Translate

Showing posts with label 1836 Project. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1836 Project. Show all posts

Monday, May 05, 2025

Testimony Before the 1836 Project Advisory Committee, Laredo, Texas by Emilio Zamora, Ph.D. May 2, 2025

Emilio Zamora, Professor of History at the University of Texas at Austin,
delivered invited testimony before the 1836 Project Advisory Committee on May 2, 2025, at Texas A&M International University in Laredo, Texas. Established by the Texas Legislature in 2021, the Committee was charged with advising the governor on teaching patriotism and values in Texas history.

Dr. Zamora used the occasion to foreground the importance of Mexican American history by highlighting the lives and contributions of two key historical figures. His remarks underscored the urgent need for a fair and inclusive account of Texas history—one that acknowledges the foundational role of Mexicans and other historically marginalized communities in both the past and present civic life of the state.

Other presenters included Dr. Cynthia Orozco, Professor Emeritus at Eastern New Mexico University–Ruidoso, and Dr. Jerry Thompson, Professor of History at Texas A&M International University–Laredo.

It was a privilege to hear their testimonies—each grounded in deep scholarship and a commitment to historical truth. Together, they issued more than a critique; they offered a call to conscience. At a time when historical narratives are being narrowed and politicized, their words reminded us that telling the full story of Texas is not only an academic duty but a moral imperative.

—Angela Valenzuela


Testimony Before the 1836 Project Advisory Committee,


Laredo, Texas

Emilio Zamora, Ph.D.

May 2, 2025

On May 2, 2025, I had the opportunity to interrogate "old histories" with the historical narratives of marginalized communities in Texas, particularly those of Mexican origin. The occasion was a public hearing in Laredo, hosted by the Texas 1836 Project Advisory Committee. Established in 2022 by the 87th Texas Legislature. The Committee's mandate is to advise the Governor on promoting “patriotic education” and increasing awareness of "the Texas values that continue to stimulate boundless prosperity across this state.”

The Committee, chaired by Dr. Don Frazier, Director of The Texas Center at Schreiner University in Kerrville, Texas, heard from other invited scholars, including Jerry Thompson, Cynthia Orozco, and Roseann Backa Garza. The reception was positive, and we engaged in friendly and productive conversations following each presentation.

To establish my authority and underscore the importance of incorporating neglected or overlooked histories, I referenced my credentials as a professional historian and highlighted two historical figures: Sara Estela Ramirez (1881-1910) and José de la Luz Saenz (1888-1953), advocating for their inclusion in the conventional narrative. Furthermore, I urged the Committee to recommend that the Governor approach Texas history as an inclusive narrative, encompassing both its commendable and contentious aspects that he might envision.

As a scholar of nearly fifty years, I have had the privilege of contributing to the development of Texas and Mexican American history through my academic and public engagement work. I currently hold the position of Professor and Clyde Rabb Littlefield Chair in Texas History at the University of Texas at Austin. My contributions have been acknowledged by professional and community organizations in Texas and Mexican American history. Along the way, I have served in various academic departments and professional organizations, including the Texas State Historical Association (President, 2019-20).
The following two textbook publications should be of special interest to the committee: Zamora and Walter Buenger, Texas History (New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc., 2015); and Zamora and Andrés Tijerina, Eds., Mexican Americans of Texas, A History of Tradition and Struggle, Coauthors, Zamora, Tijerina, Amy Porter, Sonia Hernández, and Guadalupe San Miguel (New York: Kendall Hunt Publishers, 2024).

My work as a professional historian is deeply grounded in the rigorous training and ethical standards that define the discipline. As professional historians, we adhere to a strict commitment to evidence-based inquiry, ensuring that our interpretations are fair, accurate, and grounded in the careful study of primary sources. We engage with our work within a robust intellectual infrastructure, where it undergoes peer review and is disseminated through a wide array of scholarly and public venues. This process fosters a shared responsibility to our profession, colleagues, students, and society, ensuring that our findings contribute meaningfully to the broader and complex understanding of historical change.

One of the key aspects of studying history is the critical examination of historical events within their own contexts. This is particularly important when exploring patriotism and values in Texas history, themes that the 1836 Project Advisory Committee is particularly interested in discussing today.

In my work, I define values as the ethical guideposts used by individuals to navigate decisions and understand the world, while patriotism are expressions of profound affection for one’s country, its people, and its foundational ideals. To understand these themes, we must study and interpret them within the historical circumstances that shaped them, rather than imposing present-day or retrospective assessments onto the past.

I illustrate this approach by revisiting two historical figures from Texas: Sara Estela Ramírez (1881-1910), a teacher, journalist, feminist, and member of a Mexican exiled group called the “intellectual precursors of the Mexican Revolution,” and José de la Luz Sáenz (1888-1953), a teacher, World War I veteran, and a principal co-founder of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the leading civil rights organization in Mexican American history. Both figures provide insightful examples of how Mexicans navigated the complex issues of values and patriotism.

Sara Estela Ramírez & José de la Luz Sáenz

In The World of the Mexican Workers in Texas, I examine Ramírez's advocacy for the cultural values of mutuality, reciprocity, and altruism popular in Texas civic life during the early 1900s. At a time when modern infrastructure was sparse, communities across Texas Mexicans in Texas formed mutual aid societies, or benevolent organizations, that provided essential services, such as widow funds, unemployment insurance, and language training to their largely working-class members.

These self-help organizations were vital in offering support and fostering collective solidarity in families, communities, and other social groupings throughout the state. Other Black, Anglo, and immigrant communities also experiencing general distress associated with labor exploitation, poverty, disdain, and discrimination established benevolent organizations, including masonic orders, religious confraternities, immigrant societies, and unions. I identify four key features of these organizations:

1. They broadcast foundational collectivist values in their communities.

2. They sponsored mutualist activities like constructing churches and schools, and sponsoring community events.

3. They adhered to strict codes of moral conduct that created upstanding, and self-respecting leaders in their communities.

4. Their embrace of philosophical justifications offered by public intellectuals from Laredo like Ramírez mirrored similar observations by other working-class leaders like Thomas Hickey and E. O. Meitzen from Central Texas and the Reverend G. G. Hamilton in the northern part of the state.

Ramírez's 1909 keynote speech at the 20th anniversary of La Sociedad de Obreros, Igualdad y Progreso, one of the largest and popular binational organization from Laredo, offers a compelling example of the philosophical justifications behind the multi-ethnic self-help movement and the cultural values that sustained it. 

She framed the Golden Rule as a secular ethical framework for understanding mutuality, reciprocity, and altruism, arguing that nature (or God, if you prefer) compels us to recognize the equal worth in others and to commune with them for the sake of the whole. Free will, however, often diverts us from fulfilling our earthly and eternal purpose in life. Compassion and caring unity, however, will prevail in the end, when we realize that our inherently divine purpose always require adherence to the moral laws of nature which elevate the human condition, place us on the path to both moral and social progress (especially in time of need), and ennoble us as caring and compassionate human beings.
The moralistic values of these early organizations have been integral to the development of our society—as Mexicans, as Texans, and as a nation. 

Over time, they have converged with the almost purely rationalist principles embedded in the nation’s founding documents and manifest in the structure of modern institutional life. This convergence helps explain why union organizers have long proclaimed that “in unity there is strength,” why national leaders continue to call us to engage the ongoing project of perfecting the republic, and why religious leaders consistently advocate for a shared moral purpose grounded in the recognition that everyone has equal worth (under the law or in the eyes of God, whichever you prefer) and that we have the ethical obligation to pursue this idea. 

Mutuality, reciprocity, and altruism, which first emerged as moral guides within self-help organizations, the most popular form of organization in Texas during the latter part of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, have since permeated contemporary society—manifesting to varying degrees as genuine, even philanthropic, expressions of vital collective action.

I have also examined theme of patriotism in the life of José de la Luz Sáenz from Realitos and the author of a World War I diary entitled The Mexican Americans in the Great War (San Antonio: Artes Gráficas, 1933), the only war diary published by a Mexican veteran and possibly the only one of its kind published by a Texan. His wartime reflections provide a nuanced perspective on what we might now, from the comfort of our secure homes, celebrate as an exalted sense of duty and responsibility to the nation. Society, after all, often accords veterans the status of patriots because they have given so much to the nation, including their lives as sacrifices on the battlefields.

Sáenz, however, reveals that the soldiers who served with him in the 20th Texas-Oklahoma Division rarely self-identified as patriots. They most often perceived themselves as victims of circumstances beyond their control and lamented their service as an everyday experience in the horrors of war. They seldom spoke of patriotism as a motivating force or engaged in self-adulation, despite the exhortations of many of their officers and politicians back home during and especially after the war. Instead, they conveyed a sense of disillusionment and resignation.

Sáenz clearly suggests that labeling servicemen as patriots without truly understanding their military service and how they wished to be remembered constitutes a disregard for their sacrifice and a misuse of the concept of patriotism.

Our discourse on patriotism, therefore, should encompass the full narrative, including the responsibility of a supposedly grateful nation to its idealized veterans. This is particularly pertinent for the Mexican doughboys in Sáenz’s diary, who served honorably in the 90th Texas-Oklahoma Division but saw no appreciable change in their lives as Mexicans at the homefront in Texas.

They enlisted in impressive numbers, contributed to the preservation of democracy in Europe, and shed their blood on the battlefields of France. Sáenz notes that many of the soldiers, including himself, had hoped that the experience of “foxhole democracy” and their demonstration of fidelity would improve their marginalized condition in Texas. They were profoundly disappointed. Despite their significant wartime contributions and LULAC’s emphasis on their sacrifices, which promoted an amplified form of patriotism in their twentieth-century social justice campaigns, society often failed to recognize them as patriots or accord them the respect they deserved.

As with Ramírez, Sáenz represents a distinct historical trajectory and intellectual perspective that coexisted alongside competing viewpoints; thus, neither figure should be seen as representing the entirety of Mexican American history. For example, some Mexican Americans—much like individuals in other ethnic and social groups—adopted more individualistic approaches to civic life or radical departures from the conventional approach to domestic politics. 

In contrast to Sáenz’s appeals for Americanization and the articulation of a collective ethnic identity, others responded to national calls for unity with skepticism, questioning the sincerity of American institutions and, in some cases, evading the military draft.

As suggested earlier, the textbooks that colleagues and I have published offer the committee and the governor an inclusive treatment of the past that they may want to use in their deliberations. The latter one, Mexican Americans of Texas: A History of Tradition and Struggle, is especially important. 

This pioneering work is the first textbook on Mexican American history published for our schools in accordance with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), our state’s standard curriculum for our public schools. It spans from the Indigenous past to the present and includes a comprehensive learning system featuring timelines, periodization schemes, definitions, concepts, and classroom activities.

Organized around key themes, the book highlights the integral role of Mexican Americans in shaping both Texas and American history, reinforcing the idea that Mexican Americans are inextricably linked to broader narratives. Their contributions to the history and culture of the United States and Texas are undeniable and must be shared widely if we are to call ourselves a Democratic society.

Friday, July 09, 2021

Austin American-Statesman Editorial: Forget, for a moment, the Alamo. Remember the First Amendment.

It is incredibly encouraging to read what we are reading now in the Austin American Statement by the editorial board itself on the heels of the Forget the Alamo book authored by Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson and Jason Stanford.

Their book is supported by decades of research by Tejano (Texas-Mexican) historians whose work absolutely deserves greater public recognition. The Alamo itself needs to be an honest recounting of the truth of what that battle meant, particularly with respect to the Texians' self-proclaimed right to own slaves.  

It also says something that Tejano historians who have fought for this very recognition, dedicating their lives to the topic, that this recognition finally happens when it comes from the writings of three white men. They are well-meaning, talented writers, for sure, and I count Jason Stanford as a friend and colleague. However, if we're dead honest, this should have already happened decades ago. 

Perhaps someday, hopefully for my grandchildren, going to the Alamo won't be such a humiliating, enraging experience. Hopefully, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution will also survive for another generation.

-Angela Valenzuela

Editorial: Forget, for a moment, the Alamo. Remember the First Amendment.

By American-Statesman Editorial Board


Silencing journalists and scholars, chasing dissent from the public square, distorting history to serve an ideological narrative — it’s the stuff of autocrats, and now, the reprehensible behavior of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

Texans of all stripes should be deeply troubled by Patrick’s announcement last week that he used his authority, as the state’s No. 2 elected official, to cancel a virtual panel discussion he didn’t like at the Bullock Texas State History Museum, a public institution supported in part by taxpayer dollars.

The topic was a new book about the Alamo, but that is beside the point. It’s not the lieutenant governor’s job to decide which ideas can be shared and debated at a public forum. It’s not his job to tell Texans what to think. 

The book at the heart of this controversy, “Forget the Alamo,” casts a critical eye on Texas’ founding fathers, suggesting their desire to keep slaves helped fuel their push for independence from Mexico, which opposed slavery. That account — supported by decades of scholarship, largely by Latino historians whose work deserves greater public recognition — runs counter to the simplistic tale that generations of Texas students have learned in school, the story celebrating the white heroes of the Alamo while largely ignoring the contributions of Tejano allies and the thorny role of slavery.

The well-documented book is not, as Patrick alleged on Twitter, a “fact-free rewriting of TX history.” And it’s not solely about history. The book by Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson and Jason Stanford also probes the present-day politics around the storytelling of the Alamo, suggesting Patrick used “manufactured outrage” over the Alamo restoration plan to undercut Land Commissioner George P. Bush, whom he viewed as a political rival. 

Patrick’s push to cancel the book discussion went beyond preserving an idealized narrative of Texas’ founding fathers. It silenced an examination of Patrick’s own efforts to capitalize on that narrative — efforts that could cost Texas taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars if Patrick follows through on his pledge for sizable state funding for an Alamo museum, housing what the book’s authors argue is a collection of Alamo memorabilia of dubious authenticity.

For months now we’ve heard Republican gripes about “cancel culture,” a catchall condemnation for everything from the repackaging of Mr. Potato Head to the efforts by social media companies to reduce the spread of conspiracy theories on their private platforms. Simmering with faux outrage, Republicans have appeared on TV, penned guest columns and fired off fundraising emails — absurdly complaining to the masses that they were being muzzled.

But what Patrick gave us last week was a textbook case of real censorship, a clear case of the government stifling free speech. Patrick abused his authority as a member of the State Preservation Board to cancel an event at a public institution because he disagreed with the message. The only silver lining is that Patrick's effort backfired spectacularly, drawing national attention to the topic and driving book sales through the roof. The publisher, according to one of the authors, has ordered two more printings.

Forget, for a moment, the Alamo. Remember, instead, the First Amendment. Remember that it was the first enumeration of Americans’ protected rights for a reason: The free exchange of ideas, even difficult or unpopular ones, is the oxygen that keeps democracy alive. We cannot govern ourselves if our government leaders dictate what’s fact and what’s not, what can be discussed and what’s forbidden.

And yet our state leaders keep trying. Last month Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill creating the “1836 Project,” a thinly disguised propaganda campaign about “why Texas became so exceptional in the first place.” He also signed a bill limiting the ways that race and current events can be discussed in public schools, tapping into the ginned-up debate over critical race theory — a topic he's urged lawmakers to revisit in the special session, alongside the supposed censorship of conservatives on social media.

Abbott and GOP lawmakers have repeatedly tried to curtail an honest, nuanced examination of our state’s history, opting for indoctrination over discourse. This, on top of a barrage of bills last session in which the Legislature tried to dictate a range of decisions, from personal medical care to police funding levels, that Texans and local communities should be free to make for themselves.

Enough already. Patrick is free to disagree with the authors of any book. Better yet, he’s free to challenge the authors to explain and defend their findings. Either way, Texans deserve to have the discussion. The lieutenant governor had no right to shut it down.

Thursday, June 10, 2021

Texas Pushes to Obscure the State’s History of Slavery and Racism

Here's another piece on Anglo supremacy in Texas that appeared recently in the New York Times. It's informative in terms of the intersecting pieces of legislation and policy directions involved. 

It makes note of Texas' demographics that make it obvious how the whitewashing of the social studies curriculum is so incredibly dismissive of not only the historical record, but also toward Texas' children who are overwhelmingly Latina/o. 

These republican legislators are gaslighting us, y'all. They're telling us not to see what we actually are seeing. 

Thankfully, blogs like this one and other information sites exist so that our children, parents, and communities are aware of this right-wing agenda to silence the truth of history under the rhetorical smokescreen of "patriotism." Plus, they are only a few clicks away from acquiring this knowledge themselves.

-Angela Valenzuela

#EndWhiteSupremacy

Texas is awash in bills aimed at fending off critical examinations of the state’s past.

Credit...Eric Gay/Associated Press