dark light

The Alamo

Hi you people out there,

I was watching “Blackhawk down” today and they are talking about the alamo. I heard that also at “Saving private Ryan”. I think it must be something American. Can any one tell what this is, I am not that good in American history. I guess it has to do with that because I hear it more often.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

463

Send private message

By: Wombat - 22nd September 2002 at 09:41

RE: The Alamo

Vortex

I can assure you that comparitively few of us Aussies (please note: not “ozzies”) has any wish whatsoever to become part of the United States.

Many Australians joke about Australia already being the 51st state but it is a derogatory term. We believe there is already far too much US influence out here, with MacDonalds, Pizza Hut and KFC on every corner, our politicians being too prepared to hop into bed with Bush and generally having our language infiltrated with Americanisms, such as “fries” and “burgers”, instead of chips and hamburgers.

No thanks, mate, you can have it to yourself. Australians are fiercely independent and that’s the way we want it to stay.

Regards

Wombat

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

100,651

Send private message

By: Arabella-Cox - 22nd September 2002 at 02:40

RE: The Alamo

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-09-02 AT 02:45 AM (GMT)]IIRC, no states within the US can leave when ever it wants…haven’t Lincoln’s resolve during the civil war said anything? We have to constantly remember that today’s “morality” was different from any time before and nevertheless will be different from the future, not necessarily worse. During that time most Americans firmly believed in Manifest Destiny, so if Mexico didn’t want to sell it to fullfill American “Destiny”, then that means war. In the norms of those days, that’s nothing special. Today, you gotta be joking when somebody wants to buy a piece of your country, because almost no country will do so, if not none at all. In those days it was very common for a country to sell part of their country…especially parts that were considered as “frontiers”. France and Russia sold their lands to the US remember? Mexico would’ve sell their land, but i guess US pushed it too fast…got impatient i guess. The normal practice was to tell people that falls out of the “norm” on the east coast to go west….and ideas of slavery balancing states.
yes, Texas was the only state that joined as a country(but remember Mexico never recognize the “independence”)…maybe Canada wants to join too? How about those ozzies..}>
As to “Republics”, i think a lot of states are “Republics”…the official California title is “Republic of California”…if those Bay area people goes any more liberal, we might become “People’s Republic of California”:7

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

1,900

Send private message

By: keltic - 21st September 2002 at 21:09

RE: The Alamo

Thanks for the explanation. So I suppose the “Embassy at London is simply a festive thing, more than real revindicative intentions. Does the same conditions apply to other states of Union or only to Texas?.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

14

Send private message

By: User Flage - 21st September 2002 at 20:54

RE: The Alamo

Texas is offically called the republic of texas. Texas was a seperate country until it joined the USA. One of the points of the act of union with the united states of america is that it can leave whenever it wants to.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

1,900

Send private message

By: keltic - 21st September 2002 at 11:05

RE: The Alamo

Vortex, I have a question about Texas. Having travelled there I wasn´t able that anyone could explain to me, why it´s called a “free state”. Having lived in London and seeing that there´s a Texan Embassy just off Trafalgar Square, I wonder if there´s a kind of independence movement in the State, or simply the “free state” title refers to El Alamo events?.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

4,823

Send private message

By: djcross - 21st September 2002 at 03:44

RE: The Alamo

Vortex got it right, but for those “America Haters” on the board, the Americans were lousy imperialists even back in 1848. After conquering Mexico, the Americans signed the Treaty of Guadelupe Hildago. The major provisions of that treaty were:

1.The Americans gave Mexico back to the Mexicans.
2.The Americans paid Mexico $15M for the desert territory that is the present states of New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California.
3.Mexican property owners within New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California retained possession of their property (and their descendants are US citizens).

A few years later (1853), the US paid Mexico another $10M for a strip land in southern New Mexico and Arizona as a railroad right of way. This was the Gadsden Purchase.

Unlike the Imperialist nations in Europe and East Asia:
1. No tribute or taxes were paid by the Mexicans to the US.
2. Mexican wealth was not confiscated and sent to the US.
3. US-appointed governors did not rule Mexico for decades.
4. The US did not establish Mexico as a US-only exclusive economic zone, where the only legal trading partner was the US.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

100,651

Send private message

By: Arabella-Cox - 21st September 2002 at 02:31

RE: The Alamo

that’s not 100% correct since those events occur over tens of years. Texans (mostly immigrated Americans) declared independence. Mexico want it back. After Alamo (the point of reference is how so few fought against so many, you can choose your side, but the horror was almost everybody was executed after the defeat…common in those days though) and some time, Texas beaten Mexico, became an independent Texas nation. Texan asked to be included in the US, Mexico told US that it still views Texas as part of soverign Mexican land. US accepts Texas as a state,…there goes the war. As to other part of the land, it has more to do with Mexico doesn’t want to sell those land to the US, so small things happened became huge war. Of course, Mexicans see this whole thing as a US scheme, but US feels that Texas gained its independence. Much like after Mexico gain its independence from Spain and if they decided to join the US, then that’s how Spain would feel about the US (of course the situation is different, but…)Interesting though, the US beaten the Mexicans all the way to Mexico City, and then pulled back. Very interesting because there was no overall attempt to “take” entire Mexico.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

1,900

Send private message

By: keltic - 20th September 2002 at 17:23

RE: The Alamo

Placed in a nice city called San Antonio. The Venice of Texas. I love it.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

1,348

Send private message

By: mixtec - 20th September 2002 at 16:07

RE: The Alamo

The Alamo was a fort in texas when mexico owned texas. Alot of americans were settling there and after a while mexico wanted them out. So general Santa Ana brought forces up to expel the americans and after a long bloody fight eventually killed all who were there. This started the Mexican/American war under the cry “remember the alamo” where the US invaded mexico and took not only texas but california, arizona, utah, new mexico, nevada, colorado, oklahoma. There werent hardly any mexicans in most these states as they are mostly either deserts or mountains.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

219

Send private message

By: shorthome - 20th September 2002 at 15:12

RE: The Alamo

maybe, I hear of it alot an the yanks are refering a lot to it.
So, yes.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

4,866

Send private message

By: Hand87_5 - 20th September 2002 at 14:19

RE: The Alamo

Are you speaking about Fort Alamo battle?

Sign in to post a reply