I'm not asking the sub to confirm my biases -- I'm asking it to potentially blow them up (or at least critically challenge them).
I'm an American, and I went to school here. Like (I think) everyone else that goes to school in the States, I learned that the American Revolution was the result of oppressive and pig-headed policies imposed by a tyrannical government, and the conflict was one between freedom and fundamental rights against sneering, flippant oppression. The good guys won, and they did so through a combination of pluck and dash and cunning. (That's not entirely propaganda, I don't think; there's a ton of ground to cover in grade school and high school history, and kids don't really understand nuance all that well, so best to give a friendly, simplified narrative and move on.)
But I've since done some independent reading on the subject and that seems, well, incomplete at best. From what I can surmise we were actually kind of jerks. A summary of my understanding follows:
We were terrible profit centers as colonists -- we stubbornly smuggled our way around any tariffs (and everyone agreed tariffs were legal, representation or no), and there was really nothing parliament could figure out to stop it. Being profitable is what colonies are for, so that caused some predicable resentment.
We were in fact very expensive. After the French and Indian war, parliament (sensibly) wanted us to pay some proportion of the expense associated with the conflict (which was really for our benefit and was hugely expensive). So they impose some taxes.
Also we were obstinate. In response to the taxes Britain imposed, we played the "No Taxation Without Representation" card, which was probably somewhere between a genuine legal argument and a cynical attempt to avoid paying taxes. (From what I gather, the British at the time didn't tie representation to geography, which means that, arguably, we were represented by parliament even though no members of parliament were colonials.)
The Brits started to get fed up, and dug in their heels. "Look, kids. You just had a really expensive war that we helped you win. You obviously don't like the clearly legal tariffs we tried to use as means of raising revenue, because you smuggle your way around all those. Now you've come up with a reason not to pay taxes, either. Piss off, pay us. And no, we're not giving you representation in parliament. Pay your taxes." Now they were kind of being pig-headed jerks, but there's a reasonable case to be made that we started it.
This subsequently led to protests from the Americans that bordered on tantrums (the Boston Tea Party was pretty embarrassing) and some really truly tyrannical responses from the Brits (sending Hessian mercenaries to put down the rebellion and occupying Boston), but everyone was so heated up at this point that everyone had kind of lost their heads.
War ensues.
Is this reasonably accurate? (Or are we truly heroes for freedom? I mean that's an acceptable answer, too.)
Good question! Let's break this down piece by piece.
We were terrible profit centers as colonists -- we stubbornly smuggled our way around any tariffs (and everyone agreed tariffs were legal, representation or no), and there was really nothing parliament could figure out to stop it. Being profitable is what colonies are for, so that caused some predicable resentment.
This is true! The American colonies were not as financially important to the British Empire as Jamaica or Barbados - the latter of which alone generated more revenue than all thirteen American colonies in 1774. However, nearly ever farmable acre of those and the other sugar islands was devoted to sugarcane cultivation and processing. As such, American grain and timber supplies were instrumental for feeding and constructing buildings on the sugar islands. This made retaining them important for tangible reasons separate from their specific revenue generation and the somewhat less tangible desire to not let the British empire's colonies break away because they felt cranky.
We were in fact very expensive. After the French and Indian war, parliament (sensibly) wanted us to pay some proportion of the expense associated with the conflict (which was really for our benefit and was hugely expensive). So they impose some taxes.
Also correct! The aftermath of the French and Indian War required the stationing of British troops on the American frontier to keep the Americans and Native Americans apart, mostly by keeping the former on their side of the 1763 proclamation line. Being that both the economy and culture of the colonies were predicated upon constant westward expansion, this made the British government a threat to the fiscal and spiritual (not in the religious sense) well-being of the American colonists. Previous attempts to limit westward expansion had resulted in civil strife, like Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia.
Also we were obstinate. In response to the taxes Britain imposed, we played the "No Taxation Without Representation" card, which was probably somewhere between a genuine legal argument and a cynical attempt to avoid paying taxes. (From what I gather, the British at the time didn't tie representation to geography, which means that, arguably, we were represented by parliament even though no members of parliament were colonials.)
Obstinate is one way to phrase it. Edmund S. Morgan claims that Americans made the unfortunate (for Britain) mistake of actually believing the operating fictions of popular sovereignty and representation that propped up the British government. This created a view of the British - and all - government that was more idealistic than practical, and did not reflect the operation of the British imperial state.
As you said, these misunderstandings caused both sides to become frustrated with each other's inability to see what appeared to be obvious from their point of view: the supremacy of Parliament as the embodiment of all British peoples on one side, and the belief that Parliament was failing to defend the rights to individual property and fair representation implied in the British constitution. Being that there was no mechanism of the state to resolve this conflict, violence ensued.
Or are we truly heroes for freedom?
If by "hero" you mean spotless and perfect in our (their) altruism and morality, then no, you will not find that in the American Revolution or in any other period of history. Among other things, the revolutionaries' defense of property from government interference served to strengthen slavery where it was strongest. The murderous actions of many American rebels towards dissidents and loyalists was horrible. At the same time, the Declaration of Independence is a magnificent statement of a people's right of self-determination. Thomas Paine laid the intellectual framework for democracy as we currently understand it in a world of monarchies. "All men are created equal" became a credo that encouraged the death of slavery in the North, laid the foundation for national abolition of slavery, and animated the best parts of American foreign policy in the 20th century.
Sources: Edmund S. Morgan, Inventing the People
Jack P. Greene, The Constitutional Origins of the American Revolution