That sounds correct. That's what I was taught in school as an American. What is your point?

The second sentence is incorrect, according to the American founding myth. It was a fight between the revolutionaries and the British, with assistance of the French. It turns out, when it comes to the founding of countries, the parties you give agency to matters a lot

What a bizarre comment. Someone describes Haiti's revolution accurately (presumably), and your claim is "how dare you prioritize reality over mythology", using the (also-incorrect) American founding myth to somehow support your point?

> [...] your claim is "how dare you prioritize reality over mythology", using the (also-incorrect) American founding myth to somehow support your point?

I made no such claim. Also "founding myth" is a term with a distinct meaning separate from "mythology" in that it is not necessarily untrue - romanticizing the truth and excluding any unflattering details is usually enough.

I really wish more people read biographies, especially by multiple people who where belligerents in the same conflict. When you hear the same story told from different perspectives, you begin to question if the history your were taught was in fact, the objective "reality".

What you called "reality" was just a perspective from a single point of view, which I can safely assume was European.

What's incorrect about the American "founding myth"? Please explain what role France played in the disagreement about taxes between the colonists and the crown?

Mentally insert "under the assumption that these are myths", if that makes you feel better. I have no interest in getting derailed into an essentially irrelevant conversation.

That is absolutely not what any American high schooler is taught.

It turns out that America is a big place with many school districts. They are not all teaching from the same books.

It's 100% what I was taught, as I mentioned in my previous comment before even reading those. Where do you get such confidence in claims that are so incredibly wrong and so guaranteed to be easily rebutted?

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

One of my high school history classes presented this view; we used A People's History of the United States as a textbook.

It’s also what I was taught in American (private) high school.

I'm curious to see the curricula that are teaching this incorrect rubbish.

What role did France play in the Boston Tea Party? I'm not aware of any at all. Certainly France jumped in once they saw the opportunity happening, but the idea that the revolution was really part of the conflict with France is just wrong.

It's what we were taught when I was in school. Granted, that was 30 years ago, so it may have changed since.

The joke's on you! I was taught world history in high school and never American history.

The "American" studies class was about the Constitution, various laws, major Lobbying groups (ACLU, NAACP, FOP, NRA), how primaries work, etc. etc. American history was left to grade school.

Incorrect. The French didn't get involved until after Washington had scored a couple of (lucky) victories. Guess they didn't want to back a loser.

The French didn't get involved directly with the revolutionary war until then, but the greater impact was war with France in Canada and the Seven Years' War, which pulled British resources away from the New World.

Without France as a belligerent to England in the years up to the war, the latter would have been far better equipped to defend the colonies.

The David versus Goliath mythology that tells of feisty upstart democratic republic felling the great monarchy taught in school typically doesn't get into a Great Britain heavily depleted and indebted from years of war with France.

Undoubtedly. But saying conflicts with France significantly affected the outcome of the American Revolution is a far cry from saying the Revolution was essentially part of the conflicts between Britain and France, as if the Revolution was some kind of proxy war. That's just not true. France piled on, and the conflict with France helped set things up, but the colonies had legitimate beef with Britain and walked the path toward revolution without having to be nudged by the French.

Agreed. It's also my impression that Britain didn't take the war seriously at first. Not until after maybe Trenton did they allocate real resources (as much as they had anyway).

The irony from the US perspective is we're taught the superior force was defeated by guerilla tactics and unconventional warfare. Then we completely forgot that when we went to Vietnam. Oops.

How many French died on behalf of the US during the revolution ? In Haiti it was about 20 percent of the overall casualties.

France had maybe 10% of the actual battle losses, relative to the Americans, and less than 1% of the total war-related deaths, which includes disease and starvation.

That's how I was taught the American Revolution... What do you find so offensive about it?

As a non-american, sounds accurate to me.

Accurate. I have said basically this a number of times. And I am from the US.

Sounds about right.