By James Wilson
The
History Channel, the Samuel Adams Brewing Company, and the writers and
producers of the mini-series, Sons of Liberty, ought to be deeply ashamed for
the tortured view of American History to which viewers were treated the last
week in January. Artists are certainly
entitled to spin, embellish, and even introduce items of their own creation
when telling history to an audience. But
I have never before witnessed such a blatant and cynical effort to distort and
pervert the facts of the American Revolution for the benefit of a crudely
obvious political agenda.
The
American Revolution was a brand new phenomenon bursting on the world scene in
the 1770s and 80s. People of all walks
of life and all levels of wealth and education banded together to make the
democratic republic for which they groomed themselves for more than a hundred
fifty years before Lexington and Concord.
The records are voluminous; it is not as though we don’t know who the
players were, what they wanted, or the issues over which they fought.
“No
Taxation without representation,” was the rallying cry from the 1760s when
Great Britain imposed taxes on sugar and (notary type) stamps. Riots and demonstrations, not to mention
boycotts, followed the 1765 imposition of the Stamp Tax. It got so ugly the British were unable to
find Americans to collect the tax and eventually repealed the tax. Other efforts followed – including the
Intolerable Acts – sparking continuing and escalating resistance that
culminated in the December 1773 Boston Tea Party. Patriots belonging to an underground
organization known as the Sons of Liberty commandeered three British government
owned tea ships and destroyed the tea cargo by pitching it into Boston Harbor.
According
to the History Channel fiasco it was an economic conflict more than a political
one. We are told the wealthy merchants –
of Boston and Britain – want to bleed the colonials, most of whom cannot even
find jobs with which to support their families.
We are told Samuel Adams (did I mention the series primary sponsor?) is
the lonely catalyst seeking social justice for his fellow colonists as other
leaders eventually rally around him in his radicalism. Taxation without representation is never
mentioned in three nights. What is
beaten into the audience is that it is all about class warfare. The ruling classes – British government and
wealthy merchants – live to stick it to the poor of the colonies. One could paint the wealthy as the
Republicans and the poor revolutionaries as the Democrats asking only that the
rich pay their fair share. The producers
even set up wealthy John Hancock against destitute Sam Adams to symbolize the
conflict in personal terms. Eventually
Hancock’s brethren turn on him and he joins the revolutionaries – carefully and
clearly explaining to his new homeys how it is – a perfectly simplistic
portrait of a Marxist analysis of society.
The only problem is the set-up is a lie from start to finish.
In
fact Hancock (though wealthy) was protégé to the much older Adams. In fact the conflict was about the very
prosperous colonies in which people of all classes were building a life. Adams himself was a prominent political
leader and editor of a newspaper. The
British attitude was they had saved the colonists’ from destruction in the
French and Indian War – although it was more like the colonists saving British
hind ends – and now they must share some of their prosperity to pay for the war
after 1763.
Although
there was plenty of socio-economic stratification in colonial times Americans
lived in a much more egalitarian culture than the one they left behind. The literacy rate – usually a sign of shared
opportunity – was phenomenal; most people knew and cherished their history (especially
their Biblical heritage) and participated in government. The first colonial legislature had been
operating in Virginia since 1619 and all the colonies followed suit. Sam Adams was an elected official before
becoming a revolutionary leader and never operated outside the political
structure. The price of tea was actually
lower at the time of the Tea Party – even with the new tax – it was the
imposition of any restrictions on their freedom by a body not accountable to
them that enraged – as every American child should know by Middle School.
Of
course they manage to delete the Great Awakening of the 1730s and 40s as the
catalyst that made an American people under God. It is the Awakening that forged the union in
shared revelation of God in Christ that was capable of joining together to
fight a war and produce a constitutional government and create a culture –
ultimately – in which all could obtain life, liberty, and pursue happiness as
they chose. But every secular depiction
leaves out the most important part of our heritage and I’m just sayin…
The
televised depiction descends into silliness – as works of art do when they
trash reality in favor of agenda. When
the militia in Concord hear of battle in nearby Lexington they haul and hide
their gunpowder and cannon in furrowed fields in the time it takes to march
from one town to another. When the Brits
search the farm a small band of colonials opens fire from the trees and drives
them off. When the colonials see the
British fleet about to land in front of them someone says, “We’d better fortify
Bunker Hill,” like that can be done in the hour or two while the British form
and march.
In
fact the colonial intelligence system was far better than the British and they
knew of General Gage’s plans weeks in advance.
Most of the munitions stored in Concord were long gone by the time
troops arrived. Some had been hidden in
fields, but well ahead of arriving British.
Although Lexington was a skirmish only – Adams and Hancock too were long
gone – Concord was a pitched battle in and around Concord Bridge where the
“shot heard round the world was fired,” and a numerically superior militia tore
into and drove off the advancing British.
Later in the day a relief force arrived to enable the British retreat to
Boston; many more were killed by colonial snipers on that march. Oh, and the Battle of Bunker Hill was fought
on the previously fortified Breeds Hill.
The
History Channel seems never to have heard of either Concord Bridge or Breeds
Hill. But they claim to know a lot about
class warfare. Which makes them
politically correct and factually idiotic.
Frankly, given the abundance of documentation on these events and their
causes it is inconceivable that a true story could be so utterly distorted
unless the storytellers choosing to re-invent history for reasons that seem
good to them. In case anyone is
wondering, I do hold it against them. Lying
is evil. Always.
When
the Hebrew people were decimated and led into exile by first the invading
Assyrians and later the Babylonians – both from modern Iraq – God promised to
restore them beyond imagination. He
promised them such abundance they would be a blessing to their neighbors, and
He has kept that promise in spades with the founding and flourishing of modern
Israel. But He laid a condition on the
promise. “These are the things you are
to do,” says God in Zechariah 8:16-17, “Speak the truth to each other, and
render true and sound judgments in your courts; do not plot evil against your
neighbor and do not love to swear falsely.
I hate all this,’ declares the Lord.”
I
hope every reader will let the History Channel and Samuel Adams Breweries know
just what you think of their lying and manipulating of our stories, our
founding fathers, and the American people, Christian or no. I hope they pay a much higher price than the
costs of production and advertising – that others may profit from their lesson
learned. But of far greater importance
is the import of the promise and its accompanying condition for each reader. If we would hold the plutocrats of beer and
broadcasting – and government – accountable for truth and fair dealing we had
better repent of our dealings with each other and render true accounts
ourselves.
Whether
we think ourselves capable – even under God – of turning back the tide of
abusive power abroad in the land today is neither here nor there. The people of the Bible – at God’s insistence
as much as His inspiration – invented the concept that He is God of each as
well as God of all. With that came the
concept of personal responsibility. At
the end of the day it is not about all so much as it is about each. Babylon is on the way, but so is our
redemption if we will have it.
James A. Wilson is the author of Living
As Ambassadors of Relationships and The
Holy Spirit and the End Times – available at local bookstores or by
e-mailing him at
praynorthstate@charter.net
No comments:
Post a Comment