Explain What Circumstance Led To Massacre

There are many reasons for why the Whitman Massacre took place, miscommunication, Whitman's thinking of that the Cayuse were “savages”, and also not understanding a religion. In the beginning, the Whitmans didn’t give the Cayuse chief a gift, in the Cayuse culture if you take up time of a tribe or cheif you need to give them a gift. And the miscommunication was when the Whitmans thought that the Cayuse wanted to convert to Christianity, but in reality they just wanted to add the book and it’s teaching to their religion. Marcus soon realized this and he thinks that God sent him here to teach the new settlers about Christianity. The new settlers, the whites also brought along diseases. Marcus worked hard to save the kids with diseases like Measles. Since the whites brought diseases, the Indians got exposed to them. The kids were the most vulnerable to these diseases, but Marcus Whitman tried to help the kids. In Cayuse culture, if you try heal someone and they die while you are helping them then the family of the dead person has the right to kill you. Marcus took in the settlers and the Cayuse didn’t like this because the whites were taking their land and resources. More and more kids started to die, so on november 29th, 1847 a small group of Cayuse gathered up and killed the Whitmans and 11 others.

The Boston Massacre is one of the most controversial events in American history that occurred in Boston before the American Revolution. Certainly, it has a fundamental role in the development of America as a nation, which led it to have a huge motivation for revolution. A heavy British military presence and having very high taxes in the country were some of the main reasons that made Boston citizens very irritated. Thus, there were already many disagreements and tensions between inhabitants and the British that could have led to the Massacre. In this essay, I will carefully analyze three primary sources, and compare these to the interpretation given by HBO’s John Adams. In my view, these sources can be

Subsequently, the bloodiest and most violent of conflicts followed as well as the assassination of the duke of Guise, paving the way for the Peace of Saint-Germain-en Laye and ending the brutal fighting. Following these events, the Huguenots began to steadily gain influence, entertaining the notice of Catherine. Unhappy about the situation, Catherine set to convincing her son, Charles, that the Huguenots were planning a coup. Fearful of losing the crown, Catherine, with the help of the Guises, hastily ordered the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, causing the death of twenty thousand Protestants

The Matewan Massacre, an armed confrontation between miners, police and the Baldwin Felts, caused civil unrest in West Virginia for many years.

The Armenian massacres of the 1890 's are an important marker in the history of humanitarian aid by the United States. Before this point, American humanitarian aid had been up to small committee efforts thrown together for an individual international crisis. During the 1890 's humanitarian reformers became more organized and elected officials began to look at the role the United States federal government could play in international humanitarian aid. (Wilson 27) At this time Protestant missionaries and Armenian nationals joined forces with former abolitionists, woman suffragists, and newspapermen to bring the condition of the Armenians to the attention of the citizens of the United States.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines massacre as “the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty” or “a cruel or wanton murder” (m-w.com). Essentially a massacre results in either the death of many people or death by cruel means. The Boston Massacre occurred on March 5, 1770, in Boston, Massachusetts and involved American colonists and British troops. The colonists, upset by recent laws enacted by the British, taunted a smaller group of British soldiers by throwing snowballs at them (Boston Massacre Historical Society). In response, the soldiers fired upon the unarmed colonists leaving five people dead and six wounded (Phelan, 131). Even

This period of fighting saw massacres of Huguenots (French Protestants) by the Catholic monarchs of France, most prominently during the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572 (where almost 30,000 French Protestants were killed across France in targeted assassinations and mob beatings). Eventually the wars would culminate with the Edict of Nantes in 1598, a treaty issued and signed by King Henry IV of France, who had converted from Protestantism to Catholicism and called for general tolerance.

“Between the hours of nine and ten o’clock, being in my master’s house, was alarmed by the cry of fire, I ran down as far as the town-house, and then heard that the soldiers and the inhabitants were fighting in the alley… I then left them and went to King street. I then saw a party of soldiers loading their muskets about the Custom house door, after which they all shouldered. I heard some of the inhabitants cry out, “heave no snow balls”, others cried “they dare not fire”. The Boston massacre has been no massacre it was propaganda. The incident that happened March 5th, 1770 in the streets of Boston only killed five people and had six people with non fatal injuries. There were

On May 4, 1970 at approximately 12:24 PM members of the Ohio National Guard shot at and killed several unarmed Kent State University students. These students were protesting President Nixon’s decision to invade Cambodia. While some of the students who were shot at were actively protesting at the time of the shooting, others were simply walking by or casually observing the protest from a distance. How could an appalling incident like this occur? What possessed the members of the Ohio National Guard to shoot at unarmed students?

March 22,1765 British Parliament passed a law that taxed things such as printed paper they used, ship's papers, licenses,legal documents,playing cards, newspapers, and many other types of publications.

August 25, 1572, marked the infamous day of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. The slaughter of Gaspard de Coligny and several dozen Huguenot leaders, followed by the murder of thousands of people in the streets of Paris that day set off tremendous shock waves throughout Europe. As Barbara Diefendorf points out, the massacre provides a ‘graphic illustration’ of the savagery of the religious strife in France at that time. The question of responsibility of the Massacre has been much debated amongst contemporaries and historians, each producing a different account of who was responsible. Whether it was Charles IX, Catherine de Medici, the Guise family, and other primary political figures who instigated the attacks, one will never know for certain. This is unfortunately due to the scarcity and the unreliability of the contemporary sources.

When Catherine de Medicis sons were younger she had control over what happened in France however as they became older they could speak their mind and make their own decisions. However, having listened to their mother their entire life their decisions were usually persuaded by their mother’s opinions quietly and forcefully. According to Williamson and Josephs book “Catherine de Medici” Charles IX was inclined to insane murderous anger and attempted to exorcise murderous fantasies. According to Knechts book “The French wars of religion 1559-1598” the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre can be interpreted as the “cumulation of popular disturbances in Paris.” On August 22nd Admiral Coligny was shot and wounded, Huguenots rushed to his side in worry and fear. In fear that the Huguenots would retaliate the assassination of the Huguenots was ordered. On the night of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre Charles was overwhelmed and lashing out. Charles felt betrayed and his mother was attempting to control his decisions. In the midst of his panic he exclaimed “Kill the admiral if you wish; but you must also kill all of the Huguenots so that not one is left to reproach me Kill them all!” (Williamson and Joseph, “Catherine de Medici”) Catherine would have been satisfied with killing only the main leaders of the Huguenots, however she was overjoyed with her son’s

3. The mass murderer kills due to a warped sense of love and loyalty, a desire to save their loved ones from misery and hardship. Typically it is a husband/father who is despondent over the fate of the family unit. Sometimes, as in the case of the Manson family, the murders are done by a cult group being obedient to their charismatic leader.

The Nanjing Massacre occurred over a span of 6 weeks in 1937, after conquering the Chinese forces stationed in Nanjing, the Japanese troops began their infamous slaughter also known as the rape of Nanjing. This sequence of events not only affected Nanjing historically, but the effect is has on current day Nanjing is nothing less than astonishing. Throughout the six weeks an estimated 300,000 soldiers and civilians were killed (Controversial, Japanese say the number is significantly lower). The Nanjing massacre is known as one of the most destructive mass murders in history as it would take decades for the city and its citizens to recover from the horrifying attacks. (staff, 2009).

In a private correspondence from George Washington to Irish politician Edward Newenham, the president responded to Newenham’s description of the violence between Catholics and Protestants in 1792 by stating that, “Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated.” Two hundred and twenty-two years before Washington penned those words, those deep-rooted and disturbing resentments between Catholics and Protestants brought about a massacre of thousands of Protestant victims in the Paris, its neighboring urban centers, as well as in the countryside on 24 August 1572. The Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre was one of the bloodiest events in early modern French History, and initiated an intensified and bloodier period in the War of Religion. This paper will analyze testimonies from Catholic and Huguenot viewpoints by looking at the massacre’s historical context, the massacre itself, as well as its importance to the Reformation. By presenting information from primary and secondary sources, this paper looks to examine the massacre and the Catholic Church’s culpability, and whether the leaders within the Church could have prevented the slaying of thousands of innocents or simply nurtured longstanding resentments in order to eliminate their religious opposition.