Reasons For Why The Whitman Massacre

After analyzing the video about the Boston Massacre, what it should be called depends all on which side you took. Patriots would have took this as a massacre because, not only would it blame the British, but their people were also considered "slaughtered". Thus, to the Patriots, this would be considered a massacre. However, for the Loyalists and British, this would be considered a riot. A crowd of colonists threw snowballs, stones, oyster shells, and even wood at British soldiers. This was basically a disturbance of peace, or a riot. The soldiers had the right of defending themselves, so I do understand the reasons for shooting, but killing wasn't necessary. In the end however, in my opinion, without being biased to any sides, the Boston Massacre should be considered a riot.

The British soldiers were anything but loved by the American colonists in the 1770s. They maliciously planned an attack on the soldiers because of their hate. Many townspeople gathered together in effort to strike against the British presence. The men were just doing their job trying to keep order in Boston, but the people still taunted them. The soldiers were being tried for murder because they fired at the people, but those charges should not have existed. The crowd initially attacked the soldiers, not the other way around. It was also dark out so the soldiers did not know of the number of colonist attackers. The soldiers heard the word fire coming from the crowd, confusing the voices with Captain Preston’s. The incident referred to as the

This question requires you to integrate a variety of sources into a coherent, well-written essay. Refer to the sources to support your position; avoid mere paraphrase or summary. Your argument should be central; the sources should support this argument.

The Jonestown Massacre was one of America’s greatest tragedies in history. Due to extreme Racism and persecution innocent people were driven to create a socialistic society only to realize there is no such thing. There are many causes and effects to the event of Jonestown massacre. Some examples of those causes and effects are the background, events, responses, and efforts. Jim Jones and the people of Peoples temple did not set out to be one of america's worst massacres, they just want equality and to escape racism in the U.S. when a leader with a lot of responsibility, lets the power go to his head and it resulted in failure.

It held many struggles and disagreements, which lead to many retaliations, from both the Indians and the settlers. The Indians had been alliances with the white men until the massacre, which stated the settlers betrayal to all tribes.

Similar to the way that the colonial and British perspectives greatly varied for the Boston Massacre, their opinions are once again vastly different for the Battles of Lexington and Concord. In this event as well, both parties attempt to place the blame on the other which is not unusual due the nature of the sources. However, this highlights the large amount of bias evident in all of the accounts. For the colonial perspective, there are two statements, each from a member of a colonial militia that fought during the Battles of Lexington and Concord. Both of these sources place the blame on the British soldiers and claim that the British fired first, killing several colonists. One account, from the Battle of North Bridge, claims that the colonists were ordered to hold their fire and that they didn’t fire until the British opened fire upon them. The other account, from soldier who fought during the skirmish at the Lexington Green, states that the colonists did not even get a single shot off, at least not before the soldier whose account this is was wounded. This source also claims that the British commanding officers were yelling at and insulting the colonists as their ranks closed on the milita. Both these sources are very similar to the colonial perspectives of the Boston Massacre because they all place the blame on the British soldiers and attempt to make themselves appear as the victims.

This chapter provided information from the trial of Captain Thomas Preston. The chapter asked the question, “What really happened in the Boston Massacre”. Chapter four focused on the overall event of the Massacre and trying to determine if Captain Preston had given the order to fire at Boston citizens. The chapter provides background information and evidence from Preston’s trial to leave the reader answering the question the chapter presents. Although, after looking through all the witnesses’ testimonies some might sway in Captain Preston’s favor, just the way the grand jury did.

With colonists throwing snowballs with shards of ice to colonists laying on the ground and losing blood. 5 colonist deaths and 6 nonfatal injuries that profoundly affected their day-to-day lives. The Boston Massacre was a fatal altercation between a mob of violent protesting colonists and a group of British soldiers protecting themselves. It occurred on the night of March 5th, 1770, a small argument broke out between a few colonists and British Private Hugh White in front of the Custom House in Boston. After a while, more colonists started to gather around creating an agitated mob. Many think that the British were at fault for firing when not given permission, and others think the colonists were at fault for harassing and mocking the

It was an attempt from the white man to steal the native’s land and to simply exterminate all Native Americans. The stats are not clear but historians estimate that a total of around 70 million natives were killed throughout the native American Genocide. Although the number is great, the life span of the genocide was much longer than others. The Native American Genocide lasted an average human's lifetime. It lasted for about 100 years. The white man took their land, killed their food source, and forced them to work in labor camps. Before these illegal immigrants began to take over their land, the natives had multiple tribes covering the entire country; even spilling into Canada. After the genocide was over, the Native’s land was reduced to small reservations in only a few states in America. It is very sad because today one of the big discussions in today’s politics is the topic of illegal immigration. When really the people of America today are the true Illegal Immigrants. They came to America hundreds of years ago and instantly claimed that this land was theirs. Without any discussion of consent from the Natives. They forced they Natives out of their homes, Raped their women, killed their babies, starved their men, and killed their food source. The United States today tries to keep the Native American genocide underneath the radar. They do this because they don’t want to give people of America more

What are the main arguments and the reasons and rationalizations that need to be addressed?

The year was 1836, Marcus and Narcissa Whitman began a mission in Independence Missouri were the Cayuse tribe lived. Unfortunately, the white people came bearing disease, which killed many Native Americans. They also intended to change the Native Americans culture, land, and religion. Clearly, the Cayuse were offended and wanted this to change. The Cayuse were

are strong arguments for both sides, countless benefits could have come out if they had not

On the evening of March 5, 1770, an argument between a few colonists and British Private Hugh White started to accelerate as more colonists gathered around and started to harass White. They were throwing sticks and snowballs at him on King Street outside the Custom House in Boston, Massachusetts. This incident became known as The Boston Massacre (“American Revolution”).

Recently, I have been viewing the HBO mini-series titled John Adams; a take on historian David McCullough 's book of the same title. The series begins with the Boston Massacre and continues through historical events that led to the Revolutionary War and the creation of a new government. It has been exciting to watch for various reasons (I love history, especially revolutionary history). However, what struck me in the series is the events leading up to the Declaration of Independence and the war itself. In other words, the moments that led to a dramatic change in thought and action in the colonies. Many of the founders, according to the movie portrayal and McCullough 's interpretation of history, were reluctant of drastic change. Some, if not a majority, wanted reform rather than revolution. It was the persuasive talents of a handful of individuals, as well as some actions by the British, that tipped the tides. As I ponder this perspective of the start of our nation, I cannot help but ask the questions: What is the best approach to initiate needed change? How am I a change agent? And, I frame these questions within the context of the current educational system.

In the article by Kerby Anderson he uses many different points of views and evidence