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.