Was the Boston Massacre Really a Massacre? The Boston Massacre should not have been categorized as a massacre on the grounds that the British were acting solely in self-defense, propaganda was utilized to mislead the colonists of the facts, and the term massacre inaccurately describes the event. Although the British soldiers fired on the colonists, the Boston Massacre was simply the result of the colonists relentlessly provoking the British, making the soldiers’ actions self-defense and therefore, not a massacre. What started out as mild verbal attacks from the colonists, soon turned into full-scale physical assault. Some colonists such as Paul Revere attempted to promote the idea that the British were to blame for this event through use …show more content…
Many forms of propaganda were used to publicize this idea, such as Paul Revere’s depictions of the massacre and of the landing of the British troops. In his portrayal of the massacre, he used a manner of imagery to make the colonists appear to be victims of the British. For example, he deliberately had the soldiers standing in fighting formation with their weapons drawn and the colonists defenseless and disoriented, when in reality the colonists were the ones who provoked the soldiers by use of weapons like clubs, ice, rocks, and wooden planks (Revere 1). Paul Revere also used such symbolism in his engraving of the landing of the British troops in Boston. In this work, he had the title, “The Town of Boston in New England and British Ships of War,” at the top, which would suggest that the soldiers had arrived for the sole purpose of starting a war with the colonists, when in fact they had come to protect them (Revere 2). These examples show how propaganda was used at that time to alter the colonists perception of the event and lead them to believe that the soldiers had massacred the colonists. Propaganda incorrectly promoted the affair as a massacre when in reality, the situation does not fit the phrase …show more content…
Due to the use of propaganda, people were led to believe that the British soldiers were to blame for the massacre when in reality, that was not the case. The soldiers were acting solely in self-defense which made their actions justified and therefore, under the circumstances, not a massacre. During the Boston Massacre, only five people were killed as a last resort to stop the mobs advances on the soldiers. So, the Boston Massacre can not be accurately described as a massacre, since a massacre consists of the unnecessary killing of a large number of people. All things considered, the event known today as the Boston Massacre was not truly a massacre at
I believe that the British soldiers were using self defense in the Boston Massacre. Through witnesses and evidence, it is proved that the British killing the colonists was an act of defending themselves. In exhibit A, the crime scene showed how the colonists threw snowballs filled with rocks and sharp things at the British. I think that the British were only firing their guns back at the colonists to save themselves from being badly hurt. I believe that the British fired their guns at the colonists back without intentions go kill, but only to protect themselves.
Paul Revere’s “The Bloody Massacre in King-Street, March 5, 1770.” is a painting of the Boston Massacre that still represents the bloody event today. However, is this depiction an observation of oppression or propaganda with a platform? The painting depicts the British Red Coats firing on the civilians of Boston as if it were a battlefield with the citizens pleading for mercy. On the contrary, according to History.com, “A squad of British soldiers, come to support a sentry who was being pressed by a heckling, snowballing crowd, let loose a volley of shots. Three persons were killed immediately and two died later of their wounds; among the victims was Crispus Attucks, a man of black or Indian parentage.”
After the crowd cleared up only five Colonists laid dead. Paul Revere’s engraving “The Boston Massacre” functions as a piece of propaganda because it makes people want to fight for a cause and helps promote war. In Paul Revere’s engraving the image shows the Captain of the British soldiers behind them with his sword up giving orders. However, in Captain Prescott’s Testimony, he explains that he wasn’t behind the soldiers nor was he giving orders. “went myself to prevent, if possible,
In two famous engravings of the Boston Massacre, Engraving of the Boston Massacre by Paul Revere and The Fruits of Arbitrary Power by Henry Pelham, viewers are given different views of the same event through the use of various artistic techniques. If one looks closer at these two engravings, it becomes apparent that there are differences between how two groups, American Colonists and British Troops, are presented as good, evil, or morally ambiguous. Through the use of various artistic techniques such as color, shading, facial expressions, and text, Revere and Pelham were able to achieve two different expressions and opinions of the same massacre. While Pelham’s engraving appears more neutral in tone, Revere’s engraving includes much more emotional appeal and
For example, in the engraving, Paul Revere used a calm color, blue, to show the colonists and gave them no weapons to defend themselves, while many people looked panicked. Revere wanted people to think the colonists were all innocent bystanders and had been randomly attacked by the British soldiers. However, according to the text describing the Boston Massacre, the colonists had thrown items at the soldiers before they even started to shoot. The quote from said text, "...taunted the British soldiers and threw snowballs and brickbats at them..." somewhat proves the colonists were not being innocent in the matter and were the ones who caused the shooting to occur.
In Document one it shows british warships taking over the harbour. To the colonists eyes this appears as a threat. In Document three it shows a picture of british soldiers shooting into a crowd of innocent people. In Document four it talks about how the soldiers assaulted and beat innocent people in the streets. This was written in the town of Boston which makes sense considering that most of the town was against the british being in boston.
Although there are many reasons why the American Revolution started, a few of them had a larger consequence. First, the Boston Massacre had a major impact on the American Revolution. To continue, another instigator to the colonists seeking their independence was the Boston Tea Party. Lastly, The Battles of Lexington and Concord really pushed towards the American Revolution. Let us begin with how the Boston Massacre had a significant impact on the American Revolution.
Propaganda also played an important role in the process of mass hysteria. In Paul Revere’s famous engraving of the Boston Massacre, he depicts the British soldiers, also known as redcoats, shooting the helpless colonists (The Boston Massacre Engraving). This engraving became one of the most popular ones known throughout history because at the time, most colonists were illiterate and this image helped them to understand what happened. Mass hysteria was incorporated into both propaganda and crowd action, and this was only the beginning of the colonists’
On the night of March 5, 1770, the streets of Boston became a battleground, forever marking an important event in American history, the Boston Massacre. Bloodshed and turmoil ensued, leaving behind a legacy that would be examined and reinterpreted for decades, revealing the deep levels of historical significance and societal viewpoint. This research paper explores the intricate dynamics of how initial responses, shifting perspectives, and media depictions have shaped the understanding of this pivotal event. By examining the varied narratives and perspectives from the colonial era to the present, as well as the impact of media representations, we can gain deeper insights into the complexities and historical significance of the Boston Massacre.
On the night of March 5, 1770, A major conflict between the American Colonists and British soldiers arose on King street. The British were taxing the Colonists, and the Colonists were protesting and boycotting against the taxes creating tension between the two sides. Since this happened, the British soldiers are the ones to blame for the Boston Massacre. The British Soldiers are responsible for the Boston Massacre According to the Committee of Boston, (Sam Adams, John Hancock and more…) “ This is without warning of their intention and killed 3 on the spot.”
“FIRE, FIRE, DAMN YOU, FIRE! I DARE YOU!” yelled the colonists on the street as they threw snowballs, rocks, shells and clubs at the British soldiers. This was the beginning of what was called the Boston Massacre, it occurred on the night of March 5th, 1770. On this night, five men and boys were killed because of the confusion between the soldiers and the colonists.
I think that the British soldiers acted in self defense during the Boston Massacre. The colonists were threatening and provoking the soldiers by shouting vulgarly, beating people with clubs, and throwing rocks covered in snow, so I believe that the soldiers had a right to fight for their lives. Just take a moment to imagine the Boston massacre, it’s late at night and people are tired and confused. The colonists are shouting “Fire and be damned, who cares! Damn you, you dare not fire,” (Exhibit B) and the British soldiers are ready to defend but don’t know what’s going on.
If the following events didn’t take place we wouldn’t have America. In my opinion the Boston Massacre was one of the very main causes to why the Road to Revolution took place. The reason I believe this was an important cause because it was, “ the first episode which resulted in the loss of life.” It is stated that, “Four Bostonians were killed when Redcoats fired into an angry mob.”
The Boston Massacre was a street fight that occurred on March 5, 1770, between a “patriot”. They were throwing sticks, snowballs, and trash at a group of British troops. The loyalists got very annoyed with the patriots so they shot into the mob killing five. The riot began when around 50 colonists attacked a British sentinel. A British officer called in for additional troops
The Boston Massacre is an event most Americans and British students learn about over the course of their education. In America, we learn that British soldiers fired upon innocent civilians, although this may not have been the case. British historians have referred to the Boston Massacre as the "Incident on King Street". After looking over the "Captain Thomas Preston 's Account of the Boston Massacre", as well as "Boston Massacre Trial Depositions" I believe that American historians should refer to the "Boston Massacre" as the "Incident on King Street". The definition of a massacre refers to an unnecessary and random killing of a large number of individuals.