By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Kate Rogers has resigned as President and CEO of Alamo Trust Inc. after Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick called for her resignation due to concerns regarding her past writings. Hope Andrade, a board member since 2015, has been unanimously voted in as the new president and CEO. Patrick’s call for resignation came after a social media post honoring Indigenous Peoples sparked controversy, and he cited writings from Rogers’ dissertation. Rogers’ departure has elicited mixed reactions, with some, like Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones, expressing disappointment and others, like Bexar County Judge Peter Sakai, criticizing the political interference.
Read the original article here
Alamo Trust CEO resigns after Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick demand. It’s a phrase that immediately conjures up a complex mix of historical reverence, political maneuvering, and a deep-seated struggle over the narrative of the past. The central point seems to be that a social media post, which acknowledged the history of indigenous peoples at the Alamo, became the catalyst for intense scrutiny and ultimately, the CEO’s departure. This situation underscores a broader pattern: the increasing politicization of history and culture, and the lengths some will go to control the accepted version of events.
The crux of the matter appears to be a clash over historical interpretation. The traditional narrative of the Alamo, with its emphasis on Texan bravery and sacrifice, seems to be clashing with a more inclusive perspective that acknowledges the presence and experiences of indigenous populations. Apparently, even a simple acknowledgment of the indigenous people and their historical context was seen as a threat, ultimately leading to the removal of the CEO. This is a clear indication that for some, the control of the historical narrative is paramount, even if it means dismissing or marginalizing other valid perspectives.
This situation reveals a troubling aspect of conservative politics: the unwillingness to engage with history that doesn’t align perfectly with their ideology. The fear seems to be that any deviation from the established narrative will undermine their values. It’s a sentiment of not just remembering the Alamo, but remembering it in a very specific, sanitized way, devoid of any uncomfortable truths or inconvenient details. The demand for conformity in historical understanding is what this situation truly underscores.
The reactions surrounding this situation highlight the intense feelings and opinions on both sides of the political spectrum. It brings up questions of what is acceptable to say and how inclusive institutions should be, especially in relation to the history of the country. This goes beyond the Alamo; it is about who gets to tell the story of a nation and what version of events is deemed acceptable. It’s about a deep fear of losing control over the story of the past.
The demand for the CEO’s resignation appears to be more than just a reaction to a social media post. It appears to be an act of political power, used to enforce a specific historical viewpoint. It shows how the past is a battleground, where different groups struggle to shape how it is remembered.
The situation shows the increasing urgency of this clash. It also raises concerns about academic freedom and the ability of cultural institutions to present diverse perspectives. If simply acknowledging the history of indigenous peoples at the Alamo can lead to a career-altering crisis, the future seems uncertain. It is a cautionary tale, illustrating the consequences of challenging established narratives, especially when they are deeply intertwined with political power.
The reactions illustrate that the desire to control the narrative isn’t about historical accuracy; it’s about power. It’s a tool used to keep a specific set of values and beliefs at the forefront. The resistance to a more inclusive history underscores a larger issue: the refusal to confront uncomfortable truths about the past. And this refusal, in turn, can prevent a more honest and unified future.