Explain Why There Was The Boston Massacre Not A Massacre

466 Words2 Pages
On March 5, 1770, a heated argument broke out between many strong-willed colonists and British soldiers, about the different taxes the British were making the colonist fulfill and how unjust the British parliament was. The argument quickly escalated into a fight and then a so-called massacre, soon to be named The Boston Massacre. Although, there was the killing of colonists, should this event be called a ‘massacre’? In fact, only 5 colonists were killed in the shooting, and many claim that the colonists were not innocent therefore the Boston Massacre was not a massacre. The first reason the event was not a massacre is the colonists were not innocent and did harm the soldiers. The colonists threw snowballs at the colonists and beat them with rope clubs. Also by definition, a massacre is the ‘the act or an instance of killing a…show more content…
The number of recorded deaths was 5. A small killing of only 5 people should not be considered a massacre. For example, a real massacre would be the Amritsar Massacre, where thousands of India’s people were peacefully protesting and the government shot hundreds dead. Compared to the Boston Massacre where colonists were harassing and harming the soldiers and were not peacefully protesting. The Boston Massacre was also over exaggerated to convince colonists that British parliament violently murder colonists with an unjust meaning. Which resulted in much propaganda, such as Paul Reevers paints. In his paintings he only shows the soldiers firing at the colonists, and does not include the colonists throwing clubs or snowballs. Paul Revere also over exaggerated the wounds of the colonists to make the battle appear more gruesome, also, he left out wounds that the soldiers received from the colonists. Therefore creating propaganda, and over exaggeration the event to convince that the Boston Massacre was a
Open Document