This blog is a forum for students enrolled in HIS 115A to discuss their research. Research questions will be introduced with a blog post and you can use the navigation at left to access those questions and related discussions. Reference Librarian Trish McPherson will respond to your comments with suggestions for additional resources and search strategies. It's hoped that this blog will foster an ongoing dialogue about your research.
I picked this YouTube video, titled "How to View The Boston Massacre From Today's Perspective" because it relates to several things we saw in class. The clip is a portion of a longer interview with history professor Robert J. Allison. In the clip Allison primarily discusses Paul Revere's engraving and what it means today. He discusses how historians view the past, and he reemphasizes the fact that we need to look at the past in an unbiased way, even if the sources themselves are biased. Allison explains that the engraving was actually done by Henry Pelham, who presented it to Revere. Paul Revere essentially plagiarized his work. He explains to the viewer that the engraving was written to condemn Prescott and was biased. He uses the aggressive British soldiers and the dying colonists as evidence of this. However, he states that several eyewitnesses heard the shot coming from the custom house, which would make this engraving largely inaccurate.
This clip provided me with a very intriguing point. Not only did Paul Revere add his own bias to his engraving, but Henry Pelham, who drew the original sketch, must of had his own point of view thrown into the picture as well. Essentially what is formed is an engraving that contains two layers of bias that just blurs reality that much more. I also like the point Allison makes at the end, that although their are opinions of the Boston Massacre with extreme amounts of bias, this doesnt make them wrong, but we need to look at it deeper and understand "why someone is telling us something".
this was a very informative clip, i learned that Paul added to his engraving and Henry Pelham drew the first engraving of this very biased depiction of the Boston Massacre. I also learned that people make stuff up and draw things they do not really see which is kind of annoying but then again that's what makes history difficult!
Great video. It was interesting to find out that Paul Rivere’s engraving of the massacre was different than the sketch he made during the court hearing. I think it was also interesting how Robert Allison points out that there is even a dog in the engraving showing that a man was simply taking out his dog for a walk when in fact people actually hade clubs and objects of the nature.
I love this link and your thoughtfulness about how historians have to try to be unbiased even with, as Even so smartly points out, severally-biased sources. So not only are we removed by time and distance but the so-called "first hand" documents distort the past as much as they reveal it. Is this frustrating for students to learn? Does it make students feel like giving up? Like, why bother to study history if we can never get a truly accurate picture, so the whole endeavor is pointless? I don't want students to feel this way, I want them to be intrigued, like solving a mystery, and then to appreciate how skeptical of accounts they need to be. But I do worry about the frustration factor.
Above is a link to an 'Idea of the Day' posted on the NY Times website calling for a revaluation of the Boston Massacre. This essay was posted in order to stir up controversy, and maybe some intriguing new details about the Massacre. It states that the soldiers that were involved in the shootings on March 5, 1770 may have purposively murdered Crispus Attucks and the other victims of the shootings. It brings up a point that the people murdered such as Attucks were easy to recognize and remember. And in the city of Boston where the soldiers had been for a while, an encounter between the soldiers and Attucks had to have occurred once before. Although this is just calling for a debate and asking people to question what they already think they know. It provides us with a very intriguing and highly possible situation. A situation I believe is well worth looking in to.
I found this article very interesting. We have looked into many different ways of viewing the Boston Massacre but I never thought of it as something that was a sort of a personal revenge or conflict until reading this article. It is hard to believe that the soldiers could have known exactly who they were looking for considering it was dark out and there were so many people at the event but this definitely puts a new twist on the issue and could explain why the soldiers possibly fired without a command from Captain Preston.
I think that this would be a good question to examine. I never considered personal agendas before but it seems plausible. More evidence of this is that in the Shoe Maker and the Tea Party a soldier that Hues had a run in with earlier struck him with the but of his gun. I think that it is reasonable to believe that the soldiers could have time to pick out specific targets in the crowd while Preston was trying to keep the peace. If there was intentional targeting involved, Americans might have been more enraged because it takes away the British defense that it was a chaotic riot and makes them appear more malicious.
Wow! What a fascinating interpretation. I had never read this article before and consider the interpretation highly interesting and probable. No question that the British in 1770, as well as colonists for that matter, had less regard for black life than for white life. So given the personal nature of Attucks' encounters, his height and race, he may very well have been singled out. Does this tilt the balance back in favor of murder, though? Individual score settling, maybe, but still not a "massacre" since the commanding officer did not give an order. This interpretation may raise more questions than it answers.
This video was put up by The Boston Massacre Historical Society in 2008. This contemporary clip, although short shows how things change over the years when examining an even like the Boston Massacre. It mentions how in Paul Revere's drawing of this event, how although there is a blue sky, there is also a moon showing how the event took place at night. But why would Mr. Revere put both of these in his picture? Additionally, the video points out how Crispus Attucks is portrayed as a white man in this drawing, for what reason? No one can really tell. Furthermore, the video takes a look at a painting drawn 100 years later by Alonzo Chapple that shows a more real version of the massacre because it shows General Preston in front of his men trying to stop them from shooting and the crowd being rowdy and what not with the British whereas, in Revere's depiction it shows a what seems to be peaceful Boston crowd with the British soldiers fireing into the crowd with Preston behind his men ordering them to fire. This clip shows how over time things change and although the first man shot Crispus Attucks appeared as a white man rather than a black man in both drawings things change over time when people get more and more information about things that happened in the past. This was a very interesting examination of these two paintings of the Boston Massacre i recommend you take a gander.
Doug, I liked the video of this and how it used questions as a form of conveying the message. I thought it was a good description of how you can't take things for their face values at all times, and sometimes you need to think about certain biases and other factors that go into an artist depicting events in history. I also found it interesting that he painted the blue sky with a moon, as I had never before noticed that and thought that it was really interesting. One thing that I liked at the end of the video was that he states that there is no right or wrong answer, and that you should never just accept things as they are told, and that you should ask questions and interrogate the documents and images you encounter when studying events in history.
I like how this video closely examines the engraving made by Paul Revere. I think this engraving is a huge part of the investigation of the Boston Massacre because it is easy to see that Revere was biased in creating the image. He depicted the British soldiers shooting innocent, unarmed colonists. This video points out that you really have to consider bias and people's motivation for doing/saying certain things.
I choose this video because I think that it gives a simple overview like the video we watched in class on Thursday. In this video the author also talks about things we talked in class regarding the engravings. In this video, the author talks about the things missing from the picture that were reported through writings during the massacre. It is a clear way to look at the night, and compare it to different films and pieces of literature that we have read about that night. At the end of this video, the author asks reflection questions so we can think about those things that we may not think about while watching the video, this way we can go back and reflect.
Elizabeth, you make a great point about reflection being a critical part of history. We don't need to rush to black and white judgements the way lawyers or judges do; what we are after is bigger and more important (I think) and that is understanding. We need to piece through often confusing and contradictory evidence, then think about context and meaning, to come to an interpretation and understanding of what happened. Students are usually so rushed just trying to get reading and assignments done that the reflection piece, that really cements understanding, is often missing. So it's great that you got a chance to do some of that deeper thinking and reflecting on this material.
The article I found, entitled “Remember the Boston Massacre with Pie” by Erin Clossey, discussed one event happening in Boston for the 243rd anniversary of the Massacre. A researcher from the Massachusetts Historical Society will be discussing what happened the night of the Massacre as well as “the notion of a right to a fair trial” and the moral principles of the colonists during the 1770s. This is happening as part of The Fireplace’s Fireside Chat while they serve food specific for the event such as “Goose-on-the-spit” and “Cranberries in a Slack Oven.” Clossey gives a short summary of the Massacre in her article “for those who accidentally blotted out all memories of high school.” This statement shows how society does not know many facts about the Massacre and only learned it to pass high school. Once beyond high school, most people forget everything they learned in history. The article also contains a picture: the engraving of the Massacre done by Paul Revere. For those members of society who did not recall the Massacre, Clossey is allowing them to misinterpret it by providing them with this depiction. Society will most likely believe that the Massacre was all the fault of the British and the colonists were simply victims of the situation. Clossey does not state anywhere in her article that these myths are false, so her readers are left to believe that Revere’s depiction is accurate.
What a great piece! I love the creativity and information literacy you display in locating this article. And I think you are right on in your critique of the author; she is so focused on engaging readers and getting them interested in colonial history, with all the period food and cocktail talk et cetera that she forgets the critical work of interpretation that she needs to do for her readers. She quotes the Mass Hist Society selectively-so the blog is really about getting folks to the event's celebration rather than interpreting history. No doubt people who went to the event would get a more nuanced and scholarly interpretation of what actually happened, but how many readers would actually go, rather than simply have the biased version of the story reinforced here?
When this video started, I thought it was going to be a surprisingly unbiased view on the event. Since it came from "America: The Story of Us" I expected it to contain a good amount of bias towards the situation, making the Americans look more innocent than they actually were. It contained that the captain told them not to fire, but then, the tables quickly turned. After showing a soldier striking an unruly member of the mob with the butt of his musket, it shows that same soldier getting knocked down with a club. After getting back to his feet, it shows the petrified face of the citizen as the soldier aims down the sights at him and fires, thus starting the firing into the crowd. This contradicts the story that we have heard about a soldier being struck and then the gun accidentally discharging into the crowd. By showing the soldier getting up after being knocked down, and purposefully shooting into the crowd it makes the british more aggressive rather than just defending themselves. The video also shows the citizens scattering after the shot, and doesn't show any of the members of the riot armed with anything, making them look more innocent than eye witness accounts of the situation have shown them to be. Lastly, they use the etching of Paul Revere, and seem to make it appear more credible than it actually is. While they mention that it was widely distributed, they failed to mention that he was not even present at the event! I find it rather shocking that they try to make the citizens seem much more innocent than they really are. This video could've still portrayed that the citizens were wronged, but they completely failed to mention the rowdiness of the crowd, and seemed to portray the soldiers as overly aggressive and out of line.
I was wondering about the part when one of the soldiers gets hit with a club too. We heard the story of the gun accidentally going off like you said. It was very interesting to see America: The Story of Us" portray it like this- I was so used to watching other historical events like this in my history classes in high school that I thought they were pretty accurate. Then again, its hard to believe a lot of things after reading Loewen's book!
This was really interesting, and I agree with Megan it reminds me a lot of Loewen's textbook. It definitely reiterates the fact that it is important to see past biases when viewing history. It is interesting to see how often Paul Revere's inaccurate graving emerges, even today, as a historical source for viewing the massacre.
I think that this was a very good video because it did bring up another perspective into the events that happened during the Boston massacre. I agree with Brittany when she says that "it is important to see the past biases when viewing history", this is important because then you can get an understanding for yourself on what events really happened.
This video was very interesting to me as it shows things the line between what is true and what is false. This is another source that showed me how certain things you may learn in Elementary school and middle school, such as Paul Revere and his "shot heard around the world" aren't even accurate. Videos like this one make me realize that you have to be very careful with certain information that is given to you.
Based on what we have learned about the Boston massacre I see that the British were trying to improve their profits as well as their diplomacy and power in other countries. The fact that they fought a war and made the Americans and other colonies pay for the war was only an expression of power in their part, after watching certain videos I can see that America tries to influences other countries just as the British tried to influenced and spread their way of life and policies on other countries in 1700’s. In the beginning of the video Hilary talks about ways of spreading American values in the Middle East and certain parts of African which in a way is how the British started out in the 1700’s. Although we don’t make them pay taxes since we don’t necessarily rule over them we do push our views on them just as the British pushed their views on the colonist which could evoke riots, just like it did in Egypt. The Egyptians started to riot against America and as a result the American ambassadors were the ones under attack , in comparison the British’s officials were being attacked when the colonist started to riot against Britain in the 1700’s. The second video shows anti American actions by burning the American flag it’s almost parallel to the colonist’s anti British actions like the Boston tea party. Although the video doesn’t necessarily talk specifically about the Boston massacre it does show how parts of history repeat itself. What’s happening in Egypt now is almost like a contemporary view on what is happed March 5, 1770 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93Aj1PPdF0Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSsVKVc6mwk
This is a fascinating analogy, Daniela. I think that you make a strong case for how nations use money to control behavior. Britain used taxation policy to influence colonists to be more loyal and grateful to the crown and recoup its huge war debt. The U.S. uses foreign aid money to influence and control other countries' behavior, threatening revoking foreign aid when the peoples of those nations question U.S. foreign policy. An interesting and thoughtful parallel between past and present here.
This article, A Lesson For Today from the Boston Massacre, by Michael Quinlin focused on the individuals that were affected in the Boston Massacre, not just the propaganda most people know about. He writes, “I wonder if Crispus Attucks and Patrick Carr knew each other?” This question leads to explaining the differences in the men who were in the mob on the night of the massacre and how many of them were working men. He then focuses on the creation of a memorial for the five men who died during the Boston Massacre. Quinlin said that some did not want the memorial built because Attucks and Carr and the others that night were “rioters and common thugs” so the men insinuated the firing. Some people tried to stop the memorial from being created but it was created anyway. Speeches were made at the dedication ceremony and people of Boston were proud as talks of freedom and liberty filled the streets. This shows that even though facts are known showing that the men killed were not necessarily innocent, the propaganda that was first used still remains in the minds of Americans today.
I think it is really interesting how there were some people who did not want a memorial to be made. In history classes, we have typically learned that the colonists and those killed were victims of the situation so it’s interesting that there are people who understand what really happened and know that Bostonians were the ones that provoked the British to fire.
The article I found is not necessarily contemporary, but it was very interesting. Any article I could find talked about what actually happened during the Boston massacre, but we already know that for the most part. What I read was the actual Boston Gazette Newspaper dated March 12, 1770 which I believe was the same day Captain Preston had his trial. Obviously, this newspaper took the side of the Bostonians so it is very interesting to see how misleading it is to the readers. They really went out of their way to make the British look like ruthless murderers. Some of the main things that were said were about one soldier randomly attacking a merchant. Then there was a description of only a few Bostonians and ten or twelve soldiers firing at young boys who were throwing only snow balls. Obviously we can point out some things that are a little one sided here. At the end, it gave a list of not only the men and boys who were killed, but also a list of men who were wounded. I know the language is a little hard to grasp, but I really think it’s a good way to see how this event sparked the revolution; especially when it was written this way. http://www.bostonmassacre.net/gazette/index.htm
March 12 was the day of Captain Preston's deposition (sworn statement) not his trial. The formal trial took place in October. This is great detective work though, and shows impressive information literacy. I like that you went back to read the newspaper accounts from the month in question-they were "contemporary" to the event and totally fitting here! These newspapers would certainly have strongly biased public opinion on the matter and influenced the thinking of hundreds of colonists who did not witness the event first-hand. So the slant in the press at that time is a critical window into how this event became distorted. Great piece.
This article describes how, from today’s perspective, the engraving by Paul revere was more propaganda than factual. Now that we know the actual events that occurred, we can look back and analyse this engraving. In the drawing it shows the soldiers lined up shooting at an innocent crowd, whereas both sides erupted into violence. Revere was actually made one of three engravings that were created at the time, but his was the most popular, probably because his was the most anti-British. Also an interesting point that this article makes is Paul revere only makes use of red for the British soldiers and the blood.
The article I picked that took a deeper look into the Boston massacre was written April twenty-seventh 2012. In this article the author discusses some very interesting points that surround the Boston massacre. The author states that the Boston massacre was all started by a young apprentice who was working for a barber, he had a disagreement with Hugh White of the 29th regiment on sentry duty. The disagreement stemmed over a unpaid wig bill, and then became much more. The author states that the actions of the mob were going to come out in one form or the other and this time they came out in violence. With the violence and the big event that it was the author says that the Boston massacre is just as important as any of the battles that occurred and brings just as much to history.The author does not pick a side in the argument but instead says that it is unclear and will continue to be unclear. article I picked that took a deeper look into the Boston massacre was written April twenty-seventh 2012. In this article the author discusses some very interesting points that surround the Boston massacre. The author states that the Boston massacre was all started by a young apprentice who was working for a barber, he had a disagreement with Hugh White of the 29th regiment on sentry duty. The disagreement stemmed over a unpaid wig bill, and then became much more. The author states that the actions of the mob were going to come out in one form or the other and this time they came out in violence. With the violence and the big event that it was the author says that the Boston massacre is just as important as any of the battles that occurred and brings just as much to history.The author does not pick a side in the argument but instead says that it is unclear and will continue to be unclear.
This contemporary article takes a different approach than most that discuss the Boston Massacre. While a lot of articles try to sift through the evidence to find out most accurately what actually happend on the night of march 5th, this one tries to explain the effects and implications of what occurred. Since it is written over 200 years later it is more useful to try to interpret the reactions to the event and how people felt about it than what actually happened because we can see the long term big trend far in the past but we can not see the small details. This article claimed that the Boston Massacre is what caused many Americans to distrust the British saying that Moderates found it difficult to argue that the Crown was not interested in stripping away American civil liberties by having a standing army stationed in Boston" and that Americans now saw that the British would spill blood to keep the Americans in line. This article shows that these broad scale observations are more important than the small trivial facts like what the colonists were holding.
Tyler, You make several interesting points here about the long term historical consequences to the events of March 1770. You are right; regardless of who or what was actually at fault for the event, the result was the same: a dramatic breach between the Crown and the Massachusetts colonists. And a paranoid fear that a standing army would unleash violence at any moment on its own citizens (a paranoia still very much with us!) But I disagree that the actual events of that night don't matter. If the Sons of Liberty had not successfully propagandized the event, then maybe colonists would have turned against them (the rowdy, rebellious SOL) instead of British Royal Officials. Maybe they would have seen the soldiers as protecting law-abiding colonists from ruffians and hooligans. The long term consequences hinged directly on the inaccurate representation of immediate events.
The article blog that I found was called "Rethinking the Boston Massacre." The article makes you think about if what actually happened on March 5, 1770 was served to justice or did some of the British soldiers get off to easily? In the article it talks about how the friday before the massacre there was a small encounter with three of the five colonists who died in the Boston Massacre. Also it states that how Attucks, who was a native american and black man and was also involved in the encounter the previous friday, was shot twice in the chest twice. From knowing this information it makes you think about if the British did this act of violence out of revenge or if it was self defense? This article makes you realize that there was possibly certain colonists that were pointed out during the Boston Massacre. In court only two of the British soldiers were convicted of manslaughter, not even murder. In todays day and age it is easier to look at all of the evidence and deices of this case that can help us distinguish what truly happened on March 5, 1770.
The article I found was from the Boston Globe on March 5th, 2012. This was the 242nd anniversary of the Boston Massacre and the message of the article was that the people of Boston took care in recognizing the monument of the massacre and the small flower that was placed on it. However, the article gives some background information about the event that took place on March 5th, 1770, saying "British soldiers opened fire on a crowd of colonists, killing Crispus Attucks and four others." This description gives no view of the other side of the argument; it only states that the British soldiers opened fire and killed people. This adds even more to the debates over whether or not this event was actually a 'massacre' and whether or not the British soldiers were murderers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=novDHRAitzU
ReplyDeleteI picked this YouTube video, titled "How to View The Boston Massacre From Today's Perspective" because it relates to several things we saw in class. The clip is a portion of a longer interview with history professor Robert J. Allison. In the clip Allison primarily discusses Paul Revere's engraving and what it means today. He discusses how historians view the past, and he reemphasizes the fact that we need to look at the past in an unbiased way, even if the sources themselves are biased. Allison explains that the engraving was actually done by Henry Pelham, who presented it to Revere. Paul Revere essentially plagiarized his work. He explains to the viewer that the engraving was written to condemn Prescott and was biased. He uses the aggressive British soldiers and the dying colonists as evidence of this. However, he states that several eyewitnesses heard the shot coming from the custom house, which would make this engraving largely inaccurate.
This clip provided me with a very intriguing point. Not only did Paul Revere add his own bias to his engraving, but Henry Pelham, who drew the original sketch, must of had his own point of view thrown into the picture as well. Essentially what is formed is an engraving that contains two layers of bias that just blurs reality that much more. I also like the point Allison makes at the end, that although their are opinions of the Boston Massacre with extreme amounts of bias, this doesnt make them wrong, but we need to look at it deeper and understand "why someone is telling us something".
Deletethis was a very informative clip, i learned that Paul added to his engraving and Henry Pelham drew the first engraving of this very biased depiction of the Boston Massacre. I also learned that people make stuff up and draw things they do not really see which is kind of annoying but then again that's what makes history difficult!
DeleteGreat video. It was interesting to find out that Paul Rivere’s engraving of the massacre was different than the sketch he made during the court hearing. I think it was also interesting how Robert Allison points out that there is even a dog in the engraving showing that a man was simply taking out his dog for a walk when in fact people actually hade clubs and objects of the nature.
DeleteI love this link and your thoughtfulness about how historians have to try to be unbiased even with, as Even so smartly points out, severally-biased sources. So not only are we removed by time and distance but the so-called "first hand" documents distort the past as much as they reveal it. Is this frustrating for students to learn? Does it make students feel like giving up? Like, why bother to study history if we can never get a truly accurate picture, so the whole endeavor is pointless? I don't want students to feel this way, I want them to be intrigued, like solving a mystery, and then to appreciate how skeptical of accounts they need to be. But I do worry about the frustration factor.
Deletehttp://ideas.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/rethinking-the-boston-massacre/
ReplyDeleteAbove is a link to an 'Idea of the Day' posted on the NY Times website calling for a revaluation of the Boston Massacre. This essay was posted in order to stir up controversy, and maybe some intriguing new details about the Massacre. It states that the soldiers that were involved in the shootings on March 5, 1770 may have purposively murdered Crispus Attucks and the other victims of the shootings. It brings up a point that the people murdered such as Attucks were easy to recognize and remember. And in the city of Boston where the soldiers had been for a while, an encounter between the soldiers and Attucks had to have occurred once before. Although this is just calling for a debate and asking people to question what they already think they know. It provides us with a very intriguing and highly possible situation. A situation I believe is well worth looking in to.
I found this article very interesting. We have looked into many different ways of viewing the Boston Massacre but I never thought of it as something that was a sort of a personal revenge or conflict until reading this article. It is hard to believe that the soldiers could have known exactly who they were looking for considering it was dark out and there were so many people at the event but this definitely puts a new twist on the issue and could explain why the soldiers possibly fired without a command from Captain Preston.
DeleteI think that this would be a good question to examine. I never considered personal agendas before but it seems plausible. More evidence of this is that in the Shoe Maker and the Tea Party a soldier that Hues had a run in with earlier struck him with the but of his gun. I think that it is reasonable to believe that the soldiers could have time to pick out specific targets in the crowd while Preston was trying to keep the peace. If there was intentional targeting involved, Americans might have been more enraged because it takes away the British defense that it was a chaotic riot and makes them appear more malicious.
DeleteWow! What a fascinating interpretation. I had never read this article before and consider the interpretation highly interesting and probable. No question that the British in 1770, as well as colonists for that matter, had less regard for black life than for white life. So given the personal nature of Attucks' encounters, his height and race, he may very well have been singled out. Does this tilt the balance back in favor of murder, though? Individual score settling, maybe, but still not a "massacre" since the commanding officer did not give an order. This interpretation may raise more questions than it answers.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRxJh9mcfmk
ReplyDeleteThis video was put up by The Boston Massacre Historical Society in 2008. This contemporary clip, although short shows how things change over the years when examining an even like the Boston Massacre. It mentions how in Paul Revere's drawing of this event, how although there is a blue sky, there is also a moon showing how the event took place at night. But why would Mr. Revere put both of these in his picture? Additionally, the video points out how Crispus Attucks is portrayed as a white man in this drawing, for what reason? No one can really tell. Furthermore, the video takes a look at a painting drawn 100 years later by Alonzo Chapple that shows a more real version of the massacre because it shows General Preston in front of his men trying to stop them from shooting and the crowd being rowdy and what not with the British whereas, in Revere's depiction it shows a what seems to be peaceful Boston crowd with the British soldiers fireing into the crowd with Preston behind his men ordering them to fire. This clip shows how over time things change and although the first man shot Crispus Attucks appeared as a white man rather than a black man in both drawings things change over time when people get more and more information about things that happened in the past. This was a very interesting examination of these two paintings of the Boston Massacre i recommend you take a gander.
Doug, I liked the video of this and how it used questions as a form of conveying the message. I thought it was a good description of how you can't take things for their face values at all times, and sometimes you need to think about certain biases and other factors that go into an artist depicting events in history. I also found it interesting that he painted the blue sky with a moon, as I had never before noticed that and thought that it was really interesting. One thing that I liked at the end of the video was that he states that there is no right or wrong answer, and that you should never just accept things as they are told, and that you should ask questions and interrogate the documents and images you encounter when studying events in history.
DeleteI like how this video closely examines the engraving made by Paul Revere. I think this engraving is a huge part of the investigation of the Boston Massacre because it is easy to see that Revere was biased in creating the image. He depicted the British soldiers shooting innocent, unarmed colonists. This video points out that you really have to consider bias and people's motivation for doing/saying certain things.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRxJh9mcfmk
ReplyDeleteI choose this video because I think that it gives a simple overview like the video we watched in class on Thursday. In this video the author also talks about things we talked in class regarding the engravings. In this video, the author talks about the things missing from the picture that were reported through writings during the massacre. It is a clear way to look at the night, and compare it to different films and pieces of literature that we have read about that night. At the end of this video, the author asks reflection questions so we can think about those things that we may not think about while watching the video, this way we can go back and reflect.
Elizabeth, you make a great point about reflection being a critical part of history. We don't need to rush to black and white judgements the way lawyers or judges do; what we are after is bigger and more important (I think) and that is understanding. We need to piece through often confusing and contradictory evidence, then think about context and meaning, to come to an interpretation and understanding of what happened. Students are usually so rushed just trying to get reading and assignments done that the reflection piece, that really cements understanding, is often missing. So it's great that you got a chance to do some of that deeper thinking and reflecting on this material.
DeleteThe article I found, entitled “Remember the Boston Massacre with Pie” by Erin Clossey, discussed one event happening in Boston for the 243rd anniversary of the Massacre. A researcher from the Massachusetts Historical Society will be discussing what happened the night of the Massacre as well as “the notion of a right to a fair trial” and the moral principles of the colonists during the 1770s. This is happening as part of The Fireplace’s Fireside Chat while they serve food specific for the event such as “Goose-on-the-spit” and “Cranberries in a Slack Oven.” Clossey gives a short summary of the Massacre in her article “for those who accidentally blotted out all memories of high school.” This statement shows how society does not know many facts about the Massacre and only learned it to pass high school. Once beyond high school, most people forget everything they learned in history. The article also contains a picture: the engraving of the Massacre done by Paul Revere. For those members of society who did not recall the Massacre, Clossey is allowing them to misinterpret it by providing them with this depiction. Society will most likely believe that the Massacre was all the fault of the British and the colonists were simply victims of the situation. Clossey does not state anywhere in her article that these myths are false, so her readers are left to believe that Revere’s depiction is accurate.
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.wickedlocal.com/brookline/2013/02/19/remember-the-boston-massacre-with-pie/#axzz2Lqhuu200
What a great piece! I love the creativity and information literacy you display in locating this article. And I think you are right on in your critique of the author; she is so focused on engaging readers and getting them interested in colonial history, with all the period food and cocktail talk et cetera that she forgets the critical work of interpretation that she needs to do for her readers. She quotes the Mass Hist Society selectively-so the blog is really about getting folks to the event's celebration rather than interpreting history. No doubt people who went to the event would get a more nuanced and scholarly interpretation of what actually happened, but how many readers would actually go, rather than simply have the biased version of the story reinforced here?
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iloGkp5f_Hk
ReplyDeleteWhen this video started, I thought it was going to be a surprisingly unbiased view on the event. Since it came from "America: The Story of Us" I expected it to contain a good amount of bias towards the situation, making the Americans look more innocent than they actually were. It contained that the captain told them not to fire, but then, the tables quickly turned. After showing a soldier striking an unruly member of the mob with the butt of his musket, it shows that same soldier getting knocked down with a club. After getting back to his feet, it shows the petrified face of the citizen as the soldier aims down the sights at him and fires, thus starting the firing into the crowd. This contradicts the story that we have heard about a soldier being struck and then the gun accidentally discharging into the crowd. By showing the soldier getting up after being knocked down, and purposefully shooting into the crowd it makes the british more aggressive rather than just defending themselves. The video also shows the citizens scattering after the shot, and doesn't show any of the members of the riot armed with anything, making them look more innocent than eye witness accounts of the situation have shown them to be. Lastly, they use the etching of Paul Revere, and seem to make it appear more credible than it actually is. While they mention that it was widely distributed, they failed to mention that he was not even present at the event! I find it rather shocking that they try to make the citizens seem much more innocent than they really are. This video could've still portrayed that the citizens were wronged, but they completely failed to mention the rowdiness of the crowd, and seemed to portray the soldiers as overly aggressive and out of line.
I was wondering about the part when one of the soldiers gets hit with a club too. We heard the story of the gun accidentally going off like you said. It was very interesting to see America: The Story of Us" portray it like this- I was so used to watching other historical events like this in my history classes in high school that I thought they were pretty accurate. Then again, its hard to believe a lot of things after reading Loewen's book!
DeleteThis was really interesting, and I agree with Megan it reminds me a lot of Loewen's textbook. It definitely reiterates the fact that it is important to see past biases when viewing history. It is interesting to see how often Paul Revere's inaccurate graving emerges, even today, as a historical source for viewing the massacre.
DeleteI think that this was a very good video because it did bring up another perspective into the events that happened during the Boston massacre. I agree with Brittany when she says that "it is important to see the past biases when viewing history", this is important because then you can get an understanding for yourself on what events really happened.
DeleteThis video was very interesting to me as it shows things the line between what is true and what is false. This is another source that showed me how certain things you may learn in Elementary school and middle school, such as Paul Revere and his "shot heard around the world" aren't even accurate. Videos like this one make me realize that you have to be very careful with certain information that is given to you.
DeleteBased on what we have learned about the Boston massacre I see that the British were trying to improve their profits as well as their diplomacy and power in other countries. The fact that they fought a war and made the Americans and other colonies pay for the war was only an expression of power in their part, after watching certain videos I can see that America tries to influences other countries just as the British tried to influenced and spread their way of life and policies on other countries in 1700’s. In the beginning of the video Hilary talks about ways of spreading American values in the Middle East and certain parts of African which in a way is how the British started out in the 1700’s. Although we don’t make them pay taxes since we don’t necessarily rule over them we do push our views on them just as the British pushed their views on the colonist which could evoke riots, just like it did in Egypt. The Egyptians started to riot against America and as a result the American ambassadors were the ones under attack , in comparison the British’s officials were being attacked when the colonist started to riot against Britain in the 1700’s. The second video shows anti American actions by burning the American flag it’s almost parallel to the colonist’s anti British actions like the Boston tea party. Although the video doesn’t necessarily talk specifically about the Boston massacre it does show how parts of history repeat itself. What’s happening in Egypt now is almost like a contemporary view on what is happed March 5, 1770
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93Aj1PPdF0Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSsVKVc6mwk
This is a fascinating analogy, Daniela. I think that you make a strong case for how nations use money to control behavior. Britain used taxation policy to influence colonists to be more loyal and grateful to the crown and recoup its huge war debt. The U.S. uses foreign aid money to influence and control other countries' behavior, threatening revoking foreign aid when the peoples of those nations question U.S. foreign policy. An interesting and thoughtful parallel between past and present here.
DeleteThis article, A Lesson For Today from the Boston Massacre, by Michael Quinlin focused on the individuals that were affected in the Boston Massacre, not just the propaganda most people know about. He writes, “I wonder if Crispus Attucks and Patrick Carr knew each other?” This question leads to explaining the differences in the men who were in the mob on the night of the massacre and how many of them were working men. He then focuses on the creation of a memorial for the five men who died during the Boston Massacre. Quinlin said that some did not want the memorial built because Attucks and Carr and the others that night were “rioters and common thugs” so the men insinuated the firing. Some people tried to stop the memorial from being created but it was created anyway. Speeches were made at the dedication ceremony and people of Boston were proud as talks of freedom and liberty filled the streets. This shows that even though facts are known showing that the men killed were not necessarily innocent, the propaganda that was first used still remains in the minds of Americans today.
ReplyDeletehttps://secure.pqarchiver.com/boston-sub/access/69229488.html?FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+5%2C+2001&author=MICHAEL+P.+QUINLIN&pub=Boston+Globe&edition=&startpage=A.13&desc=A+LESSON+FOR+TODAY+FROM+THE+BOSTON+MASSACRE
I think it is really interesting how there were some people who did not want a memorial to be made. In history classes, we have typically learned that the colonists and those killed were victims of the situation so it’s interesting that there are people who understand what really happened and know that Bostonians were the ones that provoked the British to fire.
DeleteThe article I found is not necessarily contemporary, but it was very interesting. Any article I could find talked about what actually happened during the Boston massacre, but we already know that for the most part. What I read was the actual Boston Gazette Newspaper dated March 12, 1770 which I believe was the same day Captain Preston had his trial. Obviously, this newspaper took the side of the Bostonians so it is very interesting to see how misleading it is to the readers. They really went out of their way to make the British look like ruthless murderers. Some of the main things that were said were about one soldier randomly attacking a merchant. Then there was a description of only a few Bostonians and ten or twelve soldiers firing at young boys who were throwing only snow balls. Obviously we can point out some things that are a little one sided here. At the end, it gave a list of not only the men and boys who were killed, but also a list of men who were wounded. I know the language is a little hard to grasp, but I really think it’s a good way to see how this event sparked the revolution; especially when it was written this way.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bostonmassacre.net/gazette/index.htm
March 12 was the day of Captain Preston's deposition (sworn statement) not his trial. The formal trial took place in October. This is great detective work though, and shows impressive information literacy. I like that you went back to read the newspaper accounts from the month in question-they were "contemporary" to the event and totally fitting here! These newspapers would certainly have strongly biased public opinion on the matter and influenced the thinking of hundreds of colonists who did not witness the event first-hand. So the slant in the press at that time is a critical window into how this event became distorted. Great piece.
DeleteThis article describes how, from today’s perspective, the engraving by Paul revere was more propaganda than factual. Now that we know the actual events that occurred, we can look back and analyse this engraving. In the drawing it shows the soldiers lined up shooting at an innocent crowd, whereas both sides erupted into violence. Revere was actually made one of three engravings that were created at the time, but his was the most popular, probably because his was the most anti-British. Also an interesting point that this article makes is Paul revere only makes use of red for the British soldiers and the blood.
ReplyDeletehttp://leverettmb.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/a-look-at-the-boston-massacre/
ReplyDeleteThe article I picked that took a deeper look into the Boston massacre was written April twenty-seventh 2012. In this article the author discusses some very interesting points that surround the Boston massacre. The author states that the Boston massacre was all started by a young apprentice who was working for a barber, he had a disagreement with Hugh White of the 29th regiment on sentry duty. The disagreement stemmed over a unpaid wig bill, and then became much more. The author states that the actions of the mob were going to come out in one form or the other and this time they came out in violence. With the violence and the big event that it was the author says that the Boston massacre is just as important as any of the battles that occurred and brings just as much to history.The author does not pick a side in the argument but instead says that it is unclear and will continue to be unclear. article I picked that took a deeper look into the Boston massacre was written April twenty-seventh 2012. In this article the author discusses some very interesting points that surround the Boston massacre. The author states that the Boston massacre was all started by a young apprentice who was working for a barber, he had a disagreement with Hugh White of the 29th regiment on sentry duty. The disagreement stemmed over a unpaid wig bill, and then became much more. The author states that the actions of the mob were going to come out in one form or the other and this time they came out in violence. With the violence and the big event that it was the author says that the Boston massacre is just as important as any of the battles that occurred and brings just as much to history.The author does not pick a side in the argument but instead says that it is unclear and will continue to be unclear.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/9e.asp
ReplyDeleteThis contemporary article takes a different approach than most that discuss the Boston Massacre. While a lot of articles try to sift through the evidence to find out most accurately what actually happend on the night of march 5th, this one tries to explain the effects and implications of what occurred. Since it is written over 200 years later it is more useful to try to interpret the reactions to the event and how people felt about it than what actually happened because we can see the long term big trend far in the past but we can not see the small details. This article claimed that the Boston Massacre is what caused many Americans to distrust the British saying that Moderates found it difficult to argue that the Crown was not interested in stripping away American civil liberties by having a standing army stationed in Boston" and that Americans now saw that the British would spill blood to keep the Americans in line. This article shows that these broad scale observations are more important than the small trivial facts like what the colonists were holding.
Tyler,
DeleteYou make several interesting points here about the long term historical consequences to the events of March 1770. You are right; regardless of who or what was actually at fault for the event, the result was the same: a dramatic breach between the Crown and the Massachusetts colonists. And a paranoid fear that a standing army would unleash violence at any moment on its own citizens (a paranoia still very much with us!) But I disagree that the actual events of that night don't matter. If the Sons of Liberty had not successfully propagandized the event, then maybe colonists would have turned against them (the rowdy, rebellious SOL) instead of British Royal Officials. Maybe they would have seen the soldiers as protecting law-abiding colonists from ruffians and hooligans. The long term consequences hinged directly on the inaccurate representation of immediate events.
Link: http://ideas.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/rethinking-the-boston-massacre/
ReplyDeleteThe article blog that I found was called "Rethinking the Boston Massacre." The article makes you think about if what actually happened on March 5, 1770 was served to justice or did some of the British soldiers get off to easily? In the article it talks about how the friday before the massacre there was a small encounter with three of the five colonists who died in the Boston Massacre. Also it states that how Attucks, who was a native american and black man and was also involved in the encounter the previous friday, was shot twice in the chest twice. From knowing this information it makes you think about if the British did this act of violence out of revenge or if it was self defense? This article makes you realize that there was possibly certain colonists that were pointed out during the Boston Massacre. In court only two of the British soldiers were convicted of manslaughter, not even murder. In todays day and age it is easier to look at all of the evidence and deices of this case that can help us distinguish what truly happened on March 5, 1770.
The article I found was from the Boston Globe on March 5th, 2012. This was the 242nd anniversary of the Boston Massacre and the message of the article was that the people of Boston took care in recognizing the monument of the massacre and the small flower that was placed on it. However, the article gives some background information about the event that took place on March 5th, 1770, saying "British soldiers opened fire on a crowd of colonists, killing Crispus Attucks and four others." This description gives no view of the other side of the argument; it only states that the British soldiers opened fire and killed people. This adds even more to the debates over whether or not this event was actually a 'massacre' and whether or not the British soldiers were murderers.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/03/05/single-red-flower-left-site-boston-massacre-anniversary/n1KOK29x44WpwnczFWR29O/story.html