United States Bias Regarding Revolutionary War

I think it would be better to have made it five rounds considering the amount of content and the 8,000 word limit. Any of these topics would have made for a good debate on its own, really. C1: Unfortunately I must say I take a small amount of offense at my opponent's ad hominem assertion that if I am not a Christian I cannot understand the Christian perspective on this issue. I am aware that people were far more strongly Christian at that time, among both the Americans and the British. My opponent then asserts, via a rhetorical question, that both sides would view God as being on their side. This is true. However, the radio program is obviously not going to portray it as such. It is a right-leaning, Christian program targeted at children. I don't see how you could find a source that's more likely to be biased than that. Upon looking at their site, the summaries of episodes involving the American Revolution seemed extremely tame compared to what I expected; there was one reference implying God did not like unjust rulers (phrased as a question) and that was it. (1) Of course this is going to be biased, the whole point of it is to indoctrinate people (children) who don't know anything about what they're being taught. Of course it's going to be simplified to a simple good (God) vs. evil scenario. But by the time most American kids get older and take, say, high school US History, they learn that it isn't so black and white. C2. With regards to the men my opponent mentions here, I meant they (excluding Washington) did little to contribute to the military victory that occurred. They did have a lot to do with starting the war and they did a lot after it. But during the war the influence of their political power was limited for obviously reasons. The reasons these men are glorified are overwhelmingly not related to the military. If my opponent had argued as the premise of his debate that these men were not worthy of the praise they are given than I would agree, but this debate is about American bias regarding the Revolutionary War. By and large the things these men are credited for did not occur during the war or else were not related to it. Despite this, I still feel the need to address a few claims. The Articles of Confederation are usually portrayed negatively and as a mistake because they created a government that was too weak, which is why they were replaced in the first place. And it was Andrew Jackson, not Thomas Jefferson, who signed the Indian Removal Act and destroyed the system of checks and balances by ignoring a Supreme Court ruling that protected the rights of Indians. (2) Jefferson's hands may not be clean but Jackson is a far worse offender. C3: What my opponent refers to here is two British scouts encountering one man. Is the entire army responsible for the actions of one man? This is especially relevant considering the disorganized nature of the American forces. Also, the fact that the Concord Hymn (a fictitious, pro-American source) attributes the first shot to the Minutemen seems to prove that there isn't an American bias as to who started the war. This hymn clearly does not blame the British However, this particular point is starting to seem like a bit of a red herring to me anyway. The issue of who started the war does not necessarily boil down to who fires the first shot. In a situation of rebellion, it is easy to always portray the rebels as the ones that started the war. Why would the British start the war if they were happy with the status quo? Of course, the British passed legislation to maintain the status quo that they understood the potential consequences of and they were willing to use force to uphold their authority. (3) Unless my opponent can prove that the British rule of the Colonies was just and the Rebels had no legitimate grievances, I think they played enough of a role in starting the war that from the American point of view it was their fault. In terms of today's definitions, it would take what even I would consider to be extremely leftist views to argue that the economic interference by Britain was appropriate. C4: The fact that people are killing in riots today does not mean that we should not frown upon historical riots in which people were killed. The issue that arises from the comparison isn't that the Boston Massacre is being called a massacre, it's that other riots with killings aren't. When unarmed civilians are killed by killed by an armed police force, what should this be called? Unfortunate, my opponent suggests. Self defense, considering the risk that a rabble of civilians throwing wood and ice poses a squad of soldiers from the best army in the world. Perhaps beating the crowd back with truncheons or even using bayonets if the situation got out of hand would have been justified, but a total of 11 people were shot. (4) I really don't see how it requires bias to condemn such an event. At the very least one would have to assume both sides were at fault, and then it wouldn't be biased for Americans to favor themselves in a grey issue. C5: I find it surprising that none of the classes my opponent took mentioned the mistreatment of Loyalists. I have taken classes where the forms of humiliation use by the Patriots were described as extremely painful and potentially fatal, including a video about an innocent man's house being burned down. However, this type of anecdotal evidence is invalid. As far as the Wikipedia references are concerned, Wikipedia does mention the ill treatment of Loyalists: "In areas under rebel control, Loyalists were subject to confiscation of property, and outspoken supporters of the king were threatened with public humiliation such as tarring and feathering, or physical attack. It is not known how many Loyalist civilians were harassed by the Patriots, but the treatment was a warning to other Loyalists not to take up arms. In September 1775, William Drayton and Loyalist leader Colonel Thomas Fletchall signed a treaty of neutrality in the interior community of Ninety Six, South Carolina. [12] For actively aiding the British army when it occupied Philadelphia, two residents of the city would be executed by returning Patriot forces. " They do not seem to be pulling any punches here. This is brief, yes, but the article discusses a wide variety of other topics about Loyalists and doesn't go into great detail about any of them. Overall, I do not believe my opponent has proven that Americans as a whole are uninformed about the mistreatment of Loyalists (not at least not more uniformed than they are about most things :-P). I understand my opponent did not have room to argue all ten of the points. All other arguments are extended. Conclusion: My opponent is trying argue that the American view of the Revolutionary War is biased while overlooking the fact that there are often two perfectly reasonable points of view on an issue. If it is Americans who are so biased, why does he call the shooting of innocent civilians simply a misfortune? Why does he criticize the treatment of Loyalists while referring to similar actions by the British, only in passing, as 'anti-guerrilla tactics'? My opponent's argument does not seem to be centered on dispelling bias, but on asserting a different bias. None of the historical context my opponent has cited is clear cut enough that it does not support two valid points of view. I continue to hold that the American view of the Revolutionary War is not unusually biased, accepting a pro-self view and the romanticizing of history that occurs everywhere. (1) . http://www.whitsend.org... (2) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) . http://www.theamericanrevolution.org... (4) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (5) . http://en.wikipedia.org...