Posted by Rich on July 18, 2000 at 03:31:58:
In Reply to: History Lesson/ Hollywood's propaganda posted by Robert F. on July 17, 2000 at 17:35:56:
While I agree with your comments regarding hollywood history, what is your point about the Lexington militia??
Their bravery stems from the mere fact that they did stand there on the Green to attempt to "stare down" the British. They had no desire to exchange blows, a result that could only result in their defeat.
Your post is filled with errors, the most glaring of which is that the American victory on Battle Road is overblown. The British stationed in Boston had to send out a relief column, with artillery, to rescue the returning force under Smith & Pitcairn which was being badly mauled by the various assembling militia companies. It was hardly a party for the British & resulted in the siege, and eventual evacuation, of Boston & the eventual formation of the Continental Army.
: hello, I've posted the following on the Against all Odds messageboard and I think it should be posted here.
: as I was reading the little paragraph about Lexington and Concord I have come to see an error which has been repeated so many times its commonplace history that even teachers teach. Lexington and Concord resulted from when my almost-confirmed great great great great grandfather Leutienant General Thomas Gage sent a regiment of british troops to those two cities to seize a supply of armaments that the American rebels have been storing. The troops did encounter those 70 odd men spoken of, but out of those 70 a mere handful were left standing after the first british volley and then they fled the field when British troops issued a bayonet charge. Capt. John Parker's own brother was killed in the engagement. a number of skirmishes followed down the path to both cities. When the British commanding officer reached Lexington, he found the armements and destroyed them, he did the same thing at Concord which signifies a Mission Accomplished.The British rear guard had a hell of a time with the scattered Americans during the return but the main regiment body returned to Boston cheering! And all you hear about is how the minutemen of Massachusetts fought so bravely against the faceless demons of hell wearing red. I know that tad of information will get alot of opposing reactions but it is all 100% true, read a unbiased history book.
: America's society depicts all of its enemies in past battlefields as monsters of humanity, I thought I saw it all until the Patriot came out, my entire knowledge was insulted for the 2 hours and a half that movie ran. Banastre Tarleton, the evil English general in the movie made Josef Stalin look like a model dad. Banastre Tarleton used questionable tactics in the war, but not even close to the extend showed in "The Patriot" He was a good general in Real Life, he even found a seat in Parliament after the war. There was even a scene when British troops set a church on fire with people inside it which NEVER happened in the course of the war, let alone shooting children for the fun of it. For god sakes I was just waiting for British troops to goose-step into battle. I'm not a supporter of either side I'm just a realist. Seeing one side of the story to a point of hatred is too far. To see those Hollywood druggies make movies like "The Patriot", "The Messenger", and "Braveheart" and portraying the British as accented ruthless killers makes me want to vomit. The British Troops were of Irish, English, Scottish, and Welsh decent. JUST like the ancestry of the Americans in the war. And not only is everything portrayed wrong. People see this TV illusion as Fact! I'm a New Jerseian of English ancestry and I know my heritage, blood is thicker than American citizenship so thats why I can see these things through. Hopefully this correction of History along with a little venting of things that trouble me will open the minds of the few who "believe everything they see on Television"
: thanks for reading.
Post a Followup