Customer Reviews

Founding Myths: Stories That Hide Our Patriotic Past

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Some of the reviewers critical of this book are missing the point. The author does indeed debunk some of the mythic events of our revolutionary past. However, his purpose is NOT to prove that the founders were somehow evil, or to argue that the US is not a great nation, or to make young Americans cynical, or even to show off by attacking other historians.

Rather, he's arguing that the founding myths-- the amazing (and often fictional) achievements of people like Paul Revere, Molly Pitcher, Patrick Henry, etc.-- obscure an important reality: The American Revolution was one of the broadest-based political movements in human history, and all of the patriots who participated deserve credit, not just the "heroes."

Why does this matter at all? Because the genius of the American idea is that we are both a nation of "the people" and a nation of individuals. Focusing on individual accomplishments obscures the truly amazing nature of the accomplishments of the founding generation as a collective whole.

Further, some of the myths Raphael debunks actually distort our history in important ways. For example, the myth that the Revolution essentially ended with the British surrender at Yorktown denies the important reality that the fighting continued for more than a year afterward, and the outcome was very much in doubt for that whole time. The myth that all of the fighting in the Revolution was British vs. American patriots ignores the reality that in the southern colonies, the Revolution was a vicious civil war between American loyalists and American patriots, a struggle that was to have consequences for the next hundred years.

Those who see this book as the explication of some sort of egalitarian bias are welcome to their views. However, the simple fact is that Raphael is correct. All of his analyses and assertions are supported by ample documentation, and I'd be interested in seeing the sources that the reviewers who are attacking him are relying on.

This book is well worth reading and thinking about. I recommend it highly.

Often it takes time for history to prevail over mythology, but it can happen, as this author proves. The book is well documented, and the references check out. The one-star reviews speak for themselves - neither really addresses any of the issues raised in any substantive manner.
Yes, Americans have generated their own mythology surrounding what Americans consider to be key events or key instruction points in their history. No surprise there - every nation does that. (The Serbs still celebrate a massive defeat on the plains of Kosovo in 1389, almost 620 years ago!)
The author's point is that the truth actually reveals more about what is most laudable in the American character than do the myths. He argues quite convincingly that the truth is both more interesting and more worthy of remembrance than are the myths. His arguments are thoroughly footnoted and his sources are well documented.
I will not spoil the book for those who have not yet read it, but I do highly recommend it to any and all who are more interested in truth than in mythology.

This book is subtitled "Stories That Hide our Patriotic Past", which is an important theme of the book. The author contends that the myths that have been created about the Revolutionary War and its heroes obscure the real story and overshadow the important contributions of countless unsung patriots. Unfortunately, some chapters do degenerate into a populist, left leaning, screed that has prompted some reviewers to trash this book. However, on balance, I found the information provided far outweighed the chapters that degenerated into a screed. The author is careful to document when and why these myths were created and how they have been incorporated into textbooks and how this incorporation has changed over time. I found this documentation to be very important, since without it the author might just be substituting one myth for another.

Some of the myths are well known to be myths, with little or no historical foundation. The story of Molly Pitcher and that of young George Washington chopping down the cherry tree fall into this category. Other stories are not myths ser se, but rather are simplifications that distort the actual historical fact. The idea that the Revolutionary War ended with the victory at Yorktown is an example of this type of "myth". Fighting continued after this battle, and ten times more American soldiers died after Yorktown than died in the battle itself. A good history points out that the peace treaty was not arrived at until September of 1783, 25 months after the victory at Yorktown, but the fighting during these 25 months (a civil war in the Southern Colonies/States between Patriots and American Loyalists) is often overlooked. The civil war aspects of the war are often replaced by the myth of solidarity of the colonists against Britain. The book also discusses, in some detail, the world-wide character of the war and that in many respects the fighting in India and a possible invasion of Britain by France and Holland was much more important than the war in America.

The author tries to dispel the myth that Samuel Adams single handedly directed the people of Massachusetts to rebel. His theses is not only that is this not the case, but it obscures the fact that in 1774, in response to the Massachusetts Government act (which deprived the locally elected governments of most of their powers and prevented people from gathering in town meetings without the approval of British appointees)thousands of farmers and tradesmen, independent of Adams, moved to oust these British appointees. Not only did Adams not direct these actions, he disapproved of them. Thus, the myth of the importance of one man obscured the much more important actions of thousands. The author also tackles the idea that Jefferson single-handedly created the idea of Independence. There is a side-by-side comparison of George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, showing that Jefferson just put Mason's ideas in a much more poetic format. Furthermore, many of the delegates came to Philadelphia with instructions to vote for independence and did not need Jefferson's prodding to do so. Also, the idea of July 4th being the important (mythic) date is shown to be somewhat of a simplification. The important thing was the ratification of the declaration by the individual colonies, which was not completed for 19 more days. The bulk of the signings by individuals did not occur until August (and in a few cases much later) and that some of these signers were not even at the convention. Again the point is not that July 4th is not important, but the choosing of a somewhat arbitrary date makes the history easier to tell, but obscures the fact that it was the individual colonial legislatures that declared independence, not just a group of 56 signers.

Some the most controversial aspects of the book are the chapters discussing the participation of Indians and slaves in the war and how they faired after the war was over. These chapters are important, but offend many because of what is easily perceived as a left-wing anti-US bias. While I agreed with some of what the author was trying to say, I felt that he was guilty of some of the same simplifications that he rails against.

I would recommend this book to those who are interested in a more nuanced presentation of the Revolutionary War and those who have been designated as its heroes. For some, however, pointing out that some of their most cherished ideas are little more than myths will be unsettling.

It is quite unsettling when the historical "truths" we believe to be absolute turn out to be embellishments, myths, or outright fabrications. We believe the Revolutionary War and the Founding Fathers to be sacred; they are beyond reproach. The truth is tough to take, but as Ray Raphael explains in great detail, the embellishment of any individual act of heroism during the Founding period of our nation cannot detract from the hundreds or thousands of acts of heroism that went on daily but just didn't make it into the history books. Often, the embellishments or myths that have evolved around a particularly famous event actually serve to portray that event as less exceptional than it really was. Many episodes from the Founding have been mythologized not from a desire to cover up the truth, but to convert what was a complex struggle into streamlined stories that could be passed down to children. This is why we must always be skeptical of oral traditions that are assumed to be fact: They are going to have been embellished; it is impossible for them not to have been. They may tell a great story or pass on an important moral, but allowing them to become dogma only conceals the truth.

Despite its flippant cover, Founding Myths is not light reading. Raphael does examine a few of the more recognized Founding stories, but he writes as if he is on a crusade, and before long he is delving deeply into the characters and motivations of the Founding Fathers themselves. He cites his sources, and I am sure he has done his research, but his interpretations are completely egalitarian: There seems to be no room in his worldview for individual impetus or catalysis. If any individual Founder acted in a particularly prescient or heroic way, he could only have done so because his constituents ordered him to. The Patriots rose up as one, in other words, the Founding Fathers were simply pushed to the front to do the bidding of the masses. Well, sure, sometimes, but our Revolution didn't go the way of the French Revolution, and the Founding Fathers are the reason.

This is an important book for those studying American history, but be prepared for some rambling and some egalitarian bias.

As with many books that challenge peoples closely held beliefs, Ray Raphael's Founding Myths is sure to stimulate love and hate. As for myself, having been a student of American history for 40 years, I found this book fascinating, well researched, well written and entertaining.

As a conservative and unbiased reader, the book appears to me to be a straight forward telling of the truth, substantiated by meticulously researched documentation.

The plain and simple fact, (one that Mr. Raphael has covered in prior books), is that the American Revolution was truly a revolution of the people. Our children need to learn this fact before they can truly appreciate the foundations of our current state. Certainly they cannot be harmed knowing the truth. Even more certainly, they can only benefit from learning that history is not simple and that it is not made up solely of the actions of a few, regardless of how significant the contributions of the few may be. Mr. Raphael does not discount or diminish the character or contributions of our "founding fathers" but he does shine a long neglected light on the many thousands of individuals and individual acts by "common" people that brought about the United States.

I believe this book will serve as a wonderful adjunct to the teaching of American history in schools, particularly elementary education. The rote, misleading and often just plain wrong history being promulgated throughout our nation's schools is not doing our children any service but instilling in them the twin concepts of hero worship and blind faith in myths and fairy tales. This book will help them learn to look at history and the world they live in with a more critical and less naïve eye.

I really like reading about the founding fathers and colonial/revolutionary history. After reading this and Raphael's other two Revolutionary era books, however, I don't think I will see things in the same way.

The fact is that many of the "revolutionary ideas" the founding fathers espoused had been around for years and were not that revolutionary after all (except for some of their ideas on religion, to which some were either indifferent or openly hostile); Massachusetts was basically an independent state before the Declaration of Independence without the help or assistance of the founding fathers; and that the people, not a group of 8 or so rich guys, played a much more important role in America's independence (in fact, like today, the rich didn't even fight - they bought their way out).

The main point of this book is that our current views of history allow us to disregard the contributions of the many, who bear the most costs, to the benefit of the few, who bear little if any cost (I doubt any of the soldiers fighting in today's wars will see any oil money, while the president and his friends, who have never fought in any wars, will benefit handsomly).

The fact that people, not the rich, were the main drivers behind the revolution is a revolutionary idea. What could be more patriotic than that?

History is an interesting journey. From the actual events, to it's gradual interpretation and re-interpretation based on its impact, it's true that many things become twisted, distorted, and down right wrong. People say that hindsight is 20/20, but it's clear, that after many years, that 20/20 becomes 20/200, and we see the things that we choose to see, and believe the things that make good stories. Such is the premise of Ray Raphael's book, "Founding Myths".

Raphael's basic premise is that many of the stories that we are taught and choose to believe are actually historical fabrications, many of them designed to help teach a rather complex subject in school and to build the mass sense of patriotism that often grips our country. Two such stories, Paul Revere and Molly Pitcher, end up being mostly figments of a good writer's imagination, and both blown way out of proportion. Sam Adams contrbiution to the Revolution as a hot-headed revolutionary was actually a British invention designed to make the revolutionary fervor sweeping the colonies seem containable. Raphael's book promotes the concept that by highlighting the actions of a few people, we diminish or dismiss the actions of "the people", who were more involved in the revolution than previously thought.

Raphael's examination of why such things happen is very intriguing; why these tales developed over time and why, the stories we may have heard growing up, have become fictional cornerstones in the path of our history. Much of it seems like a complex, written form of the game of Telephone, where one author's embellishment leads down a path of error that soon becomes impossible to correct. One person said it, or wrote it, so it must be true.

This leads to another thought: is historical accuracy of prime importance to the masses? Raphael writes of its importance, in order to shed new light on the event. Pulling away from the Revolutionary Faces that we all know and love, and putting it's focus on those people in the colonies that truly drove the fervor. I've often thought that my own journey into my love of history began with those people, the Washington, and more importantly, Thomas Jefferson, as a way into the melee and drama. Such large scale events may be hard to understand initially, so may be we seek the views of people who lived through it as a path into the event. That is another point to decide.

The one downfall of Raphael's book is that he spends some time discrediting other writers of the Revolutionary Generation, including two of my favorites: David McCullough and Joseph Ellis. I find it poor sport that an author would try to prove his point by making targets out of other's work. Instead of having the intended of effect of strengthening his argument, it just makes me suspect as to why he would spend pages attacking these authors. It pulled me out of the book for a bit.

This book, if anything, is a wonderful exmaination of a time in our country's history frought with much myth and story. I love looking at events long since learned in a new light. The book is not weighted down with much historical minutae (which sometimes happens with historical non-fiction) but is a pleasant, well-written examination of the times. Whether or not you believe Raphael is besides the point. These things should be viewed again, debated, talked about, and pondered, for it brings to life these times, and makes history the exciting subject it should always be.

Please Note - When this review was originally written the hardback and the paperback reviews were not linked together and two reviews were treated separately. However, they are now linked and both appear here.

This book is subtitled "Stories That Hide our Patriotic Past", which is an important theme of the book. The author contends that the myths that have been created about the Revolutionary War and its heroes obscure the real story and overshadow the important contributions of countless unsung patriots. Unfortunately, some chapters do degenerate into a populist, left leaning, screed that has prompted some reviewers to trash this book. However, on balance, I found the information provided far outweighed the chapters that degenerated into a screed. The author is careful to document when and why these myths were created and how they have been incorporated into textbooks and how this incorporation has changed over time. I found this documentation to be very important, since without it the author might just be substituting one myth for another.

Some of the myths are well known to be myths, with little or no historical foundation. The story of Molly Pitcher and that of young George Washington chopping down the cherry tree fall into this category. Other stories are not myths ser se, but rather are simplifications that distort the actual historical fact. The idea that the Revolutionary War ended with the victory at Yorktown is an example of this type of "myth". Fighting continued after this battle, and ten times more American soldiers died after Yorktown than died in the battle itself. A good history points out that the peace treaty was not arrived at until September of 1783, 25 months after the victory at Yorktown, but the fighting during these 25 months (a civil war in the Southern Colonies/States between Patriots and American Loyalists) is often overlooked. The civil war aspects of the war are often replaced by the myth of solidarity of the colonists against Britain. The book also discusses, in some detail, the world-wide character of the war and that in many respects the fighting in India and a possible invasion of Britain by France and Holland was much more important than the war in America.

The author tries to dispel the myth that Samuel Adams single handedly directed the people of Massachusetts to rebel. His theses is not only that is this not the case, but it obscures the fact that in 1774, in response to the Massachusetts Government act (which deprived the locally elected governments of most of their powers and prevented people from gathering in town meetings without the approval of British appointees)thousands of farmers and tradesmen, independent of Adams, moved to oust these British appointees. Not only did Adams not direct these actions, he disapproved of them. Thus, the myth of the importance of one man obscured the much more important actions of thousands. The author also tackles the idea that Jefferson single-handedly created the idea of Independence. There is a side-by-side comparison of George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, showing that Jefferson just put Mason's ideas in a much more poetic format. Furthermore, many of the delegates came to Philadelphia with instructions to vote for independence and did not need Jefferson's prodding to do so. Also, the idea of July 4th being the important (mythic) date is shown to be somewhat of a simplification. The important thing was the ratification of the declaration by the individual colonies, which was not completed for 19 more days. The bulk of the signings by individuals did not occur until August (and in a few cases much later) and that some of these signers were not even at the convention. Again the point is not that July 4th is not important, but the choosing of a somewhat arbitrary date makes the history easier to tell, but obscures the fact that it was the individual colonial legislatures that declared independence, not just a group of 56 signers.

Some the most controversial aspects of the book are the chapters discussing the participation of Indians and slaves in the war and how they faired after the war was over. These chapters are important, but offend many because of what is easily perceived as a left-wing anti-US bias. While I agreed with some of what the author was trying to say, I felt that he was guilty of some of the same simplifications that he rails against.

I would recommend this book to those who are interested in a more nuanced presentation of the Revolutionary War and those who have been designated as its heroes. For some, however, pointing out that some of their most cherished ideas are little more that myths will be unsetting.

Please note - The paperback edition of this book is published by New Press, and Amazon lists it as being 368 pages long versus a length of 352 pages for this edition. To confuse things a bit more, Amazon lists this edition as being only 331 pages long, which is incorrect.

Why oh why don't historians trust their materials to make their point? In concept, this is an outstanding book -- take a look at the difference between the way we perceive our founding period, and the way the historical record actually shows it was, with detailed references as to how each legend became romanticised in the 19th century. The core of this book is oustanding. The detailed analysis is informative, and it points out some key errors in major recent historians (e.g. McCullough's book on John Adams).

The problem is that the author has to CONSTANTLY editorialize about how anti-Democratic and corrupting these changes are. It gets pedantic FAST, and insults the reader's intelligence by telling him/her dogmatically how to read both the original material and the current text. What this does it both politicize the analysis unnecessarily and weaken the argument. It also annoys the reader with redundancy.

It is a common sin of politically-motivated historians to beat their arguments to death to make a point; this history is a left-leaning one, but right-leaning ones also have the same flaw. This approach badly weakens the texts in question, and insults the reader's intelligence. The constant editorializing turns what would have been an excellent history into something only suitable for the contemporary political "echo chamber," where every political persuasion has its own set of facts and assumptions.

And that's too bad, because this book could have and should have transcended that morass.

This is not so much the debunking of myths, but the debunking of the current dumbed-down version of history as taught by our contemporary school system. A serious student of history will not learn much, but perhaps it may serve to open some oportunities for the reader to do further study and to pursue a more in depth knowledge of history.