Is this an accurate description of most colonists? Why do we continue to remember it as a story of freedom? Should we continue to remember it that way?
The thinking of colonists as families who paid their way over to America for religious freedom is not an accurate description for most of them. Most colonists did not come over to America for religious reasons, but rather for economic reasons. This is a story of freedom because Americans fought to resist colonists and their intentions of exploiting this rich nation and to free or liberate themselves from the bondage of British colonists. It is important for Americans to continue remembering their origin as a story of freedom.
Why do we continue to remember the status of colonial women that way? Should we continue to remember it that way?
It is accurate to think that colonial and early American women did not have property or legal rights. Women faced numerous social injustices, violence, and discrimination with regard to property or legal rights. However, a lot has changed as the interests of women regarding property or legal rights have been entrenched in the constitution. In addition, several activist groups have emerged to advocate for and defend women’s property and legal rights. Therefore, it is important to cease thinking that way.
We generally think that colonists and early Americans pursued a general policy of killing or driving out the native Indians. This process can be thought of as inevitable. But were there viable alternatives pursued by different individuals and groups in the colonial and early American periods?
It is true that the native Indians in America underwent numerous challenges, some of which were a violation of basic and fundamental human rights. However, to think that colonists and early Americans pursued a general policy of killing or driving out the native Indians is incorrect. This is because this motive against the native Indians was not shared or rather welcome to all Americans. Other viable alternatives pursued by different individuals and groups in the colonial and early American periods included coexistence, assimilation, and reservation.
Should we see them for what they were, as real humans with imperfections, or should we continue to romanticize and idealize them?
Whatever the patriots and founder fathers of America did, their philosophies and virtues continue to shape the contemporary American society. However, we should see them for what they were, as real humans with imperfections. Thus, it is essential that we stop romanticizing the founders and patriots of America, but rather see them as real people with real problems and concerns. They lived in complex and confusing times just like people in the contemporary world.
We can think we know why the Revolution happened and what it was for. But are there problems with keeping it simple?
Understanding why the American Revolution happened and what it was for is not simple. Native Americans wanted representation in parliament, a demand that colonists were against. Thus, why this revolution happened and what it was for is not simple. This is because the revolution was not just about taxation and representation, but also about a host of virtues and philosophies that the patriots and founders of America held close to their hearts. It is these virtues and philosophies that continue to shape contemporary American society.
With a Patriot bias, we have remembered the Patriot minority as the whole. In this way, history can be just the story of the winners. But, should we forget the Loyalists or remember them as just a few bad Tories? And should we romanticize the Patriot minority and forget about most people who lived in America at the time?
With regard to the revolution and the uprising against King George III in the history of America, the loyalists were a group of wealthy British merchants and government officials who were satisfied because they benefited from the administration system at that time. Thus, their contribution to American history was very minimal. However, it is important to remember them as just a few bad Tories who were overcome by the forces of the revolution. As much as the patriots should be applauded for their contribution towards the foundations of America, much credit should go to the Americans at that time. They are the unsung heroes whose contributions were invaluable.
Do Americans need Betsy Ross? Do we need the patriotic myth? Does it connect us as Americans?
Historical events are usually subject to biases and fiction. American society was founded on the basis of rights, freedom, and liberty. These were the profound philosophies that the majority of the patriots and founding fathers of America advocated for. Americans do not need fictional and incomplete myths such as Besty Ross, which have failed to demonstrate the values that shape American society. Unlike the Besty myth, the patriot myth connects Americans with regard to basic philosophies of unity, liberty, freedom, and rights.
Oddly enough, our patriotic myth actually downplays the importance of what Washington and the Continental Army accomplished, with only a minority of support, working against the odds, taking on the No.1 military power of the time. We want to remember it as a story of unity. It is ideal for us today. But, is unity so important that we cannot do right by Washington and the Continental Army?
Unity is a virtue that was critical to the patriots and the founders of America. This is so because, without much support from all the Americans during the revolution, the patriots still freed and liberated America from British colonists. The patriots premised their success against all odds on unity among themselves without considering their underlying differences. Despite the vital role that Washington and the Continental Army played during the revolution and the founding era of America, unity remains an important virtue or philosophy in the history of America.
An organized minority gets something done then future American schoolchildren are taught that that is what most if not all Americans at the time wanted. Should it be taught this way? Or should Americans be informed instead that a lot of big things that happened in our history did not come about through majority rule?
The rule of the majority is applicable in many societies around the world. However, it is essential that Americans be informed that a lot of big things that happened in America’s history did not come about through majority rule, but rather as a result of the virtues and philosophies that the patriots and the founders of America held at that time.
An organized minority gets something done then future American schoolchildren are taught that that is what most if not all Americans at the time wanted. Should it be taught this way? Or should Americans be informed instead that a lot of big things that happened in our history did not come about through majority rule?
For the Indians, the Federalist Indian Policy was the best with regard to the interest of the Indians as the policy sought coexistence. This would allow the Indians to continue with their everyday lives without interference from Americans. In terms of American interests, the Federalist Indian Policy of coexistence again would serve the interest of the Americans because it sought to allow the Americans to settle in areas best for farming or closest to water transportation. This policy rationally advocated for a win-win situation to settle the tension between the Native Americans and their Indian counterparts.