted
Posted

It really doesn't appear that slavery was much of a significant driving issue for the Battle of Gonzales. While it is seen as the beginning of hostilities between Mexico and Anglo immigrants and Mexicans in Texas, it was in a region of Texas that didn't depend on slave labor for its economy, and several other Mexican states were in revolt against the new centrist government as well. Given its geographic location, the traditional view of them wanting more rights and wanting to keep the cannon for defense against raiding indians makes much more sense. It was anti centrist Mexico, but mainly because the people wanted a return to federalist Mexico.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18659

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

It really doesn't appear that slavery was much of a significant driving issue for the Battle of Gonzales. While it is seen as the beginning of hostilities between Mexico and Anglo immigrants and Mexicans in Texas, it was in a region of Texas that didn't depend on slave labor for its economy, and several other Mexican states were in revolt against the new centrist government as well. Given its geographic location, the traditional view of them wanting more rights and wanting to keep the cannon for defense against raiding indians makes much more sense. It was anti centrist Mexico, but mainly because the people wanted a return to federalist Mexico.

Slavery was a big reason for the Texas Revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18659

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

I'll try and remember to respond to this later tonight. I had some stuff typed out, but it was incomplete and family obligations take precedence over the discussion at hand.

Cool.

While we wait, let's not forget Section 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of Texas, which reads, in part:

"All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude . . . Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from bringing their slaves into the republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall congress have the power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave without the consent of congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the republic."

Seems pertinent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Slavery was a big reason for the Texas Revolution.

Since I didn't grow up here, my Texas history is spotty so I'm trying to remember what my children learned and from chaperoning field trips with them...wasn't there a deal with landowners having imported African born slaves which was against some law or am I getting that mixed up with the 'South' south? (I consider Texas as Southern, but I get that its history had a different trajectory than say, Mississippi.) I remember going to a plantation with one of my children, or maybe it was Washington-on-the-Brazos and there was something about an uprising that occurred prior to the Civil War and was somehow related to Mexico, but again, my memory is foggy. I may also be getting some mixed up with the posters on here who have mentioned the Texas statehood documents as well. I don't know much at all about the Battle of Gonzales but I look forward to the discussion.

I also guess I should head to the library and check out  a history book!

Edited by Mrs Whiggins
And....DD answered while I was typing. Yes, that is the part of the document I remember being discussed on this forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18659

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Since I didn't grow up here, my Texas history is spotty so I'm trying to remember what my children learned and from chaperoning field trips with them...wasn't there a deal with landowners having imported African born slaves which was against some law or am I getting that mixed up with the 'South' south? (I consider Texas as Southern, but I get that its history had a different trajectory than say, Mississippi.) I remember going to a plantation with one of my children, or maybe it was Washington-on-the-Brazos and there was something about an uprising that occurred prior to the Civil War and was somehow related to Mexico, but again, my memory is foggy. I may also be getting some mixed up with the posters on here who have mentioned the Texas statehood documents as well. I don't know much at all about the Battle of Gonzales but I look forward to the discussion.

I also guess I should head to the library and check out  a history book!

Much of what we learn in 7th grade Texas history is mythology designed to instill state pride. That is by design. 

The truth is much more nuanced and doesn't always align with the popular origin story.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 18987

Posted
Posted
On 9/9/2021 at 3:39 PM, Helobious said:

 

Did you fuckers not see UTSA beat Illinois last Saturday? Team is on the rise big time. Doing it with a fuckton of local SA and south Texas players too. RB McCormick is going to be a high draft pick. Get with the program. 

Hmm.  Remind me who the coach at Illinois is again?  I forget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28691

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Slavery was a big reason for the Texas Revolution.

The Battle of Gonzales was a catalyst for the Revolution and yes slavery had a lot to do with the Revolution but the actual Gonzales incident wasn't related to slavery. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 this kind of BS.

Which 'this kind' do you mean? The flag issue? The merit or lack thereof of the UTSA football program? The discussion regarding the Battle of Gonzales? The Texas Revolution? The flatlander football coach at Illinois? Whether Shania Twain has an enhanced bosum or is natural? (on that last one I got the Steve Carell line to Tina Fey from Date Night stuck in my head)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13414

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Cool.

While we wait, let's not forget Section 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of Texas, which reads, in part:

"All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude . . . Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from bringing their slaves into the republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall congress have the power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave without the consent of congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the republic."

Seems pertinent.

in the bolded part, it sounds like Texas didn't even allow for freeing your slaves unless you sent them out of Texas. Didn't know that. Once a slave in Texas, always a slave in Texas. Harsh.

The US stopped slave importation in 1808. Did Texas allow it during the republic years? This section above sounds like they were ok with it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14251

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I had no idea prior to this thread that the flag had been supposedly coopted by white supremacists. I don’t really give a shit about any of this nonsense and will continue to fly my Gonzalez flag. 

Just be sure to fly it next to a Blue Lives Matter flag and you'll have nothing to worry about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...