Bunker Hill Myths
Prompt: What is history
The stories of history that we often make are formed from uninterested facts that seem cold and heartless. That are molded into epic dramas that show humanity of an event creating a martyr capable of rallying tired spirits and strengthening broken resolve of those under siege by an unrelenting enemy These stories are meant to teach lessons, but often have little based in fact. As legends are required to rally nations not just simple recounts of an event. It is the legend that makes an event significant. A legend can be change to appeal to its audience. Facts however, are stone unable to be shaped. As they lack the appropriate pathos to move the stubborn hearts and minds of many. One such story that became legend …show more content…
According to Tony Horwitz of the Smithsonian Magazine the battle was not a duel fought honorably between to professional armies, but a savage close range “brawl” that occurred on a hillside. While it is true the Americans held the British back twice. The Americans did by far more savage means than is portrayed in many textbooks or the PBS television show Liberties’ Kids.
Both mediums portray the battle as a story of David vs Goliath that was a dramatic duel of marksmanship between to honorable forces. However, it was quite the opposite. Due to the lack of ammunition Americans were forced to fight savagely at close range in a manner that is unsuited for description in either a children’s television show or a collage text book.
This horrific onslaught was glorified into legend by an author named “Parson Weems” (SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE))) with Col. Israel Putnam’s iconic line “Don’t fire ’til you see the whites of their eyes”. However according to Horwitz “there’s no evidence [to suggest] that Col. Israel Putnam [ever] told his men to [wait till] … they saw “the whites” of [their] enemies’ eyes”
This legend forged by “Parson Weems…decades” (Smith Mag) after the battles conclusion should be held as the symbol of American spirit that many believe it is today; and this shows history is the observer interprets it to
The stories of history that we often make are formed from uninterested facts that seem cold and heartless. That are molded into epic dramas that show humanity of an event creating a martyr capable of rallying tired spirits and strengthening broken resolve of those under siege by an unrelenting enemy These stories are meant to teach lessons, but often have little based in fact. As legends are required to rally nations not just simple recounts of an event. It is the legend that makes an event significant. A legend can be change to appeal to its audience. Facts however, are stone unable to be shaped. As they lack the appropriate pathos to move the stubborn hearts and minds of many. One such story that became legend …show more content…
According to Tony Horwitz of the Smithsonian Magazine the battle was not a duel fought honorably between to professional armies, but a savage close range “brawl” that occurred on a hillside. While it is true the Americans held the British back twice. The Americans did by far more savage means than is portrayed in many textbooks or the PBS television show Liberties’ Kids.
Both mediums portray the battle as a story of David vs Goliath that was a dramatic duel of marksmanship between to honorable forces. However, it was quite the opposite. Due to the lack of ammunition Americans were forced to fight savagely at close range in a manner that is unsuited for description in either a children’s television show or a collage text book.
This horrific onslaught was glorified into legend by an author named “Parson Weems” (SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE))) with Col. Israel Putnam’s iconic line “Don’t fire ’til you see the whites of their eyes”. However according to Horwitz “there’s no evidence [to suggest] that Col. Israel Putnam [ever] told his men to [wait till] … they saw “the whites” of [their] enemies’ eyes”
This legend forged by “Parson Weems…decades” (Smith Mag) after the battles conclusion should be held as the symbol of American spirit that many believe it is today; and this shows history is the observer interprets it to