Lexington and Concord.... British Victory/ to much brainwashing

Posted by Robert Flemming on July 17, 2000 at 01:28:36:

hello,

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 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. 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. both sides were of the same nationality and blood, its foolish to say "yea we kicked the Britishs' arse" because I bet your British[ if your of european ancestry]. If people just open their eyes and make their own judgements for themselves and not let TV make your judgements, you'll really see how pointless it is to pick a side.

Follow Ups:

• Re: Lexington and Concord.... British Victory/ to much brainwashing Frank Bodden 20:56:22 7/17/2000 (1)
  • Re: Lexington and Concord.... British Victory/ to much brainwashing Dr. Uncle Mark 16:30:50 7/24/2000 (0)

Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:

: hello,

: 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 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. 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. both sides were of the same nationality and blood, its foolish to say "yea we kicked the Britishs' arse" because I bet your British[ if your of european ancestry]. If people just open their eyes and make their own judgements for themselves and not let TV make your judgements, you'll really see how pointless it is to pick a side.


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: