******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
While I certainly disagree with much of the recent views and
politics projected by Clay Claiborne, in his efforts to support
USA government policies in Libya, Syria and Iraq, etc. -
I must agree with him on the efforts of those whites who
wanted to expand slavery and slave based agriculture into
Texas in the 1830's - 1840's. Whatever might have been the
intentions of some individuals who took part in the Alamo
and opposition to the Mexico government policies, the
Texas Succession Movement was led by and objectively for
the slavers to expand slavery. David Crockett is a good example
of one of those southern whites who saw Texas as opportunity
to expand the South's power and to personally economically
benefit from hopes to acquire land.
Thoreau and Emerson and most all white USA progressives then
opposed the efforts of Sam Houston, Dave Austin, Dave Bowie
and the other "successionists" and saw this was just an
objective benefit to expand slavery.
Slavery may have been then (and still) for some "not important",
but it mattered greatly to those who were slaves and those who
actively opposed it. Some of the "Texas Successionists" may have
held views opposed to slavery and wanting better policies and
treatment by the Mexico government, but like those who support
current "U. S. humanitarian concerns in Kosovo, Libya, Syria, Sudan", -
they aided right wing objectives. The "Big Picture" is important
regarding Texas then.
While I admire Mark Lause's general research and writings on USA
history that he has provided - on the "Texas Succession Movement"
to not be viewed as benefitting slavery and the South - is a mistake.
Clay Claiborne's views on this chapter of Texas history and USA slavery
and the efforts today by People of Color challenging white supremacy
are more accurate
>
> There are no white supremacists on the civil war either, and no defenders
> of slavery. They all argue that it was about states rights, freedom and
> being invaded. Generally speaking they argue along the lines that Mark
> defended the defenders of the Alamo. But don't you dare call them white
> supremacists. There are no white supremacists any more, maybe a few
> self-declared racists, but no one else - these are all legitimate debates
> about something else.
>
> Been there, heard that a thousand times.
>
> Clay Claiborne, Director
> >
> > On Fri, October 31, 2014 17:38, Clay Claiborne via Marxism wrote:
> > >
> > > To make it even more clear. I said that those fighting at the Alamo were
> > > fighting for white supremacy. You said they weren't. If I am right, you
> > > are defending white supremacy.
> >
> > We could have a more productive discussion if people don't make such
> > charges, and especially if differing takes on historical questions are not
> > automatically taken to reflect different world views or political
> > positions on current issues. I know we all are tempted to do that during a
> > heated argument. But to make such a valid charge, you would need to show
> > how that person's conclusion flowed from the evil ideology or from flawed
> > historical records, for instance. Let's try to keep the discussion more
> > civil.
> >
> > - Jeff
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
