Let me catch you up to speed. People from Europe came to America for LOTS of different reasons. Some came for political asylum, some for religious freedom, some tried to escape their mounting debts back home and some came for the fun of it. Either way, as time passed and the colonies grew a certain "American Culture" began to develop. All these different cultures, living thousands of miles from home and across an entire ocean, began to develop a new identity. It's not that they considered themselves as "Americans". They did, however, begin to identify with their home colony (i.e. "I'm a Virginian" etc.) The confusing part is that while this new identity was being developed, the colonists were still fully recognized as British citizens. That meant the King and Parliament (England's version of Congress) were still in control. Some colonies had more self-government than others, but all answered ultimately to the Mother Country.
When the French/Indian War started, the colonists needed British troops help to defend their land. This arrangement worked because England A) hated France and B) wanted to see their colonies survive so they could continue to make a profit off them. So the war was fought and England won, and then the trouble started. William Pitt, the British Prime Minister (their version of a president) began taxing the colonies more heavily than they were used to in order to pay off the debt racked up by the French and Indian War. And who could blame him? England sent her troops across the ocean and paid for much of the war cost up front. You cannot blame them for wanting a return on their investment. Plus, the colonies belonged to England in the first place, so what's the big deal?
The problem was the colonists had basically been left alone for many decades leading up to the war with France. They had enjoyed the freedom this "salutary neglect" (fancy phrase :-) ) had brought. Now they resented England playing a more active role in colonial affairs. As the reins tightened, many colonists began to advocate more freedom. It is important to note that the original requests from the colonists were not for independence. That is a common misconception. What the colonists wanted, at least in the early years after the F/I War, was their rights as British citizens to be recognized. To be treated like they would be if they lived in England. The cries for independence rang out only after their requests for equal rights were ignored.
All of that background leads us to this week's topic: The Boston Massacre. In March of 1770 an unruly crowd of Bostonians were harassing a group of British soldiers who were guarding a local customs (tax) house. Heated words were exchanged, the colonists threw sticks, stones and snow balls at the soldiers and shots were fired. Five colonists were killed and the soldiers were put on trial. Ironically, John Adams (the cousin of Samuel Adams who was probably the most radical leader of the Sons of Liberty) was hired to defend the British soldiers against their charges of murder. Amazingly, Adams convinced the jury of the innocence of the soldiers and they were free to go.
First, read this story of the Boston Massacre from the perspective of the Captain of the British soldiers involved in this scuffle. Then, look at this portrayal of the events by Bostonian silversmith Paul Revere. Be sure to read the explanation as well as look at the image. There should be an option at the bottom of the page to view Revere's image in an enlarged view.
Is there any difference in the way the same incident was portrayed by the two sides? If so, why do you think that is? How could the same story be told two different ways?
When I read the two different stories, I saw many differences. In this case, there is only one side that is truthful. In my opinion, the British soldgers were the most truthful on this matter. The reason that they are correct is that they dipicted every detail to the incedent. The reason Paul Revere lied about the incedent was to stir up rebellion in the American people so they could gain independance from Britin. The British told the facts, while Revere tweaked them so he could use them to make the colonists even angrier. This is understandible. Never the less, it was wrong for Revere to lie on this matter. Sin never helps.(112)
ReplyDelete*Man. the colonists must have been VERY angry to say what they said....
The two stories are really different. I think that there is one main reason why they are different. People make a story what they want it to be. The British soldiers wanted to look innocent, so when the British captain told the story, he told it to make it look like they were the good guys. He talked more about all of the colonists throwing things like snowballs and sticks, and them being beat with clubs. The way that Paul Revere showed the Boston Massacre is not as accurate because like the article mentioned, this event happened around 8 o'clock. In his picture it looks more like in the middle of the day; that is what I automatically assumed when Is aw the picture. In the picture, to me it makes it look like the colonists hadn't really done anything wrong, and that they were just innocent people being shot. It's interesting how differently the same story can be told. (160)
ReplyDeleteWow these are two totally different perspectives. We actually talked about different views on things in Diversity today. The British view was definitely the more accurate story, but it also had a little bias. Paul Revere’s view was just to cause more rebellion among the colonists. The British captain mentioned a lot of the things the colonists did to the soldiers. They threw things at them and trash talked them too. Paul Revere never mentions this, but he showed the British firing their guns at all of the “innocent people.” Christian Remick, the person that added color to Revere’s print, made sure to add just the right touches to make the event seem tragic on the colonists part. I thought it was interesting that the British captain never wanted his soldiers to fire. I always thought that they were just told to fire and they started shooting. If the colonists shouted “Fire, fire” then they got what they wanted and shouldn’t throw a pity party because of the people that died. This 20 minute event was said to have been a “milestone in America’s road to independence.” If Paul Revere didn’t twist the story up, I just wonder if this still would be considered a milestone in America’s road to independence? {211}
ReplyDelete~1DirectionNiall4eve:)~
PS Check out my profile pic:)One Direction and the Hunger Games, my 2 fav things!!!!!
These two accounts about the Boston Massacre are exactly opposites. I can't really trust either of their stories. The British Captain told a pretty good account that was probably the most believable of the two, but he kind of made it sound like he did nothing wrong.Of course he was on trial and that was the idea to make them look innocent like they didn't do anything it was all the peoples fault. Then you have the anti British people who drew pictures of it, and draged it on for soo long. This account had several information mistakes so it makes me a little suspicious that their whole account isn't true. If I wanted to learn more about this occasion I would go to a more unbiased account that wouldn't butter up one side. Overall I think it's both their faults. The anti British taunted them, and threw insults at the soilders. The British people however ignored the peoples requests, and so they should have saw it coming to them.(168)
ReplyDeleteI wouldn’t blame England for raising the taxes on the colonies after the French and Indian War. England sent her troops to protect America, so since England did something for us we need to repay them. But after you leave the colonies alone for so long, you can’t start taxing America so abruptly. I’m sorry but this is not how you react to taxation. First you should go to Parliament and talk to them, and they should listen to the colonists because they are English citizens. Then if that doesn’t work you should just live with it. It’s life, it’s not fair, but life is not fair. If Paul Revere had depicted Boston Massacre correctly then the colonists maybe hadn’t been so mad and wanted to be independent. Both sides are at fault here; the colonists had a bad reaction to the taxation and taunted the soldiers, but the soldiers are also at fault for killing and injuring many. Just like other famous American documents, Paul Revere’s picture was depicted incorrect. Both sides think they are the good guys and the other side is the bad guys.(187)
ReplyDeleteWell, the two stories are very different. I think that opinion is put into these descriptions, which causes these stories to have such a big contrast. I would definitley be mad about random taxes that I have to pay to people who are trying to control me. The British perspective of the captain talks a lot about what the colonists did to the British, like throwing things at them and cussing them out, making the colonists look terrible. Yes, the colonists pretty much started the riot, but did the British expect that there would be no negative reaction from the colonists about the taxes? The whole situation could have been handled totally different, possibly saving the five lives that were lost. The British view has way more details to it and seems the most believable, but neither side is right in the way they dealt with it. The point of Paul Revere's depicition was to stir up the colonists and to make it look like they hadn't done anything at all. It shows the colonists unarmed not even trying to put up a fight, which is not true at all. This event is told 2 different ways because both sides had a point to make: the British- the colonists started the fight, and the colonists- the British shot at innocent people and it was all their fault. Opinion and facts are totally different things. *234 words*
ReplyDeleteI thought these to stories were very interesting.I did not know that Crispus Attucks was the most famous black man in the Revolutionary War, and that he was the first death in it too. When the Boston Masacure first accrued it seemed like all these people started to gang up on the British. I think the British had a right to fire on the colonists because the colonists were throwing rocks and sticks at the British. They had a right to protect themselves and their comrades. The only thing the British could have done better with is they should have fired away from the colonists to scare them, but mabey it would not have worked.(124)
ReplyDeleteThere were many differences that the two different articles had. I think the reason they are so different is their perspective. From a colonists perspective the British were ready to fire, and also wanted to shoot them. From the British perspective they were scared and because of that they fired at the colonists. What I find really interesting was that even in a picture they would not show that a black man died. Each of the sides they both seemed to say that the other side was evil. I think Paul Revere’s drawing was made the way it is because he wanted the colonists to rebel against Britain, or it’s just the way he thought he saw the incident. (119)
ReplyDeleteThere is defiantly a difference between Paul Reveres description and the captain of the British's story. I have always been taught that the British lined up and fired at the colonists but according to the Captain that is wrong. He might just be trying to make his men look better but what would the people that were killed think about it. It could be a key in our history if we had this story without changes. The clubs thrown at the troops were a bit bad but them complaining about the snowballs was babyish. I think us Americans naturally take sides with the colonists because they are our ancestors and we respect them a whole lot more than the British.(120)
ReplyDeleteThere are many differences in the two accounts. This is due to the bias behind both of the writers. The first account states it as if the British were pressured to fire they were. As it says in the account around 400 angry rioters came after the 13 British solders and I due not believe it should be called a massacre. The Americans were armed throwing snow balls rocks and anything else they could get there hands on. I am not saying this was not a tragic event. I am just saying that it was as one sided as it was made out to be.
ReplyDelete(105)
I think that it is funny how there is a difference in one story. Colonists said that the soldiers were ready to fire when they got their. The Captain says that the troops were nervous. I think that the Captains story is true because I can see why the troops would be scared. The troops were trigger happy. When they fired at the colonists it was just out of nervousness. The troops had the right to fire at the colonists. The colonists threw stones and other items at the troops. This is a very terrible story of how Americans act.(100)
ReplyDeleteObviously the two perspectives of this event are very different. It would be crazy if they weren't. To put it quite simply, everyone wants to make themselves look better. In my opinion, the colonist instigated this massacre. The colonists outnumbered the soldiers while throwing sticks and wielding clubs and jeering at the soldiers. Now the British soldiers were not by any means always right, and murdering isn't right either. However, I feel that the soldiers were protecting themselves and doing their jobs (protecting the King's money). It does seem that if the soldiers wouldn't have fired that they would have been killed by the colonists, but we'll never know. Another thing that interest me is that in the Captain's retelling of it he said that his troops thought that he had given the order to fire, but actually the colonists were yelling at the troops to fire at them! It's so strange to me. Oh and Paul Revere's depiction of the event was so inaccurate, but a great moral booster to the Patriots! It also amazes me how little I knew on this subject before this.
ReplyDelete[186]
These stories had many differences between them. One reason why they were different was because the British soldiers wanted to look innocent. So when their captain told the story, it would not make them look like the bad guys. The British captain also told a lot of stuff the colonists did. They threw snowballs and sticks and had beat them with clubs. The colonists also trashed talked the soldiers. Now yes, the colonists started this, but if they did not have to pay extra taxes, would this have started? No. From the colonists side, it looked like the British was going to fire, but actually the British captain had told his soldiers not to fire. Any way it goes, both of the stories have some truth, but not all the truth. (132)
ReplyDeleteI saw the difference in the sides. The British dude wrote down as if the colonists were trying to be a pain in the butt. For example when he said they came at us “asking” for us to shoot. So that made it look like the colonists were at the wrong. Paul Revere, however, saw it as a free-for-all and the British just fired at the colonists taunted. Revere made it sound like the British people were in the wrong. They have different views because they are both on either side of the problem. Much like we are talking about in Diversity. In Diversity we talked about the different perspective people have on stuff like a bus running late. One side of it might be glad they are missing school while the other would be upset because maybe they are late for a test and can’t make it up. P.S. The only things I see different in the portraits are the one on the British dude’s thing has a white dog and the one on Revere’s was brown. (178) sorry so wordy
ReplyDeleteThese two stories were very different. I know that we probably have stretched the truth in the same way but i think that they need to own up to their sin and not try to hide it. The way the British captain told it, it made them look completely innocent. The are Not innocent at all. I think think that both stories are different so you know that one has to be a lie. It all depends on the perspective you are looking at... from the colonists perspective, they thought the British were going to fire so they started firing and the British were not even going to fire. It was a big misunderstanding...but the thing i dont understand is why couldnt they have told the truth????(128)
ReplyDelete-Beez Kneez
First of all, the main difference in the stories was that one betrayed the british being right, and the other showing that the british soldiers were ruthless killers. The entry made by the british soldier told that the shots were in self defense and not of murder. Paul Revere's on the other hand, says the british just shot at civilians for being rude. Revere then betrayed it in picture form. His picture showed the british killing in a cutthroat way. Now, why are the stories so different? Both sides wanted to say they were right! British said that it was completely necessary, while revere and other sons of liberty said it was a bloodthirsty massacre.
ReplyDelete-Jared Palmgren
This story is told in two totally different ways. The first being that it was all a big mistake and it was all the colonists fault. They tried to blame the colonists on the whole incident, but it really didn't work. The other over-dramatizes the whole incident and makes it sound like innocent souls were killed for defending themselves. This wasn't true either. Imagine if you are being beaten with sticks and having rocks thrown at you! I don't blame the British solders and wish that the colonists hadn't reacted the way that they did. This story is told totally different and just goes to show that it all depends on your prespective of the incident.(116)
ReplyDeleteWhoa. Talk about DRAMA QUEENS. I feel as if I have been lied to on so many levels and in some any ways. And honestly, I don’t know who to believe. The two accounts were so different that it almost made no sense. Paul Revere made it look as if the Bostonians did nothing wrong in his painting. But, in reality, the Bostonians started the whole mob. If they hadn’t started the mob, some of the Bostonians like Crispus Attucks, wouldn’t have died at that dispute. If the mob hadn’t started, the British wouldn’t have to fire to defend themselves. On the other hand, if Parliament and the King hadn’t taxed the colonists so much then there would have been no point for the colonists to protest for their rights and what they believed in. So this basically would have never happened if Great Britain hadn’t been so cheap after the war. Instead, they push off all the debt onto the colonists. And they wonder why the colonists rebelled and boycotted against everything. In theory, what I believe the point of Paul Revere’s painting was to show how superior the British thought they were to the colonists. Great Britain thought of the colonists as an inferior source to get all their debt money from. In which, made the colonists even more angry and wishing to rebel against Great Britain even more. I think Great Britain was in a huge state of shock when they lost the Revolutionary War. Well, HAHA to them. :)
ReplyDeleteopps (253) words :)
DeleteAfter reading this, I feel very different about the Boston Massacre. I feel confused now. These two versions of the Boston Massacre aren't facts, they are more of opinions from each side. It reveals how both sides felt, rather than what actually happened. I think this is true because the sides saw the Boston Massacre from two different perspectives. Each perspective was biast towards their cause. Think about it, if you were for the Americans' cause, you wouldn't tell everyone how cruel the mob was to the British soldiers, you would feel like the mob did what they had to do. The people weren't aware they were changing the story based on how they feel. They used their perspectives to tell two totally diffferent stories.(126)
ReplyDelete