The Boston Massacre

You mean the Boston Tea Party? I've never heard it refered to as a massacre.

I wonder if you couldn't just google up a British history of it.

Thats a good ideal Ferret. You deserve a rep for it...

Shadow_Ferret said:

You mean the Boston Tea Party? I've never heard it refered to as a massacre.

Click to expand...

The Boston Massacre was not the Boston Tea Party. It was an incident in which British troops fired upon civilians, on March 5, 1770, with five fatalities. Including Crispus Attucks, a black sailor who is counted among the first American deaths in the Revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre

caw

The John Adams series has a great look at this incident. John Adams was the lawyer who defended Captain Preston, the man charged with ordering the firing.

Basically, it goes more or less that he and his troops were just doing a patrol. Angry patriots started gathering and began throwing rocks, snow, and ice at them. The soldiers felt threatened, confused, and scared. Two of them fired into the crowd before being ordered, perhaps out of confusion, perhaps out of malice, perhaps out of self-defense. At this point, believing the order to "fire" had been given, others fired as well. Thanks to Adams' defence, the jury found Preston innocent--he didn't order the firing. The first two soldiers who fired were found guilty of manslaughter.

Now twist away.

The question is whether British schools turn it in their favor and blame the rioting crowd for "attacking" the soldiers, or just teach it like it was.

Probably the same way they teach Bloody Sunday.

Sorry about that...old views die hard.

I often wonder how the Brits view that period of history also. I wonder how the Mexicans teach about the American-Mexican war, which we ignore in our schools. Our schools (grade school-HS) barely mention conflict with Natives if it portrays us in a negative way either.

All cultures are like this. History is rarely objective.

How Americans learn about the Boston Massacre, etc. Sadly, many don't, and so history goes merrily on, repeating itself ad nauseum. History would make a tiresome novelist.

But I'd be interested, too, in some firsthand accounts from Brits as to the slant of their history lessons.

Seconding kuwisdelu on the John Adams series. Absolutely top-rate, and the treatment of the Boston Massacre was pretty even-handed. There was the horror of the five slain, and there was sympathy for the soldiers; understandable rage from the colonists, understandable but far less noble revenge lust in the same, as well as brilliantly depicted "crowd" coercion of the witnesses to forget the facts and go with the desired spin.

Prozyan said:

In America, it is portrayed as a deliberate and malicious act instead of what it most probably was - a tragic accident.

Click to expand...

A few miles south of Boston, I was always taught that it was a tragic accident spun by the media of the time.

Prozyan said:

Thats interesting. Here, in what could arguably be called the uncivilized Southwest , we were taught as I outlined above. Also, no real mention of the Loyalist movement, outside of Benedict Arnold.

Click to expand...

I'm trying to think if in the younger grades we were taught simply the bare American facts, but I think it went more like this:

Kindergarten/Grade 1: "Boston Massacre, British shot on Americans, DID YOU KNOW Paul Revere made this image but it wasn't true? The truth was they were provoked!"

Grade 3/4: "Boston Massacre, did you KNOW they were provoked? Paul Revere made this picture up, he wasn't even there!"

Grade 7/8: "Paul Revere, that bastard propagandist!"

Very sympathetic toward the actual facts of the massacre, I'd say.

Prozyan said:

Thats interesting. Here, in what could arguably be called the uncivilized Southwest , we were taught as I outlined above. Also, no real mention of the Loyalist movement, outside of Benedict Arnold.

Click to expand...

My section of the uncivilized southwest (aka LA/OC area) taught me what DangerJane learned.

Prozyan said:

As an American, I know how the Revolutionary War and surrounding events (including the Boston Tea Party and the Boston Massace - two separate events) are taught in the school system. What I'm interested in is how these events are taught in British schools.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for the entire British education system, but I can describe my history lessons.

I remember learning about Boston. There wasn't a catchy name. It wasn't a massacre or an incident. It was x number of people dying in these circumstances. The Boston Tea Party is called the same thing. The Revolutionary War is called the American Revolution, to differentiate it from other revolutions.

The emphasis was on analysing sources. We'd read accounts from people who were there (on all sides), modern history books, etc. Then we'd discuss the bias of the sources and try to piece together what might have happened and why.

We weren't marked right or wrong for our conclusions. It was about how we justified them based on the sources. We were expected to critique how reliable sources were.

Finni said:

Probably the same way they teach Bloody Sunday.

Click to expand...

You're right, it was just the same. We were given sources from all sides and asked to analyse them. It was taught under the name Bloody Sunday.

Prozyan:
I'm wondering if some of the British members of the board could give some insight into how the Boston Massacre and, perhaps, the Colonial War in general are covered in their history books.

Click to expand...

If you google for GCSE or A Level syllabuses, it should give you an idea of how the subject should be taught.

As Polenth says, the emphasis in history lessons over here is analysis of sources, which means that students are exposed to a number of different perspectives on a particular topic.

If it's any use, I'd never heard of the Boston Massacre until I went on holiday to Boston and learnt about it in a museum. My friend and I read the stuff they put on information cards and watched a short video recreation and came to the conclusion that it was more a skirmish than an actual massacre.

MM

Off topic/minor rant alarm!

It's interesting, the assumption that a minor skirmish in American history would recieve any significant treatment in the UK's education system. I don't know if it is, or not, I'm not English. It may well be, but then, there's been many, many massacres in UK history. Why this one in particular?

I saw an American accuse an Australian of ignorance on the internet once (not here), because they had asked about some facet of the USA's Byzantine electoral system. The American was extremely affronted that American politics would be so poorly taught in Australian civics classes.

To the original poster, it might be better to compare attitudes to the American War of Independence as a whole. I'm certain that's taught at least.




(Everything I know about American history comes from Peanuts history specials)

Another interesting point someone made to me recently. Until she saw the HBO John Adams series, she never knew that Adams had defended the British soldiers in their trial. Heh, that was definitely something the history texts didn't mention in my day -- it would have made Adams seem so -- complex. And we all know that complexity is unpatriotic.

Prozyan:
This one in particular because it stood out as one events that led directly to colonial sentiment turning against British rule. It was an event that was used, quite successfully, to stir up sedition within the colonies and is considered in the same league as the Tea Act and the Boston Tea Party.

Click to expand...

Having had a quick look-see on Google, the American Revolution/War of Independence doesn't seem to be covered in current GCSE syllabuses (those are the exams taken by students at age 16). It does seem to be covered in some A Level syllabuses, where the focus is on events running up to the Declaration of Independence, so I would expect it to get some 'face time'.

In terms of cultural significance on this side of the pond however, I'd suggest that we're not as aware of it as the Americans are, which might make it a poor example for the purposes of your novel (although maybe the fact that it doesn't register on the cultural/social radar over here might make it perfect - it depends on the purpose of the scene).

In comparison, if you were looking for a Brit-specific example where we behaved in an atrocious manner but don't tend to view it as such, you could take any number of events in Irish history (from Cromwell's campaigns in the 17th century, through to British treatment of the Irish during the Potato Famine, through to Bloody Sunday). There are numerous 'glorious' events in our relations with other countries as well, e.g. the fire storm in Dresden during World War II, our role in the Opium War, a helluva lot in India ... Yeah. Britain really did itself proud.

MM

The only American history I studied in High School (aged 11-16) was the Vietman War as a modern history project. It's still not on the history syllabus on most schools now.

American AW's - don't get upset - it's just that there so much more to cover closer to home - The Viking Invasion, Roman Invasion, Saxon Britain, Norman Invasion, 7-800 years of royal dynasties (everyone loves Henry V111 - dirty dog), Civil War, Industrial Revolution, Collapse of the Empire, WW1, WW2, etc.

No offence, but most Brit's don't give a s**t that America went independent - we had a lot going on in those days -you win some, you lose some. We tend to look at it more as an episode in our ongoing bickering with the French, so it's not surprising it's not covered at school.

American History is an elective subject post-16, usually as part of an Amercian Studies/American Literature programme. Sadly, most Brits gets their US history from Gone with the Wind and The Last of the Mohicans.

Having said that, when I moved to the US last year (married 12 years to a good old Iowa boy), the first book a bought was Don't Know Much About American History (show willing and all that) and, reading it, I knew more than I realised.

Funny aside - on 4th July this year a friend of our family as me how the British celebrate Independence Day. I just said, "We don't do that one," and offered him another beer!

As a Brit I can safely say I learned very little about US history ( we concentrated more on Europe. That's more than enough history to be going on with). I wasn't even aware there was a massacre ( I thought you were talking about the Tea Party too).

I mean I can name all your states, and I was taught about some of the really major events, ( like, ya know, joining up for the world wars, and the declaration of Independence, and the civil warand Ole Abe and stuff. We did some on modern day US though) but other than that not much really. Kinda like how much you learn about europe lol.

Mind you I only did 'o' level history ( um, like high school, I think)

I'm an American, went to American public schools, and learned about the Boston Masscre thanks to a cable TV series called "Battleground Historians" where they tried to figure out what exactly happened. That was about 3 years ago. Prior to that, I'd never heard of the event in connection to my American history education.

It's just interesting the things people take for granted that other people would know.

I want to drop in and comment on this again.

I doubt my education was very common, since I've been in private schools my whole life (other than a couple months of kindergarten/1st grade) so I know my experience won't really reflect what many American students are being taught.

Back in elementary school, we were taught to see both sides of view as much as possible. We had an optional field trip over one of our breaks to Jamestown, and in one of the town hall buildings there, we even had a mock debate. We were all given cards with either "patriot," "undecided," or "loyalist" and sat down to role-play a 1770's meeting of citizens, to argue whether we should break off from England. I think I got "undecided."

In high school, I didn't get any US history until Junior year, and then we glossed over much of the war because we'd all had enough of it back in middle school. We spent more time on early American politics (Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, etc.) instead.

But most of my high school history classes weren't focused on America at all. My first two years were divided up into "Western Civilization" and "Nonwestern Civilizations." In the former, we studied early Europe and America and the interactions of all these peoples, through early man, through Greece, Rome, the Dark Ages, Middle Ages, Renaissance, Industrial Revolution, into the present day. We focused on the time periods and how the different developments of civilization impacted all countries. In Nonwest, we had units tracing the history of various African and Asian nations, from India, China, Japan, Middle Eastern nations, and various tribes across Africa, etc.