> On Aug 8, 5:37 pm, nick AOL.com> wrote:
>

>> It doesn't have anything to do with political correctness...

>
> I think it does. Too many films have been promoting historical
> revisionism to push current agendas which the public mistrusts.
>
> A case in point is "One Man's Hero (1999).
>
> At the IMDB I didn't get past the first ten viewer reviews. Each raved
> on the film's "enlightening" the audience with this "sad episode of
> U.S. History;" ex:
>
> "In the United States the US-Mexican War is virtually forgotten, and
> for good reason, as it is the clearest example of our historical
> hypocrisy. In the United States the US-Mexican War is virtually
> forgotten, and for good reason, as it is the clearest example of our
> historical hypocrisy. The US-Mexican War was waged upon Mexico out of
> pure greed and moral righteousness. The remarkable part of the story
> is that at the time of this unjust invasion of our peaceful Catholic
> neighbor, Irish immigrants fresh off the coffin-ships from the Famine
> identified with Mexico's plight.
>
> Over a hundred years before the conscientious objectors of Vietnam,
> the 'San Patricios' were true heroes who fought and died for their
> religion, their convictions, their brethren, and their adopted
> homeland Mexico. While Henry David Thoreau invented civil disobedience
> in Massachusetts, refusing to pay his taxes to support this unjust
> invasion of Catholic Mexico, and while Abraham Lincoln stood in
> opposition to President Polk's scheme in Congress, the 'San Patricios'
> fought to the death in the front lines against the invading Yankees.
>
> Through the eyes of these Irish immigrants, we come to see the
> underbelly of North American history, and come to understand how we
> have arrived to such debates as anti-bilingual education in
> California, our collective guilt manifest in NAFTA, and anti-
> immigration xenophobia."
>
> The film blatantly presents Mexico City's truly disengenous propganda
> on not only the history of the St. Patrick's Battalion but also the
> Mexican War itself. There was, as I recall, while seeing the film in
> Mexico, a scene where a Mexican General appealing to the Irishmen,
> even tells them that Mexico has "no slavery"... blah, blah, blah.
>
> The film does not mention Santa Anna's historic terrorizing of the
> border since his youth as a loyalist in Spain's army, the attrocities
> he committed at and immediately after the Alamo and his pledge to
> "plant the Mexican flag on the U.S. Capitol.
>
> The film does not mention that the then Mexican Government refused to
> fund the upstart dictator Santa Anna who, during the War of the
> Texas's Secession (from Mexico City---which 80%% of Mexico proper was
> also engaged in), subsequently, had to use his own money, the treasury
> of his native state Veracruz and "levies" gladly paid by Mexico's
> Catholic Church to purchase his rank and file: Maya enslaved by
> Mexico's "Ladinos" in the Yucatan who sold them to Santa Anna (in lieu
> of Cuba's mines) so as to purchase the arms and ammunitions they
> required to maintain the Maya's submission.
>
> The film does not mention that, after the Battle of San Jacinto, those
> Maya had to walk home to the Yucatan to their rise up in revolt
> against the very 'non-slavers' in one of the most brutal and enduring
> (to this day) wars in the history of the New World: "The Caste (Race)
> War of Yucatan."
>
> The film does not mention that, after Santa Anna was released from his
> own capture, the ship he was being transported on back to Mexico, to
> Veracruz, was nearly shipwrecked on the Yucatan's coast where the
> Yucatan's "Ladinos," angry that he had never sent the arms and ammo,
> took him off the ship and were about to hang him until they were
> stopped by the plea not to possibly offend the U.S.A. whose ship it
> was and lose any chance of being annexed to the U.S.A. as they were
> long pleading to the U.S. Congress and Buchanan to do.
>
> The film does not mention that the U.S.A. would never even entertain
> the notion until finally having to formally refuse them.
>
> The film does not mention that these Maya had to then, and even later,
> during the Mexican-American War itself, most often had be brought to
> the battlefields in ball and chain by their Creole officers.
>
> The film does not mention that, other than Santa Anna and his Creole
> Officers, Mexico itself did not resist the U.S. Armies. In fact,
> Winfield Scott, was popular in Veracruz for their, erradicating
> cleaning up the dump and erradicating malaria.
>
> The film does not mention that Winfield Scott, who was about to retire
> from the U.S. Army, after his entrance into Mexico City, was asked by
> the Mexican Governmnt to take salaries for himself and U.S. Army (the
> same monies the Mexican Government had long refused Santa Anna) to
> rule Mexico: to protect Mexico from its perennial thugs as Santa Anna
> and establish a real democracy.
>
> The film does not mention that, with Santa Anna's again resurgence in
> Mexico, Santa Anna finally did send the arms and ammo to the Yucatan
> (and reannexed them after their secession) to slaughter the very rank
> and file which was his during---his---two wars.
>
> The film does not mention even those struggling still, in Mexico, in
> not only Chiapas and Oaxca, to secede from Mexico City.
>
> Mexico's Catholic Church was then actively soliciting not only in the
> Church the Irishmen would visit in Texas, but also on the front lines,
> but also brokering the desertions---not unlike now: with Mexico's
> ruling party PAN, which was founded by 'Cristero' Bankers to reunite
> (Catholic) Church and State in Mexico, who funded even another war in
> Mexico (the 'Cristero Rebellion) and is now connecting with Bush's
> 'Hispanic-stipulated' and un-Constitutitional Educational and Faith-
> Based Grants.
>
> The desertions were then (and now) not paid for, in "idealism no
> matter how uttered," but in money and land grants.
>
> I am, btw, an American of an Italian (which Saint Patrick was) father
> and an Irish mother.
>
> Would such filmmakers even talk to an American such as me?
>
> I spent some 20 years in Mexico nearly the majority of which I was---
> quite literally---a "slave."
>
> The fact is American audiences cannot---and should not---trust
> Hollywood's versions of history while Hollywood should stop offending
> themselves much less the rest of America with not only their nonsense:
> but quite malicious nonsense at that.