United States Bias Regarding Revolutionary War

Very good opening argument, Grape. You've summed up an argument to oppose exactly what my contention was, and how I wish to go about this debate. It is, of course, ludicrous to debate on whether or not the US is biased toward itself, as, quite simply, that is blatantly obvious. One can see in the almost cult following of George Washington alone that the US chooses to portray its history in a favourable manner. I would, indeed, like to address all of these and possibly more. I also believe that six out of ten would be a reasonable amount to prove false, though I think you will find this very difficult. You are correct, I have provided no evidence for point 1. This is because I merely summarized my contentions in the first post. Being an atheist will undoubtedly cripple you in this argument as you would not be familiar with Christian programs or assertions. My opponent states "Christian groups regularly portray God as being on their side so even if this is true this is not at all unusual." You are correct, it is not unusual. But consider the mindset of the time, shall we? At this time, everybody believed that God existed. That was unquestionable. Every person had a prayer and simply knew that God did, indeed exist. To not believe was unacceptable. Even deists such as Ben Franklin acknowledged God, though he used God for his own purposes and propaganda, and he never became a Christian, as many people did not do. Many people were atheistic, but this does not mean that they denounced God. This said, wouldn't both sides believe God to be on their side? I think it is common knowledge that every Professional English Regiment had a Regimental chaplain. Most soldiers had a Bible or New Testament tucked away in their rucksack. Though they may not have been able to read them, the soldiers believed God to be on their side. This was a right of theirs, as it was of the Rebels. Which leads to my contention. In Christian literature, programs and assertions, God is only portrayed as being on the side of the rebels. The US Christian children's radio program, 'Adventures in Odyssey' has multiple Revolutionary War stories. In every one, God is portrayed to be on the side of the Americans and the English portrayed to be the 'bad guys'. They handily exempt the obvious fact of chaplains and Bibles, not to mention personal belief, of the English soldiers. In essence, they portray God to be on the side of only the Rebels. It may not have been a 'religious war', per se, but it is portrayed that generals and people such as Washington prayed solely for God to be on their side. Yet, as mentioned, the praying English soldiers were not mentioned. I think we can all remember it mentioned that George Washington reportedly prayed with his commanders before every major conflict. Yet, are English soldiers and commanders mentioned as doing so? Of course not. 2. Of course there is. Not instrumental? I do believe that with the formation of the Continental Congress came the first serious discussion on a prolonged war. John Adams, Samuel Adams, George Washington, John Jay, John Dickinson, Peyton Randolph and many more were all instrumental to the political bearing of the Rebels. Franklin and Jefferson quickly became instrumental to the Second Continental Congress. Each is revered for the Articles of the Confederation, not to mention the secret thirty days in which they spent creating the Constitution of the United States. But this is beside the point. These men are not the heroes that they have been portrayed as. I could list their plethora of faults and misbehaviour. Many were deists and not Christians, as the misconception is largely created. Jefferson himself is accredited to the 'Indian Removal Plan', though his reputation is never sullied by fervent Americans in regards to this. Rather, they vent upon Jackson. Jefferson advocated rebellion if the Government didn't work out, he possessed slaves etc etc. I could go on, but the point is that these men were not necessarily deserving of the glory that they receive today. 3. "This period of the American Revolution is much distorted in our history. This distortion is basically the result of the historian's point of view. The majority of the written accounts of those events were written by and for supporters of the American independence." ~ Description of Bias in regarding to this event. "Lt. William Sutherland of the 38th Regiment and Lt. Adair of the Royal Marines, were confronted by an armed colonist who aimed his musket at them, pulled the trigger, but the gun misfired. Convinced that the colonist meant to kill them, they returned to the column and informed Major Pitcairn of the incident." http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org... The Concorde hymn acclaims the first shot to a Minuteman. Though this is fictitious, it definitely demonstrates the bias. And relative to who actually fired the first shot, organized armed resistance called themselves up to fight the English. then, not only did they not stop, they hounded the English line all the way to Charlestown. Thus, it was actually the colonists who started the war. Even the action of Paul Revere demonstrated the escalated hostilities on the side of the Colonists. The English could merely retaliate. 4. The colonists were hurling lumber, debris and ice packed into snowballs at the sentry responsible for guarding the Custom House. The soldier then reportedly lashed out with his fist in defence. This, in turn, brought more belligerent colonists. Captain Preston and several soldiers came to defend the lone sentry and attempted to calm the mob. The mob, however refused. Perhaps, as you said, the unreliable guns of the time misfired. In any case, in the confusion one fired and the rest fired in formation as trained. Only five people died after provocation. Hardly elements of the propagandic 'massacre'. I think there was a riot a few years back in which three or four people were killed with dozens injured by high powered taisers and riot weaponry. Yet, this was not a 'massacre'. What's the difference? Propaganda and bias. There are armed riot squads everywhere. People do get killed, but not unless numerous people are killed in blatant gunning are they called a 'massacre'. Self defense and 'unfortunate', often. http://news.iafrica.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. I took two historical American curriculum's for two consecutive years, and only once did it briefly pass over the 'Tories', though it didn't deign to mention that the Loyalists were beaten, tarred and feathered, stripped of possessions and sent running (if they escaped alive). Also, many Yankees I've discussed the Revolutionary War with weren't familiar with Loyalist treatment, at all. Call this a complete ignorance of history if you will, it demonstrates the lack of coverage regarding loyalist treatment by rebels. One would never think that the Loyalists were once neighbours. I read when account where the Father of the household left on a trading venture, leaving his sick wife at home. the Rebels invaded his house, stole all of the furniture and left his sick wife to die on the cold floor. what kind of treatment is this? Over politics! And yet they are outraged when the Loyalists and English regulars begin anti-guerrilla tactics of their own. Note the VERY brief mention of the treatment of loyalists, other than the fact that they were 'expelled', on their own Wiki page!: http://en.wikipedia.org...(American_Revolution) Persecution not mentioned here at all: http://en.wikipedia.org... Nor here: http://www.myrevolutionarywar.com... I'm out of room, but please note lastly the words of my opponent "... how he Believes that Americans view". An attempt to understate the bias that I am demonstrating. Stay classy and good show, thus far