Background: Sam Houston was the fifth son of Major Samuel Houston and Elizabeth Paxton. Houston's paternal ancestry is often traced to his great-great grandfather Sir John Houston, who built a family estate in Scotland in the late seventeenth century. His second son John Houston emigrated to Ulster, Ireland, during the Ulster plantation period. Under the system of primogeniture, he did not inherit the estate.
Context: Houston's political reputation suffered further due to the publicity related to the trial for his assault of Stanbery. He left for Texas in December 1832 and was immediately swept up in the politics of what was still a part of the Mexican state of Coahuila, attending the Convention of 1833 as representative for Nacogdoches. Houston emerged as a supporter of William Harris Wharton and his brother, who promoted independence from Mexico. This was the more radical position of the American settlers and Tejanos in Texas. He also attended the Consultation of 1835, and the Texas Army commissioned him as Major General in November 1835. He negotiated a peace settlement with the Cherokee of East Texas in February 1836 to allay their fears about independence.  Houston was selected as Commander-in-Chief at the convention to declare Texan independence in March 1836, and he signed the Texas Declaration of Independence on March 2, 1836, his 43rd birthday. Mexican soldiers killed almost all of those at the Alamo Mission at the end of a 13-day siege on March 6. On March 11, Houston joined what constituted his army at Gonzales: 374 poorly equipped, poorly trained, and poorly supplied recruits. Word of the defeat at the Alamo reached him and, while he waited for confirmation, he organized the recruits as the 1st Regiment Volunteer Army of Texas.  On March 13, Houston retreated before the superior forces of Mexican General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, as he was short on rations. Heavy rain fell nearly every day, causing severe morale problems among the exposed troops struggling through the mud. He received additional troops near present-day La Grange, after four days' march, and continued east two days later with 600 men. At Goliad, Santa Anna ordered the execution of more than 400 volunteer Texas militia led by James Fannin, who had surrendered his forces on March 20. Houston's forces were joined by 130 more men on March 26 near present-day Columbus, and the next day he learned of the Fannin disaster.  Houston continued his retreat eastward toward the Gulf coast, drawing criticism for his perceived lack of willingness to fight, and two companies refused to retreat further on March 29 while they were camped along the Brazos River. Houston decided to use the opportunity for rudimentary training and discipline of his force. On April 2, he organized the 2nd Regiment and received a battalion of regulars, and he ordered all troops along the Brazos to join the main army on April 11, approximately 1,500 men in all. He began crossing the Brazos on April 12.  Santa Anna finally caught up with the Texans, but he had split his own army into three separate forces in an attempt to encircle Houston's forces. Houston surprised Santa Anna's forces during their afternoon siesta at the Battle of San Jacinto on April 21, 1836. The Texans won a decisive victory in less than 18 minutes, suffering few casualties, although Houston's ankle was shattered by a stray bullet. Santa Anna was badly beaten and forced to sign the Treaty of Velasco, granting Texas its independence. Houston stayed on briefly for negotiations, then returned to the United States for treatment of his ankle wound.
Question: Was he a leader in Texas afterwards?
Answer: 

Problem: Background: Donna Jeanne Haraway was born in 1944 in Denver, Colorado. Haraway's father was a sportswriter for The Denver Post and her mother, who came from a heavily Irish Catholic background, died when Haraway was 16 years old. Haraway attended high school at St. Mary's Academy in Cherry Hills Village, Colorado. Haraway triple majored in zoology, philosophy and literature at the Colorado College.
Context: Haraway also writes about the history of science and biology. In Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science (1990), she focused on the metaphors and narratives that direct the science of primatology. She asserted that there is a tendency to masculinize the stories about "reproductive competition and sex between aggressive males and receptive females [that] facilitate some and preclude other types of conclusions". She contended that female primatologists focus on different observations that require more communication and basic survival activities, offering very different perspectives of the origins of nature and culture than the currently accepted ones. Drawing on examples of Western narratives and ideologies of gender, race and class, Haraway questioned the most fundamental constructions of scientific human nature stories based on primates. In Primate Visions, she wrote:  "My hope has been that the always oblique and sometimes perverse focusing would facilitate revisionings of fundamental, persistent western narratives about difference, especially racial and sexual difference; about reproduction, especially in terms of the multiplicities of generators and offspring; and about survival, especially about survival imagined in the boundary conditions of both the origins and ends of history, as told within western traditions of that complex genre".  Haraway's aim for science is "to reveal the limits and impossibility of its 'objectivity' and to consider some recent revisions offered by feminist primatologists". Haraway presents an alternative perspective to the accepted ideologies that continue to shape the way scientific human nature stories are created. Haraway urges feminists to be more involved in the world of technoscience and to be credited for that involvement. In a 1997 publication, she remarked:  I want feminists to be enrolled more tightly in the meaning-making processes of technoscientific world-building. I also want feminist--activists, cultural producers, scientists, engineers, and scholars (all overlapping categories) -- to be recognized for the articulations and enrollment we have been making all along within technoscience, in spite of the ignorance of most "mainstream" scholars in their characterization (or lack of characterizations) of feminism in relation to both technoscientific practice and technoscience studies.
Question: What was written primate visions?
Answer:
she focused on the metaphors and narratives that direct the science of primatology.