Talk:Boston Massacre

Riot on King Street

I believe loyalists and anglophiles referred to this event as the "Riot on King's Street." I actually think a riot is a closer description to the event than Adams and Revere's depiction of it as a massacre. Since history is written by the victors and the colonists won the larger revolutionary struggle, this event has been named a massacre. Students of history should be able look beyond the name of the event and understand how the revolutionaries manipulated this event to drum up support for their cause. It does not excuse the actions of the soldiers, but they were not the sole instigators of the event. -Matt C. 26 January 2006

Actually this was called a "massacre" before there were any victors; in fact, before there was any war. It is an example of propaganda, not of victors writing history. I don't know the British name for the event though. Rmhermen 03:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Riot on King's Street" doesn't return any google hits, "riot on King Street" only one using it as an alternate name. Rmhermen 03:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the event was referred to as a "massacre" before the conclusion of the American Revolution. I apologize because I think I represented a "Riot on King's Street" as an official name. What I meant was that Loyalists and British authorities would have seen the colonists gathered that evening as a mob. John Adams, in his defense of the soldiers even describes the colonists as a mob. I do not find it unusual that there are few references to a "riot" on King Street on the good old interweb. Since it is in the interest of the revolution and later the United States to classify this event as a massacre (e.g. It portrays their actions in a more noble light), there would be little motivation for them to portray them as rioters. Had Britain been able to maintain control over the colonies (which I don't think they would have been able to do), I think it would be doubtful that they would have named this event a "massacre." I think it is an example of the propaganda being incorporated into (American) history. I believe the word "massacre" inaccurately describes the event and misleads people who may only view this event superficially. -Matt C. 28 January 2006

You would be amazed how little even comparitively well informed Britons know about the Boston Massacre, or for that matter the War of Independance. The War of 1812 , a foundation of American folklore, is a footnote in British history (in the case of the 1812 war, rightly, it was in the overall scheme of things, irrelevant, although I wouldn't suggest that about the Revolution). However, taking a British angle does throw some light on the use of "massacre". The Peterloo Massacre was roughly contemporary, had only a few more deaths, and the victors (if you can call them such) wrote the history, but it was still known as a massacre. Mind you, Tianmen Square was undeniably a massacre, and see how quickly we seem to have forgotten that.

My view, which maybe has a place here, but I wouldn't infringe on the main article, is that early US history was driven by propoganda which became folklore which has become sacred. This is not unique to America, but it isn't always good history either. Epeeist smudge 19:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a British person, I'd not heard of this incident before reading the wikipedia article. I don't think British people generally are aware of the event and so I'd say it would be called whatever the international academically accepted term is. As noted by others, rightly or wrongly it is probably seen as a minor incident from the British perspective. Certainly The American War of Independence as a whole wasn't taught to me at school and I don't think that's likely to have changed much. I pity the poor history teachers trying to work out what to cover in limited time! On the other hand the Peterloo Massacre does get covered: this is seen as more central to the democratic development of our country, and with due respect, my impression of the scale of the Peterloo event was that it was larger, and being local, more immediate for people in Britain. As User:Epeeist smudge notes, people seem to remember events in their own countries than others more readily.--mgaved 13:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also speaking as a British person, I have to point out the infeasibility of teaching about every incident in history lessons in which five people were shot. To people from the US, it might be an important incident in your history, but compared to the massacres that occurred in colonial India, perpetrated by British troops, the Boston 'massacre' pales in comparison. 81.155.139.46 (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

the difference is that the Americans acted promptly, went to war, and defeated the British Empire. Rjensen (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the lead sentence, there are many citations for "Boston Riot" to be found if you search google books for "boston riot" and 1770. At least some of these books are by Americans. I'm not claiming that this is the primary name of the event, but it is certainly a frequently used alternative. Other citations confirm King Street rather than King's Street. Is it really necessary to include a citation here? I think the CN notation should be removed, and "riot" be capitalized in Boston Riot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atannen (talk • contribs) 02:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Crispus Chicken?

I noticed that Crispus Attuck's name below one of the pictures was written as Crispus Chicken. Is this intended?

Benefit of Clergy

The benefit of clergy details are clearly wrong. You could not claim benefit of clergy for murder, but you could for manslaughter. I suspect the correct story is that they were convicted of manslaughter, claimed benefit of clergy, and then the technicality was that their punishment was to be banished to North America. I have no references, so I won't fiddle with the article, but it's clearly wrong as is.  Randall Bart   Talk  07:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture with dog

Somebody Please reaserch the part of the picture with the dog!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.57.179.76 (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)