Founding Myths by Ray Raphael

AFTERWORD: WHICH MYTHS PERSIST—AND WHY
    T en years have passed since the initial publication of Founding Myths . Much can change in a decade—or not. Today, in current renditions of our national narrative, does Paul Revere still wake up those sleepy-eyed farmers? Does Molly Pitcher bring water to thirsty soldiers and fire the cannon of her fallen “gallant”? Does Thomas Jefferson find the ideas for the Declaration of Independence “from deep within himself?” Have such tales remained fixed in our historical imaginations, or do we now pay closer attention to the historical record?
    Story by story, the answers are mixed. By comparing school textbooks published from 2001 to 2004 with those published from 2011 to 2014, we can get some sense of which tales show the greatest resiliency and which are more malleable. These answers, in turn, can provide insights into why some mythologies stand firm in the face of countervailing evidence while others cede at least some ground.
    Let’s start with the tales that show some indication of weakening. Today, more attention is being paid to enslaved people who sought their freedom by fighting with the British, undermining the myth of the patriotic slave in the Deep South. So too with Native Americans: nearly all texts now mention that more sided with the British than withthe Americans, and often they explain why. Women are presented front and center more than ever. One college textbook, for instance, features letters written by five women during the Revolutionary War but not a single letter from a male Revolutionary soldier. 1 Louisiana governor Bernardo de Gálvez, meanwhile, is a fixture in nearly every text, giving the narrative a Latino protagonist.
    These changes are not just happening of their own accord; constituencies are pushing for them. Concerted action on the part of specific communities is the clearest path to changing the historical narrative in our textbooks. Conversely, mythologies that remain unchallenged by any particular constituency are less likely to give way. Even if backcountry patriots in the South were as brutal as Tories, no current backcountry Tory constituency demands equal treatment.
    Without a constituency, can evidence alone provide the thrust for change? The short answer: yes, but only occasionally, and even then the myth will often find ways to adapt and survive.
    Take Molly Pitcher, a clear fabrication. Word is getting out, and our favorite Revolutionary heroine appears less often than she did a decade past—but she does surface still. Some texts, unaware of research that lays the myth bare, carelessly repeat the tale verbatim, while several others, knowing better, have devised ways to feature Molly nonetheless. With a wink and a nod, they offer a sweeping qualifier—“reportedly,” “allegedly,” “according to legend,” “according to tradition,” or “the story goes,” open invitations to repeat the tale without making any claim to authenticity. This classic textbook hedge allows the “legend” or “tradition” to continue intact, immunized against any and all evidence to the contrary. Never do we see the more honest formulation of what these texts are actually saying: “There is no historical documentation for this story, but we are passing it on nonetheless because it’s just so good and it meets our need to feature Revolutionary women.”
    Another strategy is to back off just an inch or two, then continue as before. Paul Revere was not the only rider, they say, but was joined by William Dawes and perhaps Samuel Prescott. Instead of a single riderwaking the slumbering farmers, we now have two or three. There is still no hint, however, of the elaborate intelligence network that was set into motion that night, or of the seven months of preparation for just such an event, or of the revolution throughout the countryside that had already occurred. Revere