The following article
previously appeared in Counterpunch.
Yet another film version
of the story of the Alamo has descended on a movie theatre
near you. According to the hoopla, the defenders of the Alamo fought
for "liberty" and "freedom" and – as their noble
commander says in a film clip – to "show the world what patriots
are made of." A stirring ad run during the Superbowl intoned
that, at the Alamo, "Ordinary men will become heroes."
The perpetuation of this myth of the Alamo is a dishonest exploitation of
our history. The fact is that the defenders of the Alamo fought for white
supremacy and slavery. This latest Hollywood edition of the Alamo story is
not much different than the last half dozen or so Alamo movies, such as the
1937 Heroes of the Alamo. The most recent Alamo film saga was John Wayne's
lumbering effort in 1960, complete with a ponderous musical score and a cast
of thousands. All of these films inevitably fall into a category known as
White Man Movie Fiction.
WMMF, as it is more commonly known, does not allow a non-white actor in a
movie unless the character is a servant, a comedian, or a criminal. The result
is that the white man is always the central focus, or hero, of whatever action
or event is being portrayed, regardless of historical fact. The first western
movie, the all-white Great Train Robbery of 1903, set the tone for this fictional
mythology of America's story of the Frontier.
We know that – in the Old West trail drives – at least one out of every five
cowboys was black. Yet hardly any black characters have been portrayed in
the thousands of western films made during the past 100 years. Have you seen
any black guys on horses with Gene Autry, Roy Rogers, John Wayne, Jimmie
Stewart, or Gary Cooper? What about television serials like Gunsmoke and
Bonanza? Search for black cowboys in Kevin Costner's Wyatt Earp and Kurt
Russell's Tombstone.
You get the drift.
The earliest major promulgator of WMMF was the highly esteemed director D.W.
Griffith, who was a Southerner. Griffith – like Hitler favorite Leni Rienfenstahl – is
excused for his blatant and pervading racism by film savants because of his
technical innovations and artistic contributions to the film industry.
No one wants to be reminded that Griffith's epic 1915 film The Birth of a
Nation, which was based on a fictional and inflammatory retelling of the
Reconstruction period, contributed to the massive rebirth of the Ku Klux
Klan in the 1920's. We also want to forget that lynchings increased and pogroms
were carried out against black people throughout the South whenever Griffith's
movie was shown. The white supremacist massacres of black people in Rosewood,
Florida and Tulsa, Oklahoma have been directly linked to local screenings
of Griffith's movie.
D.W. Griffith also made one of the first - if not the first - fictional movies
of the Alamo story, The Martyrs of the Alamo. The through line for Griffith
here is the White Man As Hero; Non-White Man As Bad Guy. If White Man Dies,
He Dies For a Good Cause; If Non-White Man Dies, Good Riddance. Native Americans
and Mexicans routinely fell into the Good Riddance classifications.
Another early Western film maker, William S. Hart, continued this tradition
in his movies. One of the most notorious subtitles in Hart's silent movie
Hell's Hinges describes the villain as "mingling the oily craftiness
of a Mexican with the deadly treachery of a rattler, no man's open enemy
and no man's friend." Phew!
So what was the Alamo standoff really about?
Well, for starters, let's take a look at one of the most legendary defenders
of the Alamo, Jim Bowie.
Jim Bowie is widely celebrated in film (both Alan Ladd and Richard Widmark
portrayed him) and television (a two year run in the '50's) as a daring and
resourceful adventurer famed for the development and usage of a long-bladed
knife which became known as the "Bowie knife."
The facts are that Bowie was much more than a back alley knife fighter. Shortly
after the War of 1812, he and his brother Rezin went into business as slave
traders with the pirate Jean Lafitte. In the 1820's they used their profits
from the slave trade to become land speculators and eventually established
a sugar plantation with slave labor in Louisiana. Ten years later they sold
that business, and the 82 slaves who worked on it, for $90,000.
Bowie took his share of the profits and went to "Texas" to join
Stephen F. Austin's group of Anglo colonists. He then became involved in
a scheme to fraudulently acquire land grants from the Mexican government
and ultimately garnered thousands of acres of land. As the crisis loomed
between the Anglo colony and the Mexican government, Bowie found himself
on the side of William Travis' "War Party," a group that brooked
no conciliation with the Mexican government and was dedicated to the creation
of a "Republic of Texas."
The "Republic of Texas" was a natural outgrowth of the Austin colony
which brought slavery onto Mexican soil in 1821. In 1825, twenty-five percent
of the people in Austin's colony were slaves and by 1836 there were 5,000
slaves. James S. Mayfield, a later Secretary of State for the Republic
of Texas, stated that "the true policy and prosperity of this country
(Texas) depend on the maintenance" of slavery. Like all Southern plantation
owners, these Anglo-Texans had a plan for their own prosperity based on the
free labor of slaves.
However, the problem for the slave-owning crowd was that the fledgling national
government in Mexico City threatened to restrict or abolish slavery on Mexican land.
So the Texas colonists organized a convention in March, 1836 to establish
the issues for which they would do battle with the Mexican government. In
a two-week period they adopted a declaration of independence from Mexico,
declared a republic, and produced a constitution for that republic. All of
this activity occurred during the siege of the Alamo.
The Alamo defenders fought and died for the constitution of the Republic
of Texas which declared in Sections 6, 9 and 10:
"All free white
persons who emigrate to the republic...shall be entitled to all
the privileges of citizenship.”
"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 (of Texas) shall pass no laws
to prohibit emigrants from the United State of America from bringing
their slaves into the Republic with them...nor shall Congress
have the power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slaveholder
be allowed to emancipate his or her slave or slaves...no
free person of African descent either in whole or in part shall
be permitted to reside permanently in the Republic without the
consent of Congress."
"All
persons, (African, the descendants of Africans and Indians excepted,)
who were residing in Texas on the day of the Declaration of Independence
shall be considered citizens of the Republic and entitled to all
the privileges of such."
Contrary to popular mythology
and the spurious history of White Man Movie Fiction, the story
of the Alamo is not a story of a fight for freedom. It is the story
of a fight for slavery. It is important for us to look honestly
at our cultural and historical mythologies so that we can learn
from them. By perpetuating the old myths, we create a stagnant
and dangerous platform which prevents our cultural and artistic
growth as a society.
Forget the Alamo as it's portrayed in this movie, but never forget what really
happened.
Don Santina is a film
historian who is the author of the Academy of Motion Picture Archive's
monograph "The History of the Cisco Kid in Film."
|