What do you think?
Rate this book
Founding Myths: Stories That Hide Our Patriotic Past
With wit and flair, Founding Myths exposes the errors and inventions in thirteen of America’s most cherished tales, from Paul Revere’s famous ride to Patrick Henry’s “Liberty or Death” speech. Exploring the dynamic intersection between history-making and story-making, award-winning author and historian Ray Raphael shows how these fictions—conceived in the narrowly nationalistic politics of the nineteenth century—undermine our democratic ideals.
368 pages, Paperback
First published September 5, 2004
108 people are currently reading
1536 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 132 reviews
August 26, 2017
August 2016 update: From a FOAF on Facebook: «Most of us were shocked to learn how history had been rewritten in Communist block countries. I hope we will be just as shocked to find it happening here. Won't we?»
If you haven't read this book, now might be a good time to disabuse yourself of your myths. For something more contemporary, maybe The Myth of the Kindly General Lee?
❦ ❦ ❦
This book was much more serious than I expected. To my surprise, it turned out to be a thoughtful and carefully documented examination of the biases that have crept into the popular understanding of the founding years of the United States. The book is not without some critical flaws, but is nevertheless worthwhile and, perhaps, even important.
The cover is a bizarre image of George Washington holding a baby with an eagle’s head. Or maybe an eagle with a baby’s body. Anyway, the painting’s title is “The Wings will Grow (Father of the Nation)”, and I suppose it is appropriate for the book.
I thought this would be an accumulation of amusing anecdotes. Instead I discovered a quite readable but serious exposition on how two hundred-plus years of myth-making has distorted pretty much everything.
The author’s bio states that “Ray Raphael has been a ‘people’s historian’ for the past thirty years”. If that sounds vaguely socialist to you, you’ll understand where the author’s overriding thesis comes in. There’s nothing socialist about the book, but it is aggressively populist. Most historians, and especially most myth-makers, have a tendency to illuminate history by telling stories about a small number of protagonists, and this is clearly in evidence in our early American history. These can be heroic (think George Washington) or iconic (as Molly Pitcher stands for “women on the battlefield”). Raphael argues that this is a disservice to the tens and hundreds of thousands of people that actually made the revolution happen.
His book’s subtitle, “Stories That Hide Our Patriotic Past”, points to the way a focus on a few individuals is unpatriotic. This was a people’s revolution, with the pressure to declare independence coming from the masses. The elites often slowed down the process, both for good reasons and bad. The leaders often had a better comprehension of the international politics and preparation necessary to make the rebellion successful, but they also had more property and prestige to risk. What steams Raphael is that today many of our myths give credit to those leaders for actually leading, when they were actually trailing and quite often dragging.
The primary culprits here are the storyteller and historians that treated events as the raw material in the creation of tales with a “purpose”. One purpose was simple money-making, in which tales of the lives of the revolutionary generation were packaged for what we might now call “edutainment”. In the early years of the republic, even as the founders were slowly dying off, simple readers and pamphlets were written that white-washed their flaws and exaggerated their heroics. This is when, for example, George Washington suddenly acquired a childhood tale involving a cherry tree.
Another common motive was to set a good example for the young: a strong example can be seen in the treatment of the Massachusetts Revolution of 1774. We usually date the beginning of the revolution to April, 1775 when the fighting at Lexington and Concord took place, supposedly in response to British aggression. In fact, during the previous summer there were massive uprisings throughout the Massachusetts hinterland (not in Boston) that effectively removed the British from local power.
Raphael shows clear reasons why this revolt occurred spontaneously throughout the region; each hamlet and town had adequate reasons to act on their own and communicate their actions with their neighbors. As he points out, “The Massachusetts Revolution of 1774, like all true revolutions, was a bullying affair. Crowds numbering in the thousands forced a few unarmed officials to cower and submit. This made for a powerful revolution but a scary story.” One problem for future myth-makers was that there was no hero to idolize. Undoubtedly there were local leaders and followers, but none on a grand scale. Once the story had to be molded into something that would benefit the young, the storytellers reached into Boston and picked some likely suspects to be agitators and organizers.
An even more subtle bias came from the changing requirements for national unity. Once the revolts in France and elsewhere had turned ugly and given “revolution” a bad name, similarities in the colonies were downplayed. So instead of documenting the popular and “bullying” uprisings, the focus shift towards philosophic abstractions, for example. Later, when the Civil War loomed ahead, it was considered wise to downplay any idea of revolution against proper authorities, and “rebellion” was magically transformed into “loyalty”.
The events at Valley Forge, to take one example, were massively altered: the army that winter had been a starving and near-naked ragtag army of poorly-paid lower-class elements constantly on the verge of mutiny and desertion. The original patriotic militia (e.g., the Minutemen) had, by necessity, returned to their farms and shops. So the army largely consisted of young men, poor men, and recent immigrants—those with poor prospects otherwise—who were viewed with distrust by civilians. By the time the myth-makers were done, these had become faithful soldiers who only flirted with mutiny due to the harsh winter, and were dissuaded by a few words from their beloved General Washington. In fact, the notorious winter spent at Valley Forge was milder than average.
As I was reading, it occurred to me that this book is an interesting litmus test. Many Americans really would like to truly understand the early history of the nation, but having so many myths turned upside down would be deeply disturbing for some. I can imagine some teachers (or home-schooling parents) embracing this as strong but necessary medicine. On the other hand, the culture of suspicious anti-elitism has always been strong amongst Americans. Raphael provides a paradigmatic (and astonishing) quote (p. 204):
And, finally, Raphael really is pushing too hard. Even as he tallies evidence of historians distorting history in the service of shifting ideological goals, he comes to his task with a strong ideological bent of his own—one that both grows tiresome and casts a shadow over his efforts.
David McCullough, author of John Adams , is castigated for stating in a discussion of the Declaration of Independence that “It was John Adams, more than anyone, who made it happen”. Raphael attacks:
Certainly if John Adams had not been present someone else would have taken a roughly equivalent role. But this ignores the critical influence that he may have had: the Declaration and Constitution were both carefully crafted compromises balancing many interests. These documents have been so crucial to the subsequent development of the United States that, clearly, a different mixture of personalities and opinions at a critical moment might have had momentous impact. Similarly, Raphael expends an entire chapter pointing out that Thomas Jefferson didn’t so much as author the Declaration of Independence as merely write down what pretty much everyone was saying. But if John Adams of Massachusetts had penned the Declaration instead of Virginia’s Thomas Jefferson, global history would probably be subtly different. If New York’s Alexander Hamilton had written it, things would have been very different. Even though the collective activity of the masses is under-reported and underestimated in our histories, completely removing the focus from individual actions is also misleading.
This is a good and important book. It could have been a better book, if Raphael had tipped the scales less far and belabored his perspective less. But still, it provides a salutary corrective, and wise folk should be willing to examine their biases and assumptions, even if this is sometimes unpleasant. Founding Myths is entertaining and informative enough that it should be read, flaws and all.
If you haven't read this book, now might be a good time to disabuse yourself of your myths. For something more contemporary, maybe The Myth of the Kindly General Lee?
❦ ❦ ❦
This book was much more serious than I expected. To my surprise, it turned out to be a thoughtful and carefully documented examination of the biases that have crept into the popular understanding of the founding years of the United States. The book is not without some critical flaws, but is nevertheless worthwhile and, perhaps, even important.
The cover is a bizarre image of George Washington holding a baby with an eagle’s head. Or maybe an eagle with a baby’s body. Anyway, the painting’s title is “The Wings will Grow (Father of the Nation)”, and I suppose it is appropriate for the book.
I thought this would be an accumulation of amusing anecdotes. Instead I discovered a quite readable but serious exposition on how two hundred-plus years of myth-making has distorted pretty much everything.
The author’s bio states that “Ray Raphael has been a ‘people’s historian’ for the past thirty years”. If that sounds vaguely socialist to you, you’ll understand where the author’s overriding thesis comes in. There’s nothing socialist about the book, but it is aggressively populist. Most historians, and especially most myth-makers, have a tendency to illuminate history by telling stories about a small number of protagonists, and this is clearly in evidence in our early American history. These can be heroic (think George Washington) or iconic (as Molly Pitcher stands for “women on the battlefield”). Raphael argues that this is a disservice to the tens and hundreds of thousands of people that actually made the revolution happen.
His book’s subtitle, “Stories That Hide Our Patriotic Past”, points to the way a focus on a few individuals is unpatriotic. This was a people’s revolution, with the pressure to declare independence coming from the masses. The elites often slowed down the process, both for good reasons and bad. The leaders often had a better comprehension of the international politics and preparation necessary to make the rebellion successful, but they also had more property and prestige to risk. What steams Raphael is that today many of our myths give credit to those leaders for actually leading, when they were actually trailing and quite often dragging.
The primary culprits here are the storyteller and historians that treated events as the raw material in the creation of tales with a “purpose”. One purpose was simple money-making, in which tales of the lives of the revolutionary generation were packaged for what we might now call “edutainment”. In the early years of the republic, even as the founders were slowly dying off, simple readers and pamphlets were written that white-washed their flaws and exaggerated their heroics. This is when, for example, George Washington suddenly acquired a childhood tale involving a cherry tree.
Another common motive was to set a good example for the young: a strong example can be seen in the treatment of the Massachusetts Revolution of 1774. We usually date the beginning of the revolution to April, 1775 when the fighting at Lexington and Concord took place, supposedly in response to British aggression. In fact, during the previous summer there were massive uprisings throughout the Massachusetts hinterland (not in Boston) that effectively removed the British from local power.
Raphael shows clear reasons why this revolt occurred spontaneously throughout the region; each hamlet and town had adequate reasons to act on their own and communicate their actions with their neighbors. As he points out, “The Massachusetts Revolution of 1774, like all true revolutions, was a bullying affair. Crowds numbering in the thousands forced a few unarmed officials to cower and submit. This made for a powerful revolution but a scary story.” One problem for future myth-makers was that there was no hero to idolize. Undoubtedly there were local leaders and followers, but none on a grand scale. Once the story had to be molded into something that would benefit the young, the storytellers reached into Boston and picked some likely suspects to be agitators and organizers.
An even more subtle bias came from the changing requirements for national unity. Once the revolts in France and elsewhere had turned ugly and given “revolution” a bad name, similarities in the colonies were downplayed. So instead of documenting the popular and “bullying” uprisings, the focus shift towards philosophic abstractions, for example. Later, when the Civil War loomed ahead, it was considered wise to downplay any idea of revolution against proper authorities, and “rebellion” was magically transformed into “loyalty”.
The events at Valley Forge, to take one example, were massively altered: the army that winter had been a starving and near-naked ragtag army of poorly-paid lower-class elements constantly on the verge of mutiny and desertion. The original patriotic militia (e.g., the Minutemen) had, by necessity, returned to their farms and shops. So the army largely consisted of young men, poor men, and recent immigrants—those with poor prospects otherwise—who were viewed with distrust by civilians. By the time the myth-makers were done, these had become faithful soldiers who only flirted with mutiny due to the harsh winter, and were dissuaded by a few words from their beloved General Washington. In fact, the notorious winter spent at Valley Forge was milder than average.
As I was reading, it occurred to me that this book is an interesting litmus test. Many Americans really would like to truly understand the early history of the nation, but having so many myths turned upside down would be deeply disturbing for some. I can imagine some teachers (or home-schooling parents) embracing this as strong but necessary medicine. On the other hand, the culture of suspicious anti-elitism has always been strong amongst Americans. Raphael provides a paradigmatic (and astonishing) quote (p. 204):
An officer of the Daughters of the Colonial Wars, for instance, complained about books that “give a child an unbiased viewpoint instead of teaching him real Americanism. All the old histories taught my country right or wrong. That’s the point of view we want our children to adopt. We can’t afford to teach them to be unbiased and let them make up their own minds.”This book would be seen as an assault by those that believe “my myths, right or wrong”.
And, finally, Raphael really is pushing too hard. Even as he tallies evidence of historians distorting history in the service of shifting ideological goals, he comes to his task with a strong ideological bent of his own—one that both grows tiresome and casts a shadow over his efforts.
David McCullough, author of John Adams , is castigated for stating in a discussion of the Declaration of Independence that “It was John Adams, more than anyone, who made it happen”. Raphael attacks:
The last three words convey a clear implication of causality: if Adams “made it happen,” without him there might never have been a Declaration of Independence. This seems highly implausible. [...] By debating which one of these individuals, “more than anyone,” is more responsible for the nation’s independence, we participate in a parlor game, not meaningful historical inquiry.Note that Raphael has introduced two distortions: first, the “more than anyone” is shifted from a qualifier that places Adams first among equals, into an emphasis that places him first bar none. Second, McCullough’s discussion had been about the writing of the Declaration of Independence, and it is disingenuous to claim that the multitudes had anything other than a distant and indirect role. Raphael’s unwavering focus on the role of the—for lack of a better word—proletariat can be as distorting as well as illuminating.
This game is not harmless, for it ignores the hundreds of thousands of people who actually did make it happen. Without John Adams, chances are the Continental Congress would still have broken ties with Britain; without a preponderance of popular support for the cause of independence, chances are Congress would have chosen a different path.
Certainly if John Adams had not been present someone else would have taken a roughly equivalent role. But this ignores the critical influence that he may have had: the Declaration and Constitution were both carefully crafted compromises balancing many interests. These documents have been so crucial to the subsequent development of the United States that, clearly, a different mixture of personalities and opinions at a critical moment might have had momentous impact. Similarly, Raphael expends an entire chapter pointing out that Thomas Jefferson didn’t so much as author the Declaration of Independence as merely write down what pretty much everyone was saying. But if John Adams of Massachusetts had penned the Declaration instead of Virginia’s Thomas Jefferson, global history would probably be subtly different. If New York’s Alexander Hamilton had written it, things would have been very different. Even though the collective activity of the masses is under-reported and underestimated in our histories, completely removing the focus from individual actions is also misleading.
This is a good and important book. It could have been a better book, if Raphael had tipped the scales less far and belabored his perspective less. But still, it provides a salutary corrective, and wise folk should be willing to examine their biases and assumptions, even if this is sometimes unpleasant. Founding Myths is entertaining and informative enough that it should be read, flaws and all.
October 14, 2015
I'm reading this for a paper I'm writing. The book is interesting, it brings to light all the things that are left out of the history books or are completely wrong. Did you know there was more than one rider the night Paul Revere went on his ride? How about the fact that Molly Pitcher was a conglomeration of 3 different women? It was interesting to see things that I was taught as fact as a child end up being not completely true.
November 15, 2025
"Our stories of national creation reflect the romantic individualism of the nineteenth century, and they sell our country short. They are strangely out of sync with both the communitarian ideals of the Revolutionary America and the democratic values of today. The image of a perfect America in a mythic past hides our Revolutionary roots, and this we do not need."
--Ray Raphael, Founding Myths
An interesting, well-researched work that argues American history was reshaped by the 19th century's Romanticist paradigm. Raphael's work is particularly strong as an examination of 19th and early 20th-century historiography; however, where the work suffers is Raphael's over-emphasis on writing what he terms "collectivist" history. This may be a noble goal, but does Raphael really expect the average historian to write such "populist" works in favor of standard autobiographies and narrative histories? Further, does he really believe all "interpretive concepts" (as author and noted European historian Euan Cameron has called them) should be abandoned for micro-histories? In emphasizing a collectivist perspective towards historical writing, Cameron raises many more questions than this 280-page work is able to answer--or is even designed to. In one moment of blinding irony, Raphael partially describes his own work when he quotes the oft-critiqued Mason Weems:
"Experience has taught me that small, i.e., quarter of dollar books, on subjects calculated to strike the Popular Curiosity, printed in very large numbers and properly distributed, would prove an immense revenue to the prudent and industrious...."
Founding Myths is itself a populist work, with subjects chosen to arouse public curiosity, and while Raphael's work is a worthwhile study of 19th and 20th century historiography, it continually stumbles into far larger claims and recommendations (mostly for historical writing and K-12 curriculum) than its small size can adequately support. It may be a worthy argument that 21st century school-children should not be educated in a "top-down" manner, but when the very same author admits these same children lack "abstract reasoning" abilities conducive to complex historical comparisons and subtexts, what does he expect? It may be worthwhile to contend that 5th graders should study "local committees, congresses, and militia units" that would then serve as "models for the collective, political participation of ordinary citizens" during the Revolution, but Raphael nowhere deciphers how this is to transpire. If Raphael had simply stuck to chronicling the shifting narratives of historical writing as it pertained to the American Revolution, he would certainly have remained on safer, less nebulous ground. As it stands, Founding Myths wobbles precariously between the solid chronicle of shifting Revolutionary narratives, and abrupt, generalized judgments and pronouncements of modern education's systemic failings on this same subject.
--Ray Raphael, Founding Myths
An interesting, well-researched work that argues American history was reshaped by the 19th century's Romanticist paradigm. Raphael's work is particularly strong as an examination of 19th and early 20th-century historiography; however, where the work suffers is Raphael's over-emphasis on writing what he terms "collectivist" history. This may be a noble goal, but does Raphael really expect the average historian to write such "populist" works in favor of standard autobiographies and narrative histories? Further, does he really believe all "interpretive concepts" (as author and noted European historian Euan Cameron has called them) should be abandoned for micro-histories? In emphasizing a collectivist perspective towards historical writing, Cameron raises many more questions than this 280-page work is able to answer--or is even designed to. In one moment of blinding irony, Raphael partially describes his own work when he quotes the oft-critiqued Mason Weems:
"Experience has taught me that small, i.e., quarter of dollar books, on subjects calculated to strike the Popular Curiosity, printed in very large numbers and properly distributed, would prove an immense revenue to the prudent and industrious...."
Founding Myths is itself a populist work, with subjects chosen to arouse public curiosity, and while Raphael's work is a worthwhile study of 19th and 20th century historiography, it continually stumbles into far larger claims and recommendations (mostly for historical writing and K-12 curriculum) than its small size can adequately support. It may be a worthy argument that 21st century school-children should not be educated in a "top-down" manner, but when the very same author admits these same children lack "abstract reasoning" abilities conducive to complex historical comparisons and subtexts, what does he expect? It may be worthwhile to contend that 5th graders should study "local committees, congresses, and militia units" that would then serve as "models for the collective, political participation of ordinary citizens" during the Revolution, but Raphael nowhere deciphers how this is to transpire. If Raphael had simply stuck to chronicling the shifting narratives of historical writing as it pertained to the American Revolution, he would certainly have remained on safer, less nebulous ground. As it stands, Founding Myths wobbles precariously between the solid chronicle of shifting Revolutionary narratives, and abrupt, generalized judgments and pronouncements of modern education's systemic failings on this same subject.
June 23, 2019
John Adams once complained that people might think that the American Revolution was won singlehandedly by George Washington while Thomas Jefferson rode on his back...or something like that. And that is the point of this book.
Ray Raphael does a great service to our country by this small volume on Founding Myths. He examines some of the most enduring and endearing legends of the Revolutionary period and explains the truth behind them.
For example: Molly Pitcher never existed, Thomas Jefferson borrowed ideas for the Declaration of Independence, more slaves fought for the British, and the war didn't end at Yorktown. Say what????
The point behind Raphael's book is that many of our historic 'truths' are misrepresentations, tall tales, of true past events. We cling to these 'truths' because they are more savory than the truth behind them.
This is especially important in our charged political era, where people constantly hearken back to our Founding Period to justify current political beliefs. The Boston Tea Party would not recognize the contemporary counterpart, nor would the 'Founding Fathers' understand many of our modern debates.
Americans need to come to term with their history and not utilize history as a weapon in a modern war.
Raphael's book is basic enough for a general audience and yet sheds light on significant issues in the philosophy of history. This is a book that should be read by all who are interested in our founding period.
Raphael's passion to recover history is present throughout the book. Needless to say, I will not be inviting him over to watch The Patriot with me.
Ray Raphael does a great service to our country by this small volume on Founding Myths. He examines some of the most enduring and endearing legends of the Revolutionary period and explains the truth behind them.
For example: Molly Pitcher never existed, Thomas Jefferson borrowed ideas for the Declaration of Independence, more slaves fought for the British, and the war didn't end at Yorktown. Say what????
The point behind Raphael's book is that many of our historic 'truths' are misrepresentations, tall tales, of true past events. We cling to these 'truths' because they are more savory than the truth behind them.
This is especially important in our charged political era, where people constantly hearken back to our Founding Period to justify current political beliefs. The Boston Tea Party would not recognize the contemporary counterpart, nor would the 'Founding Fathers' understand many of our modern debates.
Americans need to come to term with their history and not utilize history as a weapon in a modern war.
Raphael's book is basic enough for a general audience and yet sheds light on significant issues in the philosophy of history. This is a book that should be read by all who are interested in our founding period.
Raphael's passion to recover history is present throughout the book. Needless to say, I will not be inviting him over to watch The Patriot with me.
October 24, 2014
I had to finally give up on this book. In fairness to the author, the book that he was writing was just not the book that I was interested in reading. While a few of the "Founding Myths" discussed here were really new to me (such as the real story of Molly Pitcher), if you are even a casual reader of the history of our nation's founding, there is little surprising about the myths discussed.
But presenting highly surprising new truths is really not the goal of the author. Rather, the book goes into detailed discourse on why those particular myths have remained pervasive in our history books. The discussion is well researched and well thought out, highlighting the political and social environment at the time the stories were presented to explain why the truth has been distorted.
However well researched, it is, in my opinion, unbearably boring. I'm afraid I have given up and just skimmed through the remainder of the book.
But presenting highly surprising new truths is really not the goal of the author. Rather, the book goes into detailed discourse on why those particular myths have remained pervasive in our history books. The discussion is well researched and well thought out, highlighting the political and social environment at the time the stories were presented to explain why the truth has been distorted.
However well researched, it is, in my opinion, unbearably boring. I'm afraid I have given up and just skimmed through the remainder of the book.
September 20, 2010
This book purports to tell the "real truth" about American history. The author contends that everything we learned in fifth grade,and continue to teach our kids, is exaggerated, misleading, or downright false. Measured by his yardstick, our Founding Fathers were merely a cabal of monied white men interested only in land acquisition.
He really lost me somewhere around mid-book when he devoted two whole chapters to slamming the Mel Gibson film "The Patriot". Wake up, Mr. Raphael, the movie was fiction. He wastes another chapter carping about the phrase "don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes", failing to recognize that it was used as a metaphor for "don't waste ammunition and hold your fire until the enemy is closer".
Rapheal claims to be an historian; I think he's just a nitpicker.
He really lost me somewhere around mid-book when he devoted two whole chapters to slamming the Mel Gibson film "The Patriot". Wake up, Mr. Raphael, the movie was fiction. He wastes another chapter carping about the phrase "don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes", failing to recognize that it was used as a metaphor for "don't waste ammunition and hold your fire until the enemy is closer".
Rapheal claims to be an historian; I think he's just a nitpicker.
May 21, 2008
Ahhhh, there is nothing more refreshing than an historian who goes the extra mile to actually tell the truth.
Most of us know that the mythology surrounding the American revolution that is included in our grade school textbooks is just that, mythology. What Mr. Raphael does in this book is show us why the truth is a far better story than the lies we were fed as children.
This book humanizes the leaders of the revolution, from Samuel Adams (not the fictionalized beer man Sam Adams) and Paul Revere to Patrick Henry and Molly Pitcher. In doing so he creates a compelling narrative that shows us that the truth about our nations demi-gods is far more interesting.
Most of us know that the mythology surrounding the American revolution that is included in our grade school textbooks is just that, mythology. What Mr. Raphael does in this book is show us why the truth is a far better story than the lies we were fed as children.
This book humanizes the leaders of the revolution, from Samuel Adams (not the fictionalized beer man Sam Adams) and Paul Revere to Patrick Henry and Molly Pitcher. In doing so he creates a compelling narrative that shows us that the truth about our nations demi-gods is far more interesting.
January 5, 2018
The story of the American Revolution is well known and thought of as gospel by average Americans, but is that story more myth than history? Ray Raphael in his book, Founding Myths, aims to tell the true patriotic history behind the stories told about the American Revolution.
Investigating thirteen prominent stories surrounding the Revolutionary era, Raphael attempts to put the actual people and events in context of their time while demythologizing the past. Some of the stories are that of individuals like Paul Revere, Molly Pitcher, and Sam Adams or such events like Yorktown ending the war, the Continental Army surviving Valley Forge, and the events before Lexington and Concord. While a few myths that Raphael covered have been demystified by some pop-history documentaries since before and after the publishing of this book and others that a well-read history enthusiast already knows are false, there was one that completely surprised me and that was the events of 1774 that led up to the Lexington and Concord.
Although I knew the actual history behind the myths Raphael covered, this book was still a pleasant read if you can persevere through the repetitious references to films like The Patriot and Raphael’s continual hyping of the Massachusetts revolution of 1774. While I understood the reference to The Patriot given its prominence around the time of the book’s writing but it could have been toned down. Raphael’s description of the events in Massachusetts in 1774 are really eye-opening but he keeps on bringing them up throughout the book and given he already written a book about the subject before this one it makes it feel like he’s attempting to use one book to sell another. Finally, Raphael’s brings up how the mythical stories he is writing about are in today’s textbooks in each chapter and while I think this was book information, it might have been better if he had moved that into his concluding chapter alone.
Founding Myths is fascinating reading for both general and knowledgeable history readers which is a credit to Ray Raphael’s research, yet there are pitfalls that take some of the joy out of reading this book. While I recommend this book, just be weary of the repetitious nature that I described above.
Investigating thirteen prominent stories surrounding the Revolutionary era, Raphael attempts to put the actual people and events in context of their time while demythologizing the past. Some of the stories are that of individuals like Paul Revere, Molly Pitcher, and Sam Adams or such events like Yorktown ending the war, the Continental Army surviving Valley Forge, and the events before Lexington and Concord. While a few myths that Raphael covered have been demystified by some pop-history documentaries since before and after the publishing of this book and others that a well-read history enthusiast already knows are false, there was one that completely surprised me and that was the events of 1774 that led up to the Lexington and Concord.
Although I knew the actual history behind the myths Raphael covered, this book was still a pleasant read if you can persevere through the repetitious references to films like The Patriot and Raphael’s continual hyping of the Massachusetts revolution of 1774. While I understood the reference to The Patriot given its prominence around the time of the book’s writing but it could have been toned down. Raphael’s description of the events in Massachusetts in 1774 are really eye-opening but he keeps on bringing them up throughout the book and given he already written a book about the subject before this one it makes it feel like he’s attempting to use one book to sell another. Finally, Raphael’s brings up how the mythical stories he is writing about are in today’s textbooks in each chapter and while I think this was book information, it might have been better if he had moved that into his concluding chapter alone.
Founding Myths is fascinating reading for both general and knowledgeable history readers which is a credit to Ray Raphael’s research, yet there are pitfalls that take some of the joy out of reading this book. While I recommend this book, just be weary of the repetitious nature that I described above.
September 23, 2014
Couldn't finish. The material was very dry and most of the myths that the author busted, well, he only did that. He didn't have a very strong re-telling of what events actually occurred.
May 14, 2025
Wow, where to begin. Ray Raphael was introduced to me as a random find at a used bookstore, his book about the 1774 American Revolution, but sold to me as an incredible author with his breakdown of the constitution. Founding Myths is another incredible work that challenged even my mind, which is crazy considering how much I know (or think I know) about history. If you’re a huge American history reader with passionate ideals on our past, brace yourself. If you reject anything that tests what you think you know, you’re gonna have a hard time, and are likely reductive and idealist.
This may sound like it presents some biased narrative, but it actually does the opposite. The point of Founding Myths is to reveal the revolutionary work of a people under British rule and what they could accomplish without the need for strongman figures, false events, or at best, exaggerated scenarios. This covers a little bit of all of them, ranging from battles that were told incorrectly, to heroic figures that take away from the revolutionary fervor of small towns of farmers, to things that are outright lies. To touch on a few, Molly Pitcher was not a real person, and the smallest examination of the Revolutionary War and this fable quickly lead to you wondering why something so absurd was believed. Paul Revere did not “wake up” the towns and shout about the British coming, as by that date the revolution was well on its way a year prior; all he did was simply deliver a message. Similarly, the “shot heard around the world” was not the spark that kicked off the revolution, as uprisings had already begun in neighboring places of Lexington and Concord well before this. One more, and it’s a big one, but the war did not end in Yorktown in 1781; in fact Washington himself would likely be insulted by the notion. It actually raged on for nearly two more years, and kicked into action an early version of a world war involving the British, French, Spanish, and Russians.
More importantly, Rafael dedicates a decent section at the end around the how and why. Much of the stories we think of when discussing U.S. history served a purpose either for an agenda or a movement, which he states is the difference between history and heritage; heritage exists in one way or another to serve a purpose, history is not ours to take, but simply live with. It should make you uncomfortable, and if it doesn’t, then you should be suspicious. Whether it was the Civil War, a World War, or the Cold War, all of this was crafted in a way to create an identity for the sake of nation building and maintaining. One might scoff at the idea of Mein Kampf circulating the streets of Germany in 1933, or Mao’s Little Red Book during China’s cultural revolution, but it’s really all one in the same as our own past. When the revolutionary generation died out in the early 19th century, heroic works that led to “great man” history around this time period birthed myths from front to back. The only difference is what each nation builder did with their nation, whether it was empirical expansion, mass industrialization, building socialism, or ethnic cleansing.
Really, in its desire to uncover the revolutionary past of ordinary Americans, this drives home the problems of great man theory as a whole, and corroborates my personal view of viewing all of history through the lens of dialectical materialism; we don’t get to idealize how something was, rather, we get to observe what happened and look at the conditions that caused it to happen. As I said, don’t see this as some heretical blasphemy that hurts patriotism, but as one that uncovers the common person (and in this case, it includes African and Native Americans). Founding Myths is an incredible exercise in all of this, and I truly encourage anybody who cares about United States history to give this a read. If it challenges your beliefs, good.
This may sound like it presents some biased narrative, but it actually does the opposite. The point of Founding Myths is to reveal the revolutionary work of a people under British rule and what they could accomplish without the need for strongman figures, false events, or at best, exaggerated scenarios. This covers a little bit of all of them, ranging from battles that were told incorrectly, to heroic figures that take away from the revolutionary fervor of small towns of farmers, to things that are outright lies. To touch on a few, Molly Pitcher was not a real person, and the smallest examination of the Revolutionary War and this fable quickly lead to you wondering why something so absurd was believed. Paul Revere did not “wake up” the towns and shout about the British coming, as by that date the revolution was well on its way a year prior; all he did was simply deliver a message. Similarly, the “shot heard around the world” was not the spark that kicked off the revolution, as uprisings had already begun in neighboring places of Lexington and Concord well before this. One more, and it’s a big one, but the war did not end in Yorktown in 1781; in fact Washington himself would likely be insulted by the notion. It actually raged on for nearly two more years, and kicked into action an early version of a world war involving the British, French, Spanish, and Russians.
More importantly, Rafael dedicates a decent section at the end around the how and why. Much of the stories we think of when discussing U.S. history served a purpose either for an agenda or a movement, which he states is the difference between history and heritage; heritage exists in one way or another to serve a purpose, history is not ours to take, but simply live with. It should make you uncomfortable, and if it doesn’t, then you should be suspicious. Whether it was the Civil War, a World War, or the Cold War, all of this was crafted in a way to create an identity for the sake of nation building and maintaining. One might scoff at the idea of Mein Kampf circulating the streets of Germany in 1933, or Mao’s Little Red Book during China’s cultural revolution, but it’s really all one in the same as our own past. When the revolutionary generation died out in the early 19th century, heroic works that led to “great man” history around this time period birthed myths from front to back. The only difference is what each nation builder did with their nation, whether it was empirical expansion, mass industrialization, building socialism, or ethnic cleansing.
Really, in its desire to uncover the revolutionary past of ordinary Americans, this drives home the problems of great man theory as a whole, and corroborates my personal view of viewing all of history through the lens of dialectical materialism; we don’t get to idealize how something was, rather, we get to observe what happened and look at the conditions that caused it to happen. As I said, don’t see this as some heretical blasphemy that hurts patriotism, but as one that uncovers the common person (and in this case, it includes African and Native Americans). Founding Myths is an incredible exercise in all of this, and I truly encourage anybody who cares about United States history to give this a read. If it challenges your beliefs, good.
January 11, 2025
There are many commonly held beliefs about the American Revolution that are historically inaccurate (for example, that the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, that Yorktown was the final battle of the war, that Longfellow's poem accurately portrays Paul Revere's ride, etc.). In this book the author addresses some of those "founding myths." But in his zeal to find myths to bust he is sometimes petty (see e.g. chapter 9) and frequently wrong (e.g. much of chapter 13). He even devotes a lot of effort to debunking the storyline of the movie "The Patriot," which of course is a Hollywood-produced movie; fiction not a documentary.
The overriding problem is that the author's project is not merely to identify or correct errors in the popular memory of the Revolution, but rather has a larger purpose--to show that people we regard as heroes of that era were not in fact heroic and that events we regard as heroic are in fact myths. And thus he intends to expose "hero worship," "jingoism," "effusive patriotism," and the like. "Whoever controls the narrative controls history," he declares in the book's Orwellian final paragraph. And the reader is left in no doubt as to who the author wants to "control the narrative" and thereby "control history."
Having said that, I did find interesting the author's description and analysis of the effect of the Massachusetts Government Act--something that I had never before given much attention.
The overriding problem is that the author's project is not merely to identify or correct errors in the popular memory of the Revolution, but rather has a larger purpose--to show that people we regard as heroes of that era were not in fact heroic and that events we regard as heroic are in fact myths. And thus he intends to expose "hero worship," "jingoism," "effusive patriotism," and the like. "Whoever controls the narrative controls history," he declares in the book's Orwellian final paragraph. And the reader is left in no doubt as to who the author wants to "control the narrative" and thereby "control history."
Having said that, I did find interesting the author's description and analysis of the effect of the Massachusetts Government Act--something that I had never before given much attention.
August 10, 2025
I had no idea I was believing lies! I resent that school never taught the whole truth, and mostly taught a lot of embellished history.
The Revolution was caused by thousands of people, not a few leaders. In fact, the men who met (who are now famous) were told what to say and how to vote by the people who sent them.
Also, it appears that the Brits/Redcoats were far less bloodthirsty than the Loyalists/Tories and Patriots/Whigs were to each other and to the American Indians. Horrible things, including torture (whites to whites) and mowing down whole (peaceful) Indian villages. I doubt God was actually blessing either the tories or the whigs.
By the way, this murder and torture seemed to happen mostly in the southern states (amd both sides seemed to enjoy doing it).
Slaves were also talked about in this book. And it doesn't shy away from the fact that "all men are created equal" and should be free actually meant "all white men," - and, even though the word "men" in those days often meant "people," I have to point out that the reality was that their view was "all white males were created equal."
So, two big things I learned is that the Revolutionary war was actually the first world war, as well as the first civil war (even Indian tribes were at war with each other because of it - because most sided with England, but a very few with the patriots). France helped, then Spain and then Holland got into the fray. Russia was thinking about it when England gave up (the book explains why).
Very interesting book. I highly recommend it, in spite of the few horrors it mentions. I wish this real history had always been taught to kids (sans the graphic violence described in the chapter addressing the myth of "Brutal British".
The Revolution was caused by thousands of people, not a few leaders. In fact, the men who met (who are now famous) were told what to say and how to vote by the people who sent them.
Also, it appears that the Brits/Redcoats were far less bloodthirsty than the Loyalists/Tories and Patriots/Whigs were to each other and to the American Indians. Horrible things, including torture (whites to whites) and mowing down whole (peaceful) Indian villages. I doubt God was actually blessing either the tories or the whigs.
By the way, this murder and torture seemed to happen mostly in the southern states (amd both sides seemed to enjoy doing it).
Slaves were also talked about in this book. And it doesn't shy away from the fact that "all men are created equal" and should be free actually meant "all white men," - and, even though the word "men" in those days often meant "people," I have to point out that the reality was that their view was "all white males were created equal."
So, two big things I learned is that the Revolutionary war was actually the first world war, as well as the first civil war (even Indian tribes were at war with each other because of it - because most sided with England, but a very few with the patriots). France helped, then Spain and then Holland got into the fray. Russia was thinking about it when England gave up (the book explains why).
Very interesting book. I highly recommend it, in spite of the few horrors it mentions. I wish this real history had always been taught to kids (sans the graphic violence described in the chapter addressing the myth of "Brutal British".
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 29, 2023
Necessary book for any social studies teacher in middle and high school. Reconnecting your memories of learning history growing up in school while pin pointing where it went astray. Author discusses the importance to being critical of history and not accepting the heroic fun story. He sheds light on the significance of the collective effort instead of the individuals that usually get the credit and glory. At times he exposes parts of history you love for the good sake of understanding the full perspective. Will photo copy notes, summaries and annotations for my revolutionary unit i teach in the fall/ winter.
August 13, 2013
What a refreshing surprise.
Most books of this type are annoying in the sense that while they are debunking something, they don't do anything to make it clear what it would be important to show this to be false. In other words they are merely deconstructive. This book shows you why it is not really a good thing to put up a false image and what, the author believes, would be better to put in its place.
Let's take the case of Paul Revere and his Midnight Ride.
It isn't long after we learn about Paul Revere that we discover that he wasn't the only one on the ride, and in general things go down hill from there. So much so that I had come to the understanding that Mr. Revere hadn't even made it to either of the towns he had set out to warn.
As it turns out reading the Chapter on Revere in Founding Myths, he did make it to the first town down the road just not the second one.
There was no boat ride though, and he didn't have much to do with the Steeple lights either.
Raphael's point in taking on the Myth of Revere isn't to show how much or how little Revere accomplished but to show that Revere was one individual in a massive network that warned the entire state of what was going on.
In fact this revelation of the fact that praising a few as leaders hides the fact that a multitude of individuals brought about the Revolution is a central theme of the book. He brings it up over and over again. Doing so by pointing out that Jefferson didn't come up with the ideas of the Declaration of Independence whole cloth, but that many such declarations were being made throughout the Colonies. That Sam Adams was not a Spider sitting in the middle of a web of common people that he controlled at a whim, but a late comer to the cause of Independence.
By doing more than just debunking myths, but showing a cause and effect, giving an alternative and explaining in some cases how these myths came about and were given a life of their own, this book rises above the standard fare of the Historical Reconstruction crowd.
I recommend this book freely and to all.
Most books of this type are annoying in the sense that while they are debunking something, they don't do anything to make it clear what it would be important to show this to be false. In other words they are merely deconstructive. This book shows you why it is not really a good thing to put up a false image and what, the author believes, would be better to put in its place.
Let's take the case of Paul Revere and his Midnight Ride.
It isn't long after we learn about Paul Revere that we discover that he wasn't the only one on the ride, and in general things go down hill from there. So much so that I had come to the understanding that Mr. Revere hadn't even made it to either of the towns he had set out to warn.
As it turns out reading the Chapter on Revere in Founding Myths, he did make it to the first town down the road just not the second one.
There was no boat ride though, and he didn't have much to do with the Steeple lights either.
Raphael's point in taking on the Myth of Revere isn't to show how much or how little Revere accomplished but to show that Revere was one individual in a massive network that warned the entire state of what was going on.
In fact this revelation of the fact that praising a few as leaders hides the fact that a multitude of individuals brought about the Revolution is a central theme of the book. He brings it up over and over again. Doing so by pointing out that Jefferson didn't come up with the ideas of the Declaration of Independence whole cloth, but that many such declarations were being made throughout the Colonies. That Sam Adams was not a Spider sitting in the middle of a web of common people that he controlled at a whim, but a late comer to the cause of Independence.
By doing more than just debunking myths, but showing a cause and effect, giving an alternative and explaining in some cases how these myths came about and were given a life of their own, this book rises above the standard fare of the Historical Reconstruction crowd.
I recommend this book freely and to all.
March 12, 2018
I consider myself to be a pretty well informed Revolutionary War buff. I've read Ron Chernow's biography on Washington and 1776 by David McCullough; I've watched various documentaries on the topic and a number of other books.
I was still startled by a few things in this book.
Some of them are pretty well known. It's starting to be more well-known that Paul Revere's ride didn't happen the way Longfellow described it. But many of the myths are still repeated as fact, and it was fun to see how they were wrong and the evidence to support that.
But perhaps the most interesting part of this book wasn't which stories were myths but why those myths persist. It was intriguing that Raphael actually broke it down and explained what it was about these myths that kept us coming back. (Makes for a good story, female protagonists, patriotism, etc.) It was just fascinating.
This was one nonfiction book that I've read lately that just flew under my fingers.
I was still startled by a few things in this book.
Some of them are pretty well known. It's starting to be more well-known that Paul Revere's ride didn't happen the way Longfellow described it. But many of the myths are still repeated as fact, and it was fun to see how they were wrong and the evidence to support that.
But perhaps the most interesting part of this book wasn't which stories were myths but why those myths persist. It was intriguing that Raphael actually broke it down and explained what it was about these myths that kept us coming back. (Makes for a good story, female protagonists, patriotism, etc.) It was just fascinating.
This was one nonfiction book that I've read lately that just flew under my fingers.
August 6, 2017
This is a well researched book concerning myths around the beginning of our country. Knowing where these started is very interesting to me and I found those facts to be worth the read. The reason I didn't rate it higher is the author's tone. Sometimes, Raphael comes off as petty and jealous, especially when speaking of other more successful authors. He also comes off patronizing more than once. It doesn't make the facts less interesting, just makes me less interested in reading his books in the future.
January 23, 2010
Just like Santa Claus at Christmas, some of the stories of our founding are more interesting when we tell the true ones. Important and interesting, with a very democratic (small d) bent. Gets a little preachy at times, but there are so many interesting nuggets to draw one right past that.
October 17, 2015
I liked the different perspective of the American Revolution. As young students, we hear only the "nice" pieces of the story. It's refreshing to read other accounts as well.
September 30, 2019
This book is bunk. I don’t disagree with his historical facts. I just disagree with his personal interpretations. We were taught in a way that I knew some of these “stories” were representative of many who were involved. I think he thinks we were taught Longfellow’s poem as history. Not true. It was taught in English class.
Whites of their eyes was a metaphor for wait to shoot when the enemy is very close so you don’t waste the ammunition.
I was educated in 1955-68 K-12. But perhaps the farmers and the populace with revolution bubbling up from the people was taught to us since I grew up in PA - one of the original 13 colonies. So we studied the revolution in PA history as well as US history. That could make a difference.
Also, i think Jefferson is lauded for the beautiful way he expressed things. Many people were debating and writing about the various topics being expressed, but Jefferson’s are beautifully expressed and resonate still. Or perhaps they are seen as beautifully expressed because of how they resonate. No matter - kudos to Jefferson and his committee and those who ratified/approved his words. Committees can water things down but they stayed strong and true to what the people wanted
History taught in college was much different and my college professor taught us about influences and concepts impacting the various cultures at the time, so we learned a lot about factors influencing the King of England’s decision at the end of the war.
Part way thru this book I started thinking that the author must be a liberal because he seemed to keep interpreting things through a progressive lens. Sure enough, when I looked him up he is a Dem and has been an activist - he received his MA at UC-Berkeley. There isn’t anything wrong with any of that, it’s just the lens he can’t help using when he interprets history. The book was published in 2004 and a lot has changed. He may have been writing this in the aftermath of 911 but I’m sure education has swung very far left since then.
PS I am writing while riding in a car so please forgive if the flow of things isn’t what it should be.
PPS. And I don’t know what happened to the We Were There ... series of books for young adults. I remember them as putting you in on the ground floor of various historical events. I would pick them up now if I spotted them as I didn’t read many way back when but would find them interesting now as a reference to childhood.
Whites of their eyes was a metaphor for wait to shoot when the enemy is very close so you don’t waste the ammunition.
I was educated in 1955-68 K-12. But perhaps the farmers and the populace with revolution bubbling up from the people was taught to us since I grew up in PA - one of the original 13 colonies. So we studied the revolution in PA history as well as US history. That could make a difference.
Also, i think Jefferson is lauded for the beautiful way he expressed things. Many people were debating and writing about the various topics being expressed, but Jefferson’s are beautifully expressed and resonate still. Or perhaps they are seen as beautifully expressed because of how they resonate. No matter - kudos to Jefferson and his committee and those who ratified/approved his words. Committees can water things down but they stayed strong and true to what the people wanted
History taught in college was much different and my college professor taught us about influences and concepts impacting the various cultures at the time, so we learned a lot about factors influencing the King of England’s decision at the end of the war.
Part way thru this book I started thinking that the author must be a liberal because he seemed to keep interpreting things through a progressive lens. Sure enough, when I looked him up he is a Dem and has been an activist - he received his MA at UC-Berkeley. There isn’t anything wrong with any of that, it’s just the lens he can’t help using when he interprets history. The book was published in 2004 and a lot has changed. He may have been writing this in the aftermath of 911 but I’m sure education has swung very far left since then.
PS I am writing while riding in a car so please forgive if the flow of things isn’t what it should be.
PPS. And I don’t know what happened to the We Were There ... series of books for young adults. I remember them as putting you in on the ground floor of various historical events. I would pick them up now if I spotted them as I didn’t read many way back when but would find them interesting now as a reference to childhood.
May 4, 2017
I really enjoyed this book. I have now read, at age 52 or something like that, a number of diverse histories about the American Revolution. I have also had time to think about many of the heroes of the Revolution and to wonder how in the world a war of such immense proportions could be won without the people's thinking support. I have also become aware of some of the other stories that do not get so much press.
What I got on reading Ray Raphael's book was the reason Why? remains such an important question. I felt the ferocious responsibility of understanding the role and responsibility of each citizen. The Revolution could not have succeeded without the people, and that is a basic component we must be reminded of today.
This book also underscored the importance of understanding events from the point of view of the times in which they were conducted although I'm not sure Raphael felt that way. I believe that we can see our times and our issues that must be decided now only when we try to put on the shoes of those who came before.
No, the Revolutionists did not solve all problems that would ever confront this nation. They didn't even confront slavery. The miracle is that the stage was set for more progress (and in some cases, slides).
I recommend this for every person to read, especially Americans. I think it makes our history more approachable and easier to continue than in relying on heroes to save us. Instead, we must prepare ourselves to be the heroes of our own spheres. Most of us will never be George Washington, but we can make a difference. and in fact, some may if they take on the national and international arena. All of us can affect those areas by starting and continuing conversations, exploring causes and effects within our homes and communities just as those early revolutionaries did.
What I got on reading Ray Raphael's book was the reason Why? remains such an important question. I felt the ferocious responsibility of understanding the role and responsibility of each citizen. The Revolution could not have succeeded without the people, and that is a basic component we must be reminded of today.
This book also underscored the importance of understanding events from the point of view of the times in which they were conducted although I'm not sure Raphael felt that way. I believe that we can see our times and our issues that must be decided now only when we try to put on the shoes of those who came before.
No, the Revolutionists did not solve all problems that would ever confront this nation. They didn't even confront slavery. The miracle is that the stage was set for more progress (and in some cases, slides).
I recommend this for every person to read, especially Americans. I think it makes our history more approachable and easier to continue than in relying on heroes to save us. Instead, we must prepare ourselves to be the heroes of our own spheres. Most of us will never be George Washington, but we can make a difference. and in fact, some may if they take on the national and international arena. All of us can affect those areas by starting and continuing conversations, exploring causes and effects within our homes and communities just as those early revolutionaries did.
August 17, 2020
Many of our favorite pieces of American history have been fabricated or whitewashed. Lin Manuel-Miranda was right: “You have no control who lives, who dies, you tells your story.” The author suggests that “whoever controls the narrative controls history.” And “the better the story, the more we should be on guard.”
I thoroughly enjoyed tracing the evolution of some of these myths we conjured up over the years. At times I felt the author got a little too repetitive and passionate trying to nail his points home. And while I appreciate him trying to open our eyes to the thousands of “little guys” who also participated in founding our country, he comes off as anti-Founding Fathers. Even if we exaggerate their merits, I think it’s pretty clear those guys have cemented their heroic place in history for good reason. Non-historians can’t possibly educate themselves on all the minutia of history, and it’s perfectly okay to focus on the most notable figureheads.
Overall the author makes his point in an entertaining, well-researched fashion. Our education system could do a better job at teaching truth rather than promoting mythology.
I thoroughly enjoyed tracing the evolution of some of these myths we conjured up over the years. At times I felt the author got a little too repetitive and passionate trying to nail his points home. And while I appreciate him trying to open our eyes to the thousands of “little guys” who also participated in founding our country, he comes off as anti-Founding Fathers. Even if we exaggerate their merits, I think it’s pretty clear those guys have cemented their heroic place in history for good reason. Non-historians can’t possibly educate themselves on all the minutia of history, and it’s perfectly okay to focus on the most notable figureheads.
Overall the author makes his point in an entertaining, well-researched fashion. Our education system could do a better job at teaching truth rather than promoting mythology.
Want to read
July 5, 2019It should have been on the 2nd of July, according to Raphael's counts. That's OK. This year is a little bit different. A bit more militaristic.* No problem.
Happy 4th of July!!
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...
*If you don't like it, just tune in to Marianne Williamson "true celebration".
---
That was yesterday. I know though there were protesters, even those imagining a world "without America". Sad.
I'm glad some still like the "idea", sorry !! I meant the reality of America.
Ah! Don't mind about the 18th century "airports" gaffe.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-why-...
Happy 4th of July!!
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...
*If you don't like it, just tune in to Marianne Williamson "true celebration".
---
That was yesterday. I know though there were protesters, even those imagining a world "without America". Sad.
I'm glad some still like the "idea", sorry !! I meant the reality of America.
Ah! Don't mind about the 18th century "airports" gaffe.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-why-...
August 5, 2017
This was by far one of the best history books I've read, certainly my favorite of the Revolutionary period. Raphael not only sets the record straight, telling the truth about many of our popular tales of our countries founding, but he also explains the reasoning and dangers of twisting the narrative to suit a certain control over the listeners. The most important thing garnered from this book is the fact that over the course of our history we have taken the REVOLUTION out of the Revolutionary War. We have narrowed the scope of great works by an entire group and confined them to a small cast of people, sometimes entirely fictional ones. Most of all, our history has been skewed to excise the precedent of popular uprising, that although it was necessary to secure our country as we know it, that it might never happen again against those who now control it.
April 29, 2020
This book is equivalent to having a smart friend debunking all your misconceptions. For the interested, it's fascinating stuff. It's certainly important to know the true history, and I would even go so far as to agree with the author that we do a disservice to the true Revolution with our sanitized, individualistic version.
However, this book isn't a must read for everyone. It's a poor combination of facts and commentary. For the casual audience, it too often relies on lengthy quotes and lists that could be relegated to footnotes without losing the point. For the historians, it doesn't go in depth enough for any one topic. And for everyone, the author's constant preaching about how important the true history is and how we disrespect vast swaths of eighteenth century Americans are repetitive and annoying.
However, this book isn't a must read for everyone. It's a poor combination of facts and commentary. For the casual audience, it too often relies on lengthy quotes and lists that could be relegated to footnotes without losing the point. For the historians, it doesn't go in depth enough for any one topic. And for everyone, the author's constant preaching about how important the true history is and how we disrespect vast swaths of eighteenth century Americans are repetitive and annoying.
August 12, 2023
I generally gravitate toward history books that purport to tell the "real" story behind the myths, and this one definitely satisfied my itch in that respect. The author goes a little overboard in repeating his points (especially in the closing chapter, which is basically a summary of what he's already written), but it's a well-written and deeply-researched book, regardless. Most important to me, Raphael isn't telling these facts just to debunk our accepted history, but rather to point out that the true story, in many cases, displays much more of the positive message of colonial America and that we have done ourselves, and our ancestors, a disservice by giving just a few heroic men the whole credit for our independence. Again, a bit repetitive, but worth a read by anyone seriously interested in our country's early colonial history.
February 22, 2018
Hmm. History isn't as simple as it has come down to us. The poem about Paul Revere got it wrong; there was more to the Declaration of Independence than TJ's inspired words; Patrick Henry's speech was unrecorded and then reconstructed; the Rev War went on after Cornwallis surrendered; and what about the Indians during the Rev War.
This book tells how we got it wrong in our national mythology, how our school texts are oversimplified. There is a lot of repetition but this was a very interesting read. I guess I knew or suspected most of what the author points out but never thought very deeply about how it really must have been.
This book tells how we got it wrong in our national mythology, how our school texts are oversimplified. There is a lot of repetition but this was a very interesting read. I guess I knew or suspected most of what the author points out but never thought very deeply about how it really must have been.
September 8, 2018
Getting past the few typographical and grammatical errors inherent in a first printing, this is an illuminating read. There is more within that is deeper and more broad than that to which the Goodreads synopsis alludes, and it appears to be comprehensively researched. Every person who teaches history to students in elementary school through high school should read this work in order to gain a perspective on the American Revolution beyond the prescribed texts; a perspective beyond simply time and place, but of the people and their collective passions and endeavors at that time and place.
August 2, 2022
If you have read history beyond what is presented in the typical textbook, most of this is fairly well documented and known. I did not care for Raphael's casual tone when questioning the conclusions of established scholars, such as Joseph J. Ellis or Gordon Wood. He just has that "I am smarter than you" vibe that just doesn't resonate with me as a reader and as a student of history. It almost feels like he is attempting to write something akin to "Lies My Teacher Told Me" but falls short on the charisma in the writing in order to pull it off. The book is just ok.
April 7, 2018
There are some well-researched, fascinating corrections of what many consider to be “historical fact” in this book. However, there is also a lot of repetition, with the same points explored at the end of each chapter and then covered again within the concluding chapter. If the nearly identical “these lies are bad because...” sections at the end of each chapter were removed and this part was only covered in the concluding chapter, I would have given this book a better rating.
April 30, 2019
Tells a story of the American Revolution that sounds more accurate -- I'm not an expert, just a lay history buff -- but is certainly more intriguing than the usual Great Men Did Great Stuff narrative. Here, there's still a place for great men. But Raphael introduces us to ordinary men and women, black and white, who did great things in striving for freedom. And isn't that what the American story is really about?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 132 reviews