From: laro@idworld.net   
      
   "Todd"  wrote in message   
   news:mhNec.95600$Ig.67277@pd7tw2no...   
   > Well, I went to see "The Alamo" this evening.   
   >   
   > I wish I could say I'm impressed, but I'm not :(   
   >   
   > I don't know where the 90 million bucks went, because 90% of the movie is   
   very slow   
   > character development. So slow, and predictable, that it about makes you   
   yawn. The usual   
   > frontier boastings, like "Davy Crockett can leap a river in a single   
   bound," as one   
   > nervous Mexican soldier shivers. And Jim Bowie flashes his great big   
   knife, which makes   
   > those he doesn't like squirm on cue.   
   >   
   > It doesn't really show you why the white Texans were upset at Mexico. A   
   couple of black   
   > Texan slaves decide they don't want to get killed for their master's sake,   
   and they were   
   > the ones I think most everyone could identify with.   
   >   
   > Disappointed ...   
      
   Damn, Todd, did you HAVE to tell me the ending of it and spoil   
   the movie?   :-)   
      
   But I imagine there is a whole lot more to the movie than someone   
   from outside the CONUS would immediately grasp.  (you ARE in   
   Canada, are you not?  IF not, pardon me.)   There's a lot of uniquely   
   Texan myth and lore which were supposed to be either verified or   
   exposed or something to help clarify.    I am sorry you didn't get a   
   glimmer of why both Texians and Tejanos were upset with Mexico.   
      
   And, FYI, it WAS both segments of the Texas population, not just   
   what you describe as "white" Texans.   
      
   IF you're really interested in learning reasons, I'm sure there are folks   
   on here who could oblige, eh Gerald?   
      
   In case you already know and were just making a comment on the   
   movie, I won't start that thread.   
      
   Oh, there are a lot of friends of mine who would jump like you   
   stuck a hot poker up their butts if I let you get away with   
   calling Anglo Texans "white," thus implying that Mexicans were   
   NOT white.   
      
   Spanish and Mexican Texans are white people, they are not   
   colored.   That may strike up the band for an argument, but   
   I hope not.  That is not simply my opinion, but for many   
   years they were "officially census designated" as white.  It was   
   so, in order to gain some advantage when the numbers were   
   used in voting rights, distribution of peoples for purposes of   
   federal aid and attention or something.  I never cared much about   
   that and still do not care much about being politically correct.   
      
   I do have some very good friends, however, who would be insulted   
   and hurt by your choice of words.  One such was a gentleman   
   named Henry Guerra, who until he passed away a couple of years   
   back, was known by everyone as "The Voice of San Antonio."   
      
   He was a radio/tv personality, narrated many historical stories,   
   even one which resides in a local national park display.  He was a   
   fine old man, and implying that he was not "white" would hurt him   
   badly.  I have a close friend (who IS Mexican) and while giving a   
   presentation to a board meeting, made the "mistake" of calling the   
   one side "white."  Henry stood politely and asked him if he was   
   saying he was NOT white?  There was an immediate correction and   
   apology!  Henry was greatly respected by all segments of that city   
   during his lifetime.   
      
   The most common way to identify the "sides" in Texas Revolutionary   
   politics is to use "Texian" and "Tejano."   Pretty generally understood,   
   these days.   
      
   There you have it.  For old Henry's sake, please consider yourself   
   'more informed.'  Whether you agree or not.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)