United States citizens have always had a problem relating to the colonial period of their history. They have often thought that earlier period to be less relevant, less historically significant, than the later national period of their history.
For many, the colonial era lacks seriousness; it seems trivial and antique and shrouded in nostalgia. For much of United States history, popular opinion has considered the century and a half of the colonial period to be simply a quaint prolog to the main story that followed the American Revolution.
In part, this is because the colonial period has become a natural source of folklore and mythmaking.
Since the United States, unlike older Western nations, lacks a misty past in which the historical record is remote and obscure, people have tended to transform authentic historical figures and events of the colonial past into mythical characters and legends.
Unlike England, we have no King Canute, no King Arthur, no Robin Hood to spin tales and legends about.
Instead, we have transformed John Smith and Pocahontas, the Pilgrim Fathers, and Squanto (historical figures about whom we know a great deal) into fanciful and fabulous characters.
But such has not always been the case. In the decades following the Revolution, the colonial period was an integral and important part of history.
Baca Juga: Pembahasan UTBK Bahasa Inggris, Tipe Penyusunan Paragraf dan Sinonim
Pertanyaan
1. The author implies that which of the following is the most direct result of transforming colonial history into sentimental stories?
A. It gives a much-needed nostalgic tone to an era otherwise lacking in emotion.
B. It makes knowledge of colonial history more accessible to people of all ages.