Why is the American Revolution misrepresented in US Schools?

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Some of the things students write about the American Revolution in their college essays is startling; one can only assume they are not being taught properly. I am going to attempt to dispel some of the more annoying myths that surround the American Revolution. Parents, if you’d be good enough to pass it on to your kids’ schools I’d be very grateful! ;)</p>

<p>• Americans were not treated badly by the British. </p>

<p>Americans were the freest people in the world. They were much more free than their cousins in Britain. Americans enjoyed economic mobility, the right to vote for local representatives and a free press. Whereas in Britain, only 1 in 20 had a vote and many areas including some of the largest cities were not represented in parliament at all.</p>

<p>• Taxes levied at Americans were not in anyway unfair or unreasonable.</p>

<p>• James Otis never said “taxation without representation is tyranny”.</p>

<p>Taxes primarily funded the protection of the colonies from foreign powers. Americans paid much less tax than the British. The average American paid sixpence a year, the average Brit paid 50 times as much. Many Americans didn’t pay their taxes anyway, the Townshend duties only raised £295 in the first year and cost £170,000 to implement and the Stamp Act duties were never collected at all.</p>

<p>• Patrick Henry did not say “Give me Liberty, or give me Death” and he never challenged the British monarchy.</p>

<p>• The Boston massacre was not a massacre.</p>

<p>Five colonists were killed but it was the result of an angry drunken mob menacing and assaulting a group of soldiers. In short, the soldiers were justified in their actions. John Adams defended the soldiers in court and got all the soldiers acquitted except for two (who had their thumbs branded, a very light punishment indeed).</p>

<p>• Betsy Ross did not create the American flag.</p>

<p>Congress did not replace the union flag until June 1777, and even then many flag makers arranged stars in the Union Jack patten.</p>

<p>• Americans were reluctant to part from Britain.</p>

<p>As if to prove the point, George Washington and his soldiers toasted the “mother country” (Britain) every evening whilst at war. The Continental Congress said (whilst taking up arms against the British) “we mean not to dissolve the union which has for so long and happily subsisted between us” and we “will cheerfully bleed in defense of our sovereign”.</p>

<p>• The founding fathers and most Americans called themselves British, even after the war.</p>

<p>• George Washington was not a gifted military commander.</p>

<p>He actually managed to start a pointless and unnecessary war between France and Britain by leading an unprovoked attack of French soldiers.</p>

<p>• Nearly everything Parson Weems wrote about George Washington, including the cherry-tree anecdote, was a lie</p>

2

<p>Hmm. Seems off-topic.</p>

3

<p>It’s simple: The winners write the history books</p>

4

<p>Whatever, I just find it very strange that a people as proud as Americans so often fudge over their own history. </p>

<p>The sad part is students are throwing away a great chance to showcase themselves by falling into that trap. What admissions officer is going to want to read yet another essay about the evil imperialist British and their ‘mistreatment’ of the colonists?</p>

5

<p>Who writes an essay like that for college admissions?</p>

6

<p>^Exactly what I was thinking!</p>

7

<p>Furthermore, you seem to be from the UK. I’m sure their history books are written with utmost accuracy and not at all tweaked to make England look better ;)</p>

8

<p>If you focus on small bits of history, the teaching is bad. But if you get into some of the points raised, you see there is more there.</p>

<p>For example, if you learn about the resistance to the British Parliament, you find many objections were very much that Americans had no representation and that taxes were determined by Parliament without Americans having any vote. The words about “tyranny” aren’t an important part of the story. The issue is that of colony and country with America resisting the role of being a colony. It was not about the amount of taxes imposed. Britain could perhaps have settled the matter by making America a “state” within Britain and giving it representation and a Parliament of its own. The colony / country matter was deeply part of the economic issues behind the war as well.</p>

<p>So sure, everyone now knows that Washington wasn’t a great commander. But he kept the army together through a long, difficult struggle and he proved himself able at improving it over time. The army began as a cluster of militias and ended as a real army. That achievement is similar to what Cromwell managed with the The New Model Army in the Civil War. BTW, Washington’s role in the “French and Indian War” was minor. </p>

<p>And I was taught the story about “the British are coming” when of course it was “the Regulars are out” because Americans were British. I live just off the route William Dawes took. He actually made it to Concord while Revere was arrested. We re-enact this every April 19th. My house is also just off the road where the British relief column marched to save the forces fighting their way back from Concord. One if by land meant marching out Boston Neck and then through Brookline to Cambridge, while two if by sea meant taking boats across the Charles to land in the muck of Lechmere in East Cambridge and marching west. And sure, absolutely contrary to what we’re generally taught, the militias didn’t hide behind trees but stood in ranks like the army. They set up at each corner so the British army had to attack them straight on as smaller groups fought on the flanks. It was extremely vicious. And yes, the British army killed wounded Americans. The British hurt their cause throughout the war by executing prisoners and killing wounded. </p>

<p>But history is a bunch of made up stories. That isn’t wrong.</p>

9

<p>This is hardly an American phenomenon. American history books portray America as the good guy (especially for high school-level reading and below). Are British/Russian/Japanese history books any less self-serving? I’d be surprised.</p>

<p>Truth is the daughter of time and all that.</p>

<p>If any applicants are reading this, please think twice about writing an admissions essay about the Revolutionary War, wherever you might get your facts.</p>

10

<p>

</p>

<p>I think it would be interesting if a student wrote about their personal experience in the Revolutionary war.</p>

11

<p>So, we have it wrong, but the Brits have it right?<br>
O’Dad, same thought here, first reaction: OP was there?</p>

<p>Anyway, solid critical thinking skills suggest details can always be re-interpreted, that self-interests often color perceptions and that opinion often gets in the way.</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>You’d be surprised. I see essays like that all the time on CC. I read one just this morning. Just search “British” and you will find loads of them. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>People in Britain did not have proper representation or the vote so why on earth would Britain give Americans more rights than they themselves enjoyed? Too many people seem to think that Americans were denied representation because they were colonists and Britain wanted to bully them, that was not the case at all. History teachers should teach their subject matter through its historical context without a modern bias.</p>

13

<p>

</p>

<p>Yep.</p>

<p>If the British had won, we would learn about how a few ungrateful troublemakers tried to stir up the filthy masses, but fortunately the heroic Brits swept in and stopped them.</p>

<p>History!</p>

14

<p>A lecture from the UK on American history under the guise of college essay assistance. Thanks for the Sunday morning laugh!</p>

15

<p>It’s not just American history though, it’s British history too.</p>

16

<p>When you say “People in Britain did not have proper representation or the vote so why on earth would Britain give Americans more rights than they themselves enjoyed?”</p>

<p>Are you arguing that because Britain denied its own citizens rights it was OK for them to do the same for the colonists?</p>

17

<p>

Actually, my son wrote an alternative history of the US as if the British had won at Lexington, but it was a requested optional (and extra) essay for the Tufts supplement. He had a lot of fun with it, and it did give him a chance to show his strengths - huge interest in history and pretty good creative writer. </p>

<p>I think it’s possible to write an essay that shows you thinking like a historian, but remember the reader needs to get a sense of who you are, they are less interested in changing their mind about American history textbooks.</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, absolutely. That is not to say that I agree with people not having rights, but in that age it was perfectly reasonable for Britain to deny colonists rights nobody else enjoyed. </p>

<p>I sometimes wonder how relevant tax and parliamentary representation was to the colonists, considering Americans paid very little tax and enjoyed more freedoms than most. Did these colonists really risk their lives for a mere principle? I don’t think so.</p>

19

<p>Who cares about reasonable? What matters is the people in America thought it unreasonable and they rebelled against it. </p>

<p>There are many books about the economic origins of the Revolution. The idea that it was all about rights is a story. One could better argue it was about restrictions on American trade, that it was Britain’s determination to keep America as a supplier to Britain and that this policy, which is typical of country/colony relationships, frustrated Americans’ ability to develop their economies. The same could be said of British attempts to restrict settlement and expansion westward: the country wants to control what the colony wants and the colony resists.</p>

20

<p>I am not an expert in US history but I think that people who left England to escape tyranny and to seek freedom in the new world was an important fact. This explains why they continued to break away from England to form their own nation.</p>