<p>And Betsy sewed a mean flag.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the defensive behaviour of some posters in this thread. I don’t pretend to know exactly how history is taught in the US or what is on the syllabus. I can only judge by what I read, and I have read countless college essays to the effect of “Britain, the evil colonial dictator was horrible to America so we went to war and reclaimed our freedom”.</p>
<p>Please don’t turn this thread into something it’s not; this is a discussion on the misrepresentation of the American Revolution by some teachers in US high schools. If you want to discuss the British Empire and it’s (many) atrocities, go somewhere else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes there was.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, the colonies enjoyed much freer trade than Britain. To say otherwise is absurd. The US continued to send virtually all its exports to Britain, and the former colonists continued to buy almost exclusively from Britain even after independence - if doing that was so repugnant before the war, why did they continue to do it after it had ended?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is equally true for most taxes in Britain. You have implied that this was not the norm for Britain and that America was being unfairly exploited but this was not the case. If anything it was an attempt by the British to make the tax burden more fair, the colonies needed to pay their way.</p>
<p>You “have read countless college essays to the effect of “Britain, the evil colonial dictator was horrible to America so we went to war and reclaimed our freedom”.”? Either you’re a professor or you have a lot of time on your hands ;)</p>
<p>I don’t think papers being shut down or newspaper publishers being thrown in jail is exactly the definition of free press. Do you disagree? Can you cite some sources? I gave examples. The paper that was shut down was Publick Occurrences and it got to publish one issue. Benjamin Franklin’s brother James was the publisher of the New England Courant and he was jailed for writing an editorial criticizing the government. When he was released from jail, he was forbidden to ever publish a newspaper again.</p>
<p>I also wonder where you’re reading all those college essays.</p>
<p>I understand revisionist history. I’ve read Howard Zinn. I don’t think all high schools teach an incredibly dumbed down curriculum, I don’t think very many college essays sound anything like what you’ve described, and I think your idea of what the truth actually is is pretty distorted.</p>
<p>Zinn was one of my kids’ textbooks in APUSH. I haven’t read that many college essays, but I’ve read ones from CC posters, read a fair number of books and most of the essays colleges posted on line the years my sons’ applied, but except for my younger son’s (which was for an optional essay) I’ve never read one that remotely dealt with US History.</p>
<p>Also, taxation by British authorities took other forms. Private homeowners were legally obligated to house and feed British troops. </p>
<p>Not a good thing considering enlisted British soldiers were recruited/impressed from the lowest dregs of British society…like town drunks tricked into enlisting by having the “King’s Shilling” tossed into their drink filled mugs by recruiting sergeants or even criminals serving out judicial sentences. The situation wasn’t much different with the Hessian mercenary units. Would you want to be forced by a distant imperious government to house such folks in our own homes at their command?</p>
<p>The officers weren’t necessarily much better considering the only qualification for becoming an infantry/cavalry officer in this period is to be wealthy enough to “purchase one’s commission” and one can gain rapid promotions by paying more for higher ranks up to the rank of Lt. Colonel. </p>
<p>One negative result of this was that many in the British Army officer corps were populated by entitled aristocrats and wealthy upper-class who may not be much older than your modern day teen/undergrad with no need to be “mature” or “restrain themselves” in the presence of the disdained lower-class “colonials”…especially when taking over some colonial townhouse or mansion for their own use. This certainly didn’t facilitate better relations with American colonists.</p>
<p>This is a reason why the Constitution has the 3rd Amendment specifically prohibiting the quartering of soldiers and sailors in private homes without the consent of their respective owners or Congressional authority.</p>
<p>With regard to your original question, Dionysus58, why the American Revolution is misrepresented in US History texts: I don’t doubt that there is a lot of misrepresentation, on most topics in American history.</p>
<p>An American history text is usually intended for a one-year, high school course. It covers a huge swath of history, from the pre-Columbian societies in the Americas through the late 20th century (at least, often longer). There are few historians–if there are any at all–who cover such a range. The texts must be written by generalists, or by a team (often not more than 5 people), to cover that entire spread of time and events. </p>
<p>In the sciences, the high school texts are commonly written by people who specialize in science education, rather than in the field covered by the text (a wonderful exception to this was Jerrold Zacharias’s PSSC Physics course, developed in the post-Sputnik period). I would not be surprised if something similar happens with the history texts.</p>
<p>Also, the textbooks have to pass muster with school boards in Texas and California, to make it onto the list of approved texts. The publishers want to make sure that the texts can sell nationwide. This may lead to some slanting.</p>
<p>If the students are ill-informed, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the texts are bad, though. A few years back, Physics Today carried a report that the physics texts were riddled with errors, but that fortunately the students retained very little of what they had “learned.”</p>
<p>If you are reading a lot of “college essays” on the American Revolution, I wonder whether you might be reading the SAT writing forum?</p>
<p>It would be a very weird choice for an American student to write about the American Revolution in a college essay. Like mathmom, I know of no student who has done that.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see references to the American Revolution in the SAT essays. It should be recognized that the SAT Writing essay is unlike any other form of writing in the English language. The essays have to be composed, organized, and written in a period of about 30 minutes, in response to a vague, ill-posed, and overly general prompt. (Take a look at some of the prompts that are offered.) The prompt is completely unknown until the student opens the test booklet, so no real preparation is possible–or rather, the students often attempt to “prepare” by developing a few general-purpose examples that they can twist to suit many different prompts. Further, the SAT graders are not permitted to reduce a student’s score, based on factual errors in the essay. It is only the “writing” itself that is supposed to be assessed.</p>
<p>A few other comments:</p>
<p>Many reasonably good high schools will cover the economic interpretation of the Constitution, developed by Charles and Mary Beard. It does not take much effort by a student to think that economic self-interest may have been a major motivator in the pre-Revolutionary and Revolutionary periods.</p>
<p>Many texts cover John Hancock’s occupation–it wasn’t “calligraphy instructor.”</p>
<p>I think that many Americans–I among them–have been startled to discover the levels of taxation and hardship that the British faced at home. This was not taught in my school, but was taught in the local schools in the past 10 years or so.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, I think that life on the frontier had an effect on Americans and their expectations, which may have made them less likely to accept restrictions. Above, ucbalumnus pointed out that there are current tax laws in the US that resemble the “cart horse vs. riding horse laws.” Personally, I suspect that the closing of the American frontier may be implicated in this. </p>
<p>I will say that I was surprised when reading an account of Bertrand Russell’s experience when he came to Cambridge to be interviewed for admission to a college. He was accommodated overnight in college. However, he wasn’t certain whether he was permitted to use the bathrooms in the college, so he walked to the railway station, to use the bathroom there. That’s about a 15 minute walk from the central college area–maybe slightly longer from Magdalene College. I don’t think this would happen any longer. Yet, there is a persistent level of self-restraint in British society that one doesn’t find among Americans who are acclimated to our culture. </p>
<p>So, I think it is entirely possible that a level of taxation, and even repression, that seemed acceptable to the British should have been a cause for revolt by the colonists.</p>
<p>A final observation: Thomas Jefferson set out the grievances of the American colonists in the Declaration of Independence. Which of these do you contest, Dionysus58?</p>
<p>A few points.</p>
<p>1) “Taxation without representation” wasn’t about the level of taxation; it was about the lack of representation. Who in the British Parliament spoke for the American colonists? No one. And that is fundamentally unfair. That point has largely been accepted by British society in the time since the Americans first made it. That others were also taxed without adequate representation at the time is no defense, unless you believe that taxation without representation is a good and virtuous thing, which few if any in the UK would now say. And the fact that others at the time accepted such treatment doesn’t detract from the point the Americans were making, which is now generally accepted.</p>
<p>2) Was Washington a great military commander? Probably not. But he was ultimately a successful military commander, and that counts for a lot. He waited out a numerically, technically, professionally, financially, and logistically superior force, and essentially fought them to a standstill until they decided the game was no longer worth the candle. In so doing he laid out the blueprint for future successful wars of national liberation. He was not a brilliant strategist or military tactician, but through perseverance and popular support, he defeated the mightiest military force of his era. And for that he deserves historical recognition.</p>
<p>3) Were the American colonists, on the whole, mistreated? Well, maybe not, if judged by how other British subjects of the era were treated. But in demanding higher standards, the Americans raised the bar for all, and in a positive way. I think precious few in the UK or elsewhere would go back to the old days of imperious, high-handed monarchical rule that the American colonists rebelled against.</p>
<p>4) The American colonists initially demanded no more than “the rights of Englishmen.” Over time, their cause became an anti-monarchical cause. In that cause, they have been joined ultimately by the vast majority of UK citizens, who may narrowly support continuation of a nominal monarchy for historical, cultural, and symbolic reasons, but who prefer basic governmental decisions to be made by their elected representatives. Ultimately, then, tHe American revolution also won the day in the UK.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this is why I’d bet the Tea Party would love to get their hands on your ancestor’s letter.</p>
<p>
What is your source for this?</p>
<p>
Perhaps by the standard of colonial history, but they were often used to being essentially ignored. When the officer walking through your town orders 2 or 3 of his grimy troops to sleep in your house after you feed them, it’ll ruffle some feathers! </p>
<p>
Most arguments you see presented today revolve around the fact that the colonists had no say in the matter.</p>
<p>
Generally, the colonists got off pretty well on the amount of taxes they paid.</p>
<p>
It certainly wasn’t an unprovoked act, but people died, so it was big news.</p>
<p>
This is fairly widely known.</p>
<p>
Well, there is quite a generalization! Yes, only something like 1/3rd of colonials supported the revolution. Opinions do change over the course of a decade and a war.</p>
<p>
As a battle winner, he was not gifted. He did keep his army together long enough to win. That has to count for something.</p>
<p>School history is never intended to be ‘history’ it would more properly be called ‘patriotic education’.</p>
<p>I did search “British” and in the first 3 pages, the essay samples are all for the SAT. There is one about dumb things kids write for the APUSH exam. But, I think that was to get our eyes rolling.</p>
<p>I’ve also never seen a college app essay about the Revolution- it’s not the point or purpose of the main CA essay. </p>
<p>What a few kids post on CC (a few silly enough to actually post their words publicly) should not be enough to indict our ed system. I think I can safely say there is no period in history that is not subject to revisionism.</p>
<p>Maybe I am confusing college and SAT essays, though I don’t think it matters where one writes it - the fact they say it at all is worrying. I can understand a student making mistakes if they only have 30 minutes to write, however I’m afraid I still find it hard to stomach some of the misconceptions that plague these essays.</p>
<p>The other thing I forgot to mention was the Bill of Rights. I’ve always had the impression that Americans treat it as a sacred document which protects their civil liberties, when in fact that was not its true purpose. Are kids in schools taught that it was only ever intended to be a stopgap, a temporary measure until something better came along? It was certainly never supposed to govern the lives of people two hundred years after it was written. The first and second amendments in particular now bear no resemblance to their intended purpose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Find me a credible source that he DID say it - I promise you, you won’t find one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps we all misread your thread title.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, so unexpected…</p>
<p>A title is just a title, I suppose I could have called this thread “Pardon me my good Sirs, is this really how the American Revolution is taught in US schools?” - but it didn’t have the same ring to it.</p>
<p>Oh I see. Pardon me my good Sir, is this really how you are taught to choose a title in British schools?</p>
<p>It would have been snarkier but not quite as disingenuous as your original title.</p>
<p>And this whole thread is about Americans being ignorant and misinformed? Oh the irony.</p>