Without invoking ethnic sympathies, a historically accurate retelling of the "Alamo" is possible.
Remember - Tejas was a province of Mexico, sparsley populated, with a strong immigrant population of Anglos. The facts of Santa Anna's presidency aside, once these immigrants started making noises for separation and independence from Mexico, of course, the Mexicans had to try to put the insurrection down.
Also, these immigrants wanted to establish and import slaves, and slavery had already been abolished.
Faced with the possibility of fighting against the Mexican regular army, these Texan immigrants started bringing in mercenaries - "freedom fighters" such as Davy Crockett.
These are just general issues/points, not to take away from the actual valor and bravery of all the participants. In attacking a fortification, the defenders generally have the upper hand until there is a breach.
Strategically, it can be argued that the stand at the Alamo could have been avoided, and the decisive victory for the Texans would come later.
As with England and its rebellious colonies, other preocupations also had their toll in the Mexicans pursuing the Texans - finally, pursuing a campaign in the vast region of Texas became undesirable, and the Mexicans cut the cord.
In history, there are two sides to every story, and a historically correct account may not necessarily be "politically correct". The 1960 John Wayne movie was not exactly a highlight of historical accuracy.
(Note: I have no professed "sympathy" for one side or the other in this issue - which c an be emotional.)
Thanks Ozzy, but one cannot help but be aware of it around here. The word on the streets is that it is a PC version that will invoke Mexican sympathies rather than Texan.
I hope not.
I am sick and tired of Hollywood rewriting history to suit their ideas of what should have been.
We shall see.