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?
The Boston Massacre was an interesting and important event in American history. The British and the colonists had two very different perspectives on this event. The British say a boy hurled an insult at the soldier on duty, and that's why he smashed his gun against his head. They say the to then returned with some friends and the church bell alerted others. Soon a crowd of four hundred people were there surrounding the 13 soldiers. The soldiers say the colonists threw clubs at them and insulted them. They say after this went on for a while, and after they thought they heard the word fire come from their captain, they shot at the townspeople. The colonists however had a totally different perspective on what happened. Paul Revere immediately went to work at using this event to help people understand the tyranny of the British and how they treat the colonists. In a picture he drew you can clearly see what he wanted to use from the event, and what he wanted others to think happened to stir up anti British perspectives in the colonists minds. I think the reason the two sides had totally different perspectives is because they were on different levels. As I. The British were in charge and felt it was all the colonists fault for starting this by insulting them. The colonists however felt controlled. The British were controlling everything from taxes to gunpowder. The colonists probably felt violated, considering the British were trying to take over everything they do. I think the story can be told from two different perspectives because they thought completely differently like I said before. The British thought they should be in control of everything, the colonists felt like they were being controlled. (293)
ReplyDeleteThe Boston Massacre was a pretty important event. Even though it only lasted about twenty minutes. However, those twenty minutes made a major impact in Colonial History. Here is what the British side had to say about it. One man on the colonists side threw an insult to one of the soldiers. The Soldier than wacked the man in the head with the end of his gun. The man who was hit ran from the scene, later returning with a group of friends who joined in with the insulting. Soon, church bells gathered many townspeople to the scene. A crowd of about 400 where yelling at the British Soldiers. The British Soldiers where pelleted with many things by the townspeople. Suddenly, soldiers started to fire their guns. They claim that they heard their captain yell “fire!” However, I think that is just an excuse to get away with it and blame their captain. Three people were dead, two were seriously injured. Now, the colonists, did not try and kill/hurt the soldiers, they were just simply insulting them. They did throw things at them, but that did not kill/hurt anyone. The British Soldiers had guns and hit a man with one and fired at the rest of them. The colonists did not have guns so they could not kill them. So, The Boston Massacre could be told in the soldiers view, and the colonists view. Either side you heard from, you would most likely get a different story. The soldiers would claim it was not their fault, and the colonists would say it is not their fault. Either way, you would get a story, you just would not know which side is telling the truth. For me, if I had killed people, I would not tell people, “Yes it was our fault we killed people and we started the whole thing.” I would blame the other people. Many different ways can be told out of this story. The night of the Boston Massacre was definitely a crazy night. (337)
ReplyDeleteThere is a big difference in what was portrayed about the Boston Massacre. One perspective is told from somebody who was actually there, and the other is from a person who heard about it from rumors. The British general told his story accurate to the surroundings, while Paul Revere made his painting with the sky blue, and with the British in the line. There is also no snow on the streets, and Crispus Attucks, who is black, is portrayed to be white! Paul Revere wasn’t there, so he wouldn’t know what the scene would be like. I see that Paul Revere is trying to use this as propaganda, but at least make it nighttime, and make Crispus Attucks black!(119)
ReplyDeleteThe Boston Massacre was an important event in history even though it only lasted a short period of time. There was many different sides to the story but I am only going to be talking about two, the British and the colonist. The British say that a young man lunged at him so that was why he hit him in the side of his head with his gun. And the boy ran away to get some friends or something and later returned with 13 soldiers and they said that they were throwing their clubs at them. But that was as going on for a little while then their leading officer said something and they thought he said fire but he said don’t fire but they all shot and killed 5 colonists. The colonist said that they were just standing up for what they believed in and then the British fired at them. There are two completely different sides of the story which one do you think was right. (168)
ReplyDeleteI think there is a difference in the portrayal of this event between Paul Revere and the British Soldier. I think that is because each one wanted to prove their side to be right and the other wrong. So to do this they both changed the story. This story can easily be told two different ways. First of all the British point of view minimized the number of deaths and said that those were wounded colonists. It also shows to what I believe is true that the British soldiers tried not to fight back until they were forced to. And on Paul Revere's account of this event he gave the number of deaths. But at the same time increased the number of colonists wounded. He also talks about how The British messaged for re-enforcements once they saw the riots expanding, which I don't believe. And he also the British soldiers sound like they acted the wrong way. In all of this debate I think that I am neutral because there are parts in each of these portrayals that are true and not true. But these are different accounts of this one event, the Boston Massacre. (183)
ReplyDelete>Propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to PROMOTE or publicize a particular political cause or POINT OF VIEW<
ReplyDeleteArt, in this case propaganda, is never going to be an exact copy. The purpose of art is to capture emotion, tell a story, and interact with the viewer. Let’s break it down.
The eyewitness accounts are obviously different from Paul Revere’s rendering of the Boston Massacre.
The reasons are simple. Two different sides were trying to prove two different things. Captain Preston was trying to state that the colonists caused the trouble. While that’s partially true, his troops could have been more careful to recognize if their captain was the one shouting “fire!” You don’t shoot at unarmed men—if you consider snowballs “unarmed”. Men were killed because of a lack of communication.
Paul Revere was trying to show that the British were not the colonist’s friends. That’s why it looked like an unfair battle between the redcoats and the colonists. The setting WAS NOT inaccurate. If you observe the top left corner, you will find a crescent moon. What does that mean? NIGHTTIME. It’s art, not a picture! There’s a difference. And even though Crispus Attucks wasn’t portrayed as black doesn’t mean that we should overlook what the painting’s message is. Paul Revere was basically saying, “HEY! The Brits treat us unfairly! We should stand up to them for what they have done!” It might have been an over exaggeration, but sometimes in order to convince a crowd, you have to use a little push.
So the point is that Paul Revere was trying to get people to rise up with him while Captain Preston was trying to defend his troops for doing what they did. That’s why the stories seem different.
(296)
There is a big difference of the portrayal between the British soldier and Paul Revere. The reason is that one wanted to prove their side was right and the other wrong. To do this they both changed the story. They told the story in two different ways. The British point view minimized the number of deaths at the massacre, and that the colonists were just wounded. It shows that the soldiers did try to fight back until they were forced to take action. On Paul Revere’s account he numbered how many deaths, but he increased the number of wounded. Paul Revere made the British soldiers sound like they acted badly. I think it’s the same because they both have things that are true and not true, but they both are different accounts of the same event. (136)
ReplyDeleteI believe the reason it was told two different ways is because it was told by a british officer and a colonial rebel.
ReplyDeleteBritish side:
Captain Prescott said, " clubs and SNOWBALLS were being thrown at them, which put their lives in imminent danger" first off, a snowball isn't dangerous. Second, they were ordered not to fire which wasn't followed. third, the British troop hit the man with the butt of his gun, which, if you use common since, you hit me I hit you, but this guy thought it was smart to hit him. this started the riot, which became a group of 400 people gathered around taunting the British. they redcoats were being beaten with clubs and hit with snowballs, and decided to fire. whoever shot didn't follow orders, and they shot on unarmed citizens. Captain Prescott said it was out of defense, but it was otherwise.
Paul Reveres view:
on march fifth, 1770, five were shot to death in Boston by British soldiers. This was called a " Massacre" by Paul Revere, but it wasn't. it was an exaggeration to encourage rebellion and to urge the colonies that the British were intending to kill them. He encouraged his picture drawn isn't even close to being accurate of what happened that night, but it started a rebellion as intended.
They are both true to an extent, but Paul Revere was trying to gain followers into the rebellion and the British were trying to gain loyalists.
(247)
This event was very important to are history. This story is told by the British and Paul Revere. The British side went a little like this their was a riot starting on the street and a colonist was throwing some words to the British so the British hits him with his gun. The colonist leaves but arrives later with a lot more people. These people start throwing thing at the British things such as snowballs, clubs and etc. One of the British men said he herd the captain say fire but the captain actually said do not fire so that one guy that did not follow orders cost five people their lives. So that was the British side of the story. Know Paul Revere view on this, Paul Revere told people to take a stand for what they thought was right he was the one who started the rebellion. Each side said the other one started it so the British said that the colonist started it and the colonist said that the British started it. Well I don't blame them because I wouldn't say I started it either even if I did. So that is the two side of the story.(201)
ReplyDeleteThe two sides of the Boston Massacre story are very different. The reason for the diversity is probably that both sides wanted to make themselves look better. For the British side, the most powerful army in the world, a misfire that killed civilians doesn’t look good. If that got out, which it did, it would be bad for them. So they made up a story. On the colonists side it wouldn’t make that much noise in the colonies if it was actually their fault but if they thought that it was the British fault then that would probably make them want to do something about the problem. This is how it could be told two different ways to make themselves look better.
ReplyDelete(122)