Traveling in Texas

We spent a day in San Antonio  visiting three missions -- The Alamo, Concepcion and San José.  The  following  were my reactions:

Our conversation  with the  docent  at  the Alamo was very interesting.  He was very well informed, articulate and passionate.  He was a retired Lt Colonel (fought in Iraq), then taught 6th grade math, now volunteered as docent at the  Alamo.  His thesis was that the defenders  of the Alamo were "fighting to defend the Mexican Constitution  of 1824 -- for democracy".   The Texans were "trying  to  bring  democracy  to  Mexico just like they tried to do for Afghanistan"  But  you  just can't get  "peons to vote"

He said Santa Ana made a good devil because he was ruthless and politically astute and when  in power curtailed  the  rights of citizens --  so easy to organize rebellion against him. The docent said that the importance of the Alamo, at least for Texans, was  that it represented  the little guy (the individual) fighting  against  the big guy (federal government).

He  called himself a RINO, and thought the Trump supporters  were  crazy and that  people shouldn't want to deny unpleasant  history (like some of the Texans from the US  brought slaves with  them  and that slavery was a "very  small part" of the  cause of  the war.).   One should learn the unpleasant  facts   and move on.  I suggested that perhaps we could learn from the past so we don't  make the same  mistakes?  He agreed to that.

What was so interesting about his version of the history was the lack of context.  There was no mention that the battle of the Alamo was part  of  the  campaign of Santa Ana to RETAKE the Mexican garrisons (plural) that the Anglo Texans had seized after declaring  independence  from  Mexico.  That the defenders of the Alamo were  expecting reinforcements that never came because of political infighting among the newly declared Texan government. That the most important "right"  that the Texans were fighting for was the right  to  hold slaves, which the Mexican Constitution had abolished.

The literature re the Missions put out by the national parks was equally problematic.  Quoting  from National Park Service pamphlet, San  Antonio Missions:

Imagine life as a hunter gatherer...survival depends on  the mercy  of the wilderness...this was the world of the Native Americans of South Texas before the arrival of Europeans. The Coahuiltecans, rich in tradition, were people  of survival, in harsh harmony with their environment.  The arrival of Europeans brought devastating diseases and irreversible change, threatening American Indian lifeways.  Mission living offered a chance for survival, which these people seized..(my emphasis)...Mission leaders introduced stationary, year-round  community  living......

.......Franciscan friars aspired to teach community harmony through Catholic sacraments....Trusting in the united group and learning specialized skills, the mission inhabitants  protected, sheltered, fed, and clothed each other.  By combining these efforts, they achieved a sense of security they had lost. But they also paid a price.

Upon entering the mission, Coahuiltecans were expected to give up their own religion, culture and traditions -- even their names.  They were expected to become Spanish. Despite  this, elements of their native lifeways blended with Spanish and  Catholic cultures.  Today this blend comprises the rich cultural heritage of San Antonio.

A few of the plaques mentioned that the Spanish military helped to "pacify" the Indians.  but no mention of  how or why and by what  means.