United States Bias Regarding Revolutionary War

As many people have noted in the comments section, it is not entirely clear what your resolution is. I am assuming it was not simply that the United States is biased in its views toward the Revolutionary War because stating that a nation views itself favorable is hardly a debate. Instead I am going to assume for the sake of debate that I am expected to refute my opponent's claims of these specific cases of bias. I am also not sure whether or not I am expected to address one or all of the biases. As such I will address all of them briefly and I will expect my opponent to specify in the next round whether I am required to argue one or all of his statements. If in fact I am to try to prove all and not just one of his statements false, I expect that voters will understand that proving the majority (6/10) of these claims false would warrant a successful debate since in any other instance I would hardly be expected to refute every one of my opponent's arguments. 1. My opponent has not provided a source for this and I do not consider it to be common knowledge so for the time being I am not accepting the validity of this argument. However Christian groups regularly portray God as being on their side so even if this is true this is not at all unusual. Religions are almost by definition biased, but this attitude does not reflect on the attitudes of an entire nation. As an American and an Atheist I do not believe that God was on the side of the colonists and from a historical standpoint I certainly don't think religion had anything to do with the war. I doubt many American Christians would make this assertion either. Almost no one would consider the American Revolution to be related to religion. 2. There is certainly a cultural meme in the United States of glorifying the Founding Fathers, but with the exception of George Washington (who was instrumental to the war effort) this has little to do with the war or bias against the British. Though men like Franklin, John Adams, and Jefferson supported the war, they were on a large part not directly involved. These men are revered more for their contributions to the infant nation than their limited role in its creation. 3. Provide evidence. No reputable Revolutionary War text that I have read offers a clear answer to as to who started the war. In the battle of Lexington and Concord, both the British and the Colonists acknowledged that violence could very well result from their actions. Weapons in this time period were extremely vulnerable to malfunction and misfire so it is entirely likely the first shot may have even been accidental (1). 4. Armed troops fired on unarmed civilians. No doubt that the Colonists started it and no doubt that it was used as propaganda, but that fact remains. I fail to see how soldiers firing on rioting civilians can possibly be considered a 'misfortune' rather than a massacre. 5. My opponent fails to demonstrate how the treatment of Loyalists is overlooked. Most college and AP level US History textbooks do discuss this. I don't think I'm expected to provide every possible example of when the treatment of Loyalists in the Colonies is not overlooked. As an American I am fully aware of the violence committed against Loyalists during the war. 6. In what way is guerrilla warfare dishonorable? Does my opponent contend that guerrilla warfare in general is dishonorable or that the means by which the Colonies conducted guerrilla warfare was dishonorable? Either way he has failed to support this statement and has left us with no reason to believe it. Guerrilla warfare did contribute greatly to the success of the Rebels do in any case it would not be biased to portray this as such. 7. I don't wish to get into a dissertation on the battle of Saratoga itself, but it is considered the turning point of the Revolution largely due to its large scale political implications. In a tactical sense the defeat at Saratago cut the British forces off from one another. More important, however, is the fact that France saw this as an indication that the Colonies were capable of winning the war. French support for the Colonies was instrumental in winning the overall war, including the final major battle at Yorktown. (2) (3) 8. Literally speaking, the Rebels were patriots. A patriot is defined as, "a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion." (4) Though you can argue that they were legally British citizens, you would be misunderstanding the attitudes of the day. Very few of the Colonists had even been to Britain so it is absurd to assume they would consider it their nation or homeland. Thomas Jefferson often referred to his home country as Virginia, an entirely rational view at the time since the Colonies did not exist as a nation and he certainly couldn't call himself British. In any case many some of my American sources describe the forces of the Colonies as Rebels and this term is certainly not taboo in America. 9. I think it would be safe to contend that the views of Mel Gibson and his movies do not reflect the views of the America as a whole. Are Americans as a whole biased against Romans because of how they are portrayed in Passion of the Christ? What about how Native Americans are portrayed in Apocalypto? If my opponent is trying to prove that any amount bias exists somewhere in American culture than this would support his argument, but that resolution makes for an impossibly one-sided debate. 10. John Paul Jones' record as a naval commander does not seem to support this. He was consistently victorious in his endeavors. His capture of the Serapis was due to both luck and tactical success. The Serapis had hard greater firepower than his ship and most of the firepower of his own vessel was lost during the engagement, but by closing in and attaching to the Serapis he was able to negate most of its firepower. The fact that a frigate on Jones' side can to assist him can be considered a misfortune for the British, but it does not demean his skill as a naval commander. (5) I would also like to see my opponent offer an argument explaining why Jones should have been 'placed in irons'. Conclusion: It goes without saying that there will be some form of bias in viewing history. However, my opponent creates an exaggerated view of how he believes that Americans view the Revolutionary War. His examples are largely not examples of bias at all, and those that are do not reflect on the beliefs of America as a whole. It hardly makes sense that Americans would view the Revolutionary War from a British point of view, and if they do not this is not an example of bias. It is obviously not possible for me to disprove the existence of bias anywhere in American culture. However, in order for my opponent to prove his contentions, he must be able to demonstrate that they are both bias and that they are widely accepted in American culture. As it stands he has not fulfilled both of these requirements for any of his contentions. Sources: (1) http://www.fairfax.org.uk... (2) http://battle1777.saratoga.org... (3) http://battleofyorktown.com... (4) http://dictionary.reference.com... (5) http://en.wikipedia.org...(1779)