Talk:Brownsville affair

Untitled
I am a 37 year old Texan and a history minor, and this is the first I've heard of the Brownsville Affair. At any rate, the entire article seems POV in favor of the soldiers. Applejuicefool 13:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * haha Nothing like a two year late reply. Came randomly across a bit of information that clearly shows that your history minor just never touched on this subject. Because it was real. (Newspaper article from time of the event.) Now with that out of the way, I also feel that the current article is a bit POV and that the historical articles are POV in the opposite way. I call on you, or anyone else with knowledge of history, to use some sources and try to make this NPOV. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess they don't like to teach about their racist past in Texas. Anyone who has had any formal schooling in black history knows of this affair.... Go Cowboys??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.226.119.57 (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This article lacks inline citations 99.231.211.103 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Read the sources. The text is lifted almost verbatim from one of them, which accounts for the POV tone.--Reedmalloy (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Historical "Revisionism"
This whole article, apparently plagiarized from various sources, is an especially egregious example of historical "revisionism" that distorts history and misrepresents the facts.

First of all, neither of the two mentioned victims, the bartender Natus and the "policeman" Dominguez were "white". Both of them were Mexicans. Secondly, multiple other people were injured, something not mentioned by the article. Thirdly, there is absolutely no question that the soldiers from the barracks had shot up the town and were responsible for the murder. Over a hundred rounds were fired into the town. One house alone had 10 bullet holes in it, all made by high-powered rifles. In some cases investigators looked through the holes made through the walls by these bullets and they sighted onto the upper porch of the "B" barracks at the fort, which adjoined the town.

Luckily, the part of the town affected was part of the business district and was only lightly occupied at the time of the attack, but nevertheless the fusillade of bullets that lasted over 10 minutes had everyone who was in the area hiding. One man testified that there were dozens of shots, all coming from the fort, and four of the bullets hit his house. He said he hid behind a brick wall in his house. Many others gave similar testimony.

Trying to somehow paint a picture that the soldiers in the fort were not the ones who made this attack is absurd and completely disregards the evidence given at the court martial and in the Congressional hearings on the case. John Chamberlain (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Mexicans aren't white? This must be some peculiar 'Murican usage. The article clearly states that the soldiers were treated inequitably by the townspeople, so if they shot from their barracks they were just "standing their ground" as was their right. NRPanikker (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh. No. Not all Mexicans are white. Is a Nahua person white? A Mixtec? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.92.180 (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Fake News
The extreme bias in this article is an example of Marxist attempts to alter history. Wikipedia has become a complete and utter joke as well as an apparent tool for historical revisionists armed with an antiwhite bias and a vendetta. Ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.222.22.32 (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)