Thursday, April 16, 2015

CHILTON, HERALD, YTURRIA CONTINUE TO PUSH THE BIG LIES

By Juan Montoya
Here we go again.
Frank Yturria calls his book about Don Francisco Yturria "The Patriarch" even though he knows that the original Yturria and his wife were never able to conceive children.
Today's Yturrias are the offspring of a second child that the couple adopted after paying his mother compensation. A first adopted child died. That first child had been the illegitimate child of a union between an Anglo railroad worker and a Mexican-American girl.
How Frank could have conceived of the title "The Patriarch" for a man who had no blood children has never been questioned by those fawning over this millionaire pillar of the community.
Carl Chilton, too, has single-handedly taken over the task of glorifying local families and personages that are obliquely related to Anglo settlement in South Texas. He, as did other local historians like the late Bruce Aiken, has made it his life's work to mythologize pedestrian characters that slinked their way through our historical panorama and explode their achievement way out of proportion.
Whether it's Charles Stillman, Richard King, Mifflin Kenedy, or other early Robber Barons, if we believe this coffee-table historians, they walked on water and gave alms to the poor.
I don't know how many times we have called on local writers and the local daily to stop propagating myths that make their way to the news columns of the newspaper where they are taken as truth. Perpetrating these fibs is not only intellectually dishonest, it also keep the population in ignorance of the real truth.
Here's one example. In the June 9, 2013 Brownsville Herald, Chilton once again weasel-words his historical column to say this:
"In 1883, a young Army medical officer, William Crawford Gorgas, arrived at Ft. Brown, where he encountered yellow fever for the first time. The cause of the disease was not known. Gorgas treated his patients with whiskey, brandy, and mustard seed. He studied the disease and began research which several years later led to the discovery that yellow fever was carried by the mosquito."
Now, notice that Chilton doesn't say that Gorgas discovered that mosquitoes were the carriers. Instead, he says that Gorgas' research "led to the discovery" several years later.
It is a lie.
Chilton knows it. The medical community know it. And the editors of the newspaper should also know it.
Why are they allowing this drivel to pass off as history? Why is that Big Lie still etched in the marker in front of the Arnulfo Oliveira Student Union Center at Texas Southmost College? Why is the Gorgas Society at the college still permitted to repeat these ignorant statements?
The real discoverer that the disease was carried by mosquitoes was Dr. Carlos Juan Finlay, a Cuban, or to be more PC, an Hispanic.
His discovery led researchers like Walter Reed and other leading medical investigators of the time to re-examine their thinking and consider Finlay's meticulous research.
The Philip S. Hench Yellow Fever Collection web page states that:
"For twenty years of his professional life, renowned Cuban physician and scientist Carlos J. Finlay stood at the center of a vigorously debated medical controversy. The etiology of yellow fever – its causes and origins – had puzzled medical practitioners since the earliest recorded cases of the disease in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
Periodic epidemics of yellow fever ravaged the population of Finlay's native Cuba, particularly affecting the citizens of Havana, where he set up a medical practice in 1864. Finlay was intensely interested in epidemiology and public health, and his initial work on cholera – the result of a severe outbreak of the disease in Havana in 1867 – challenged the perceived wisdom of medical authorities.
His conclusion that the disease was waterborne, though later verified, was rejected by publishers at the time. Finlay soon afterwards began research on yellow fever, publishing his first paper on it in 1872. Here the same keen observations and logical deductions which informed his analysis of cholera lead him to propose in 1881 that the Culex mosquito be "hypothetically considered as the agent of transmission of yellow fever."
(By the way, Gorgas received a medical degree from New York's Bellevue Hospital Medical College in 1876 and joined the U.S. Army Medical Corps in 1880, eight years after Finlay published his first research paper on yellow fever linking mosquitoes to the transmission of the disease. He didn't get to Ft. Brown until 1882 and stayed until 1884.)
When the Walter Reed Yellow Fever Commission decided to test the mosquito theory, Finlay provided the mosquitoes, and with the Commission's first scientifically valid success, Walter Reed wrote triumphantly, "The case is a beautiful one, and will be seen by the Board of Havana Experts, today, all of whom, except Finlay, consider the theory a wild one!"
The full run of experiments at Camp Lazear vindicated Finlay's two-decade-long struggle. In the glow of that early success, Reed acknowledged that "it was Finlay's theory, and he deserves much for having suggested it."
Gorgas, who later applied the results of the experiments to a public health campaign which made possible the construction of the Panama Canal, characterized Finlay's contribution in this way: "His reasoning for selecting the Stegomyia as the bearer of yellow fever is the best piece of logical reasoning that can be found in medicine anywhere."

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

A legal adoption creates a legal parent-child relationship. As such Frank has the right to refer to his ancestor as a Patriarch. It doesn't take DNA to be an ancestor.

Your disdain for the early Anglo settlers is well known and for certain it is a checkered story. But you and every other resident of this part of the world are the beneficiaries of the culture, economic prosperity and education systems they brought. It is more than just a little hypocritical to take the benefits and yet decry those who gave them to you. It is hard to take a man who does that seriously.

Anonymous said...

Of course an adopted child may refer to their non-biological father as Dad or Patriarch, for that matter. However, it does not erase the true "natural" (see Spanish for Hijo Natural) lineage and genetics of the adopted. That is what counts, particularly in royalty. By the way, adopted daughters are not eligible for the DAR.

Regarding the benevolence of the so-called "Anglo" forefathers, no one would deny the accomplishments left by them. I think what riles Montoya, and with good reason, is the lack of proportion and equity. The humble Mexicans, who were the people who did the lion's share of the work, are often left out of the picture, especially when it comes to coffee-table history.

Anonymous said...

When the "non -Hispanice" entered Tejas as "wet backs", the colonization, pacification of the real Americans had already been iniciated. The live-stock. Ranching, and farming communities were already in place. As we say in Spanish, "llegaron ya con la cama tendida". What is rarely mentiond in Texas history is the Battle of Medina 1811, where Tejanos launched and revolted against Spanish oppression. In the Battle of the Alamo, Tejanos and non-Tejanos were fighting for the restauration of the Mexican Constitution that the dictator Santa Ana had abrogated. The Mexican flag with date 1824, flew over the Alamo during the Historic Battle.

Anonymous said...

"
Regarding the benevolence of the so-called "Anglo" forefathers, no one would deny the accomplishments left by them. I think what riles Montoya, and with good reason, is the lack of proportion and equity. The humble Mexicans, who were the people who did the lion's share of the work, are often left out of the picture, especially when it comes to coffee-table history."

That sounds reasonable. If Montoya and others would give proportion and equity, they would also receive it. However they do not, and the continual Anglo bashing only yields Mexican bashing.

What we have here is a joint effort not an oppressed and oppressors thing. Just drop the Marxist dialectic and see how fast thing improve for everybody.

Anonymous said...

The reason behind the Texas rebellion was to bring more slaves into Texas as slavery was illegal in Mexico by the constitution of 1824. In 1812, Hidalgo spoke for abolition of slavery. In 1836 there were 5,000 illegal slaves, by 1850 there were over 58,000 slaves. By 1865, there were 250,000 slaves in Texas. The Anglos, as opposed to more enlightened Mexicans, based their entire economy on slavery from then on until the Civil War enlightened them. Later, the Anglos used the cheap Mexican labor under similar conditions. And, they still do it today.

Anonymous said...

We are still held Hostage .

Anonymous said...

The problem with Chilton is that he rewrites history to suit his elitist and bigot views.

Anonymous said...

We need Slavery in order to keep our economy running. The Republicans 2016 platform .

Anonymous said...

Yep

rita