How about calling it the "Boston Misunderstanding Causing Unarmed Civilians
to be Killed by Armed British Soldiers."
In a message dated 11/12/2008 1:07:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Folks,
The following is meat of the description of the "massacre" that led to the
beginning of the Revolutionary War:
"A tense situation because of a heavy British military presence in Boston
boiled over to incite brawls between soldiers and civilians and eventually
led to troops discharging their muskets after being attacked by a rioting
crowd. Three civilians were killed at the scene of the shooting, and two
died after the incident."
It is historically correct to refer to the above incident as "The Boston
Massacre", yet the word "Massacre" seems as out of place here as the term
"genocide" was in the post by Tony Lister in regard to Nat Turner. It is
perhaps true that the victor write history, but it seems to me that the
victor also bears some responsibility to provide accuracy and to show more
than one side of an issue.
Anne
Anne Pemberton
[log in to unmask]http://www.erols.com/apemberthttp://www.educationalsynthesis.org
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
**************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news &
more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?redir=htt
p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
