The Tlatelolco Massacre

The Tlatelolco Massacre
On October 2, 1968, what started off as a peaceful student protest later turned into a bloody
massacre. On this day, students gathered together in Tlatelolco plaza to peacefully protest against
the government. The students were there for a rally but they were surrounded by armed military
troops, who opened fire and started the massacre. The Massacre of Tlatelolco will always remain as
a part of Mexico's bloody and dark history. Prior to the massacre, in July 1968, students began to
start a movement after a conflict had occurred between two schools and the government sent in the
riot police to "stop" the conflict. (Miller, 5) At the end of the month, students gathered together to
protest against police brutality, which ended by the students ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Although the accurate facts of the massacre will remain a mystery, it still made an impact on society.
One impact the massacre made was that it inspired writers to write about what happened. "The
literature of Tlatelolco revealed that the ideals of the Revolution, so strongly defended by the party
in power, had become empty" (Leal, 13), this statement claims that the students had the power prior
to the massacre. They felt strongly for what they were fighting for and they did not let the
government stop them. After many encounters with the military troops, the students continued to
fight, which showed that they were not afraid of the government. But after the massacre, the student
movement ended which caused them to lose their power against the government. After a few years,
activists started to create movements again but they remained traumatized from the massacre.
Another impact is that the government lost its legitimacy and was questioned as to whether or not
they can properly govern. (Gutmann, 61) The aftermath of the event taught citizens that the
government cannot always be trusted. This event may cause the citizens to wonder what else the
government could be covering up. It also shows to what extent the government will go just to
remain powerful over the
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Rosewood Florida Massacre
RoseWood Florida Massacre of 1923
American History
April 20th 2017
Noah Edmisson
Mr.Laffoon
On January 1, 1923, In a very small black neighborhood called Rosewood. A rumor started that
Fannie Taylor, a white female, had been sexually harassed by a black man in her house. She claimed
that a black man had gotten into her house and assaulted her, but she had no obvious injuries other
than her word that she was unconscious for a long time.
A group of KKK members, believed that this rapist was an escaped inmate named Jesse Hunter who
was hiding in Rosewood, and they wanted to kidnap and kill him. Before this happened many
problems had started aggression within Rosewood. The next day the the clan firebombed the home
before gathered with 200 men from towns around the area who had found out that a negro man had
killed two caucasian men. As the moon came out the clan attacked the town, killing animals and
burning houses and places of business. A completed report claims six negroes were killed along with
two whites men. Other rumors suggest a bigger amount. At the end of the massacre only two
buildings were still up, a house and a store. Many of the African American people of Rosewood
ditched to the wetlands and were taken to a safe area on January 6 by two trains men. John and
William Bryce. Many others were hidden by John ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Negative radio messages were sent out over the airwaves created and created turmoil fueling the
already angry mindset of the KKK. They packed their things and started towards the town
Rosewood with a revenge full mindset to take action in demolishing the town at any penalty. The
group heated, overwhelmed, and full of angry. They went through the woods behind the Taylor's
home looking for a rapist. Suspicion soon fell on Jesse Hunter, a black man who had apparently just
escaped from a dangerous street gang, but no proof of that so called escape was ever

Nanking Massacre And The Nanking Massacre
In 1937, the Chinese city of Nanking was devastated when the Japanese Imperial Army invaded,
killing around 300,000 people . The Japanese soldiers went into people's homes searching for
Chinese soldiers, and killing civilians. These devastating events are known as the "Rape of
Nanking", or as the Nanking Massacre. However, the history of atrocities like this are not always
taught. Things such as the Japanese history textbook controversy show how one event can be
remembered, or portrayed, in many different ways. For the most part, history can be skewed for
political reasons. For Japan, making history their own had benefits, and these benefits could help the
government keep their people on their side of things, and it would try to legitimize their own views
on their history.
The forming of loyalty and patriotism through selective teachings of the Nanking Massacre has built
tensions between China and Japan that have, and still do, separate two nations.
The history, which is taught correctly in most nations, is horrifying. The Nanking Massacre lasted
for a span of a few months, with Japanese soldiers sparing no man, woman or child. The title "Rape
of Nanking" is to describe the raping of women, numbering anywhere from 20,000 to 80,000 . Some
of the Chinese captives, some of which were Chinese soldiers, were forced to dig graves for groups
of other captives to be buried alive in, and then would be buried themselves when the next group of
captives dug a new grave .
However,

Causes Of The Boston Massacre
With revolution on the rise and independence in colonist minds, it starts to be clear that the
definition of American is becoming more evident in British minds. With the first few acts such as
the Stamp Acts, Quartering Acts, Tea Act, and etc., the British had placed on the colonists, the sense
of patriotism becomes more common in all Americans. But the event of the Boston Massacre, which
had troops of British soldiers fire upon a crowd of colonists, boosted the idea of freedom and
furthered the hate of Britain by the colonists. This occurrence, although tragic, did help the colonists
unite together and aided the revolution. It is unclear which side, colonists or the British, stimulated
it into happening. However, I believe that the Americans are the ones to blame for this tragic event.
The whole occurrence had the British holding the guns and shooting at the colonists but I feel that
the colonists stimulated this affair. In different accounts of the massacre, it is stated that the
colonists taunted the redcoats. Additionally, this protest was the result of the mercantilistic acts
British imposed.
The Boston Massacre initially started as an argument in Boston's customs house. However, tensions
grew and finally the protests became more violent and the bullets flew into the crowd. In differing
reports of this event, many of them state that something was thrown into one of the soldiers
prompting the firing. According to Thomas Preston (Doc 2), the Captain of the troopers in

The Nanking Massacre
In this book, Iris Chang brings to light the atrocities that occurred during the Nanking massacre by
focusing on the initial Japanese attacks on the city, the work of the international community to
protect the Chinese, and the subsequent cover up of the massacre. Chang's primary argument is that
the events surrounding the Rape of Nanking have been downplayed by western and Japanese
scholars, and need to be discussed. A key element of the book is to counter a revisionist approach to
the events of Nanking which, in her estimation, pervade Japanese schools and have subsequently
misled westerners into believing that the Japanese military was not as vicious as they were. Her
work does indeed provide a gut–wrenching account of the event while sifting ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Sutton argues that the high reputation of the German advisors in China is overstated by historians,
but the advisors did provide high quality service to the modernization of the Chinese military. The
author attempts to dispel the myths surrounding the German advisory group, and demonstrate how
the Nazi's implementation of their military tactics altered the political landscape leading to the
eventual break from the Nationalists, and alignment with the Japanese. While Sutton limits his
article on the implications of the German's training style, he does well to provide an alternative to
the traditional conception of this group by reasonably making the point that not only has their
reputation been somewhat exaggerated, but their impact may have prepared the Nationalists for the
wrong style of war and not taken into account Chinese

Sympathy And The Boston Massacre
Points of views are majorly impacted by different words, actions and even locations. This is
important in order to understand all the sides of a story. Meaning, that on March 5th, 1770, when
colonists and soldiers gathered on King's street, America and Britain went to the media to present
their perspectives of the tragic event. The statements, that were similar, are as follows: the colonists
used snowballs as weapons, there was profanity from both soldiers and colonists, and lastly, around
11 soldiers were involved and two more were assaulted. Deciding what the truth was, was difficult.
Therefore, the Boston Massacre had two sides, the colonial stance and the British. The other issue
was figuring out which side you stood on. The fact was, most ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
They released an article in the London Chronicle stating how multiple troops were "attacked and
insulted by the mob". The newspaper emphasized firing was the only justification towards
everything that had been going on. They said firing was a form of self–defense against the mob.
Meaning that when the soldiers left willingly–– once the Boston Council decided it was better for
them to leave the inhabitants of the town–– it was implied that the British were sensible and all they
were trying to do was protect themselves. Along with these statements, the British constantly
attempted to prove themselves as innocent. To do this, they went to the arts. Alonzo Chappel painted
the British perspective of the Boston Massacre in the 1800's. The art depicted the colonists attacking
the British soldiers with clubs, looking far more menacing than the soldiers. Along with the focal
points of this painting, one can also see colonists looking out their windows viewing the event,
rather than calling for help. Making it seem as though the colonists didn't feel the need to put a stop
to this dispute. Overall, The London Chronicle influenced many of the British, appealing to people's
anxiousness and anxiety of a colonial

Boston Massacre Dbq
On March 5, 1770...The Boston Massacre, known as the Incident on King Street by the British, was
an incident on March 5, 1770, in which British Army soldiers shot and killed people while under
attack by a lot of colonists. There was not a massacre on March 5, 1770 in Boston because.
According to the sources B,C and D say that the colonists had weapons and they were also attacking
in the massacre. The evidence that supports my claims is that in documents B,C,D the colonists are
clearly seen with weapons according to the documents with the gazette, it said that the colonists had
weapons and were involved in the fight. This supports my own opinion because in document b the
colonists are seen with some type of sword or golf club. My second reason

Dbq Boston Massacre
On March 5, 1770, five English colonists were killed in Boston, Massachusetts, by British soldiers.
This day will forever be known as the Boston Massacre. It all started with a British sentry who was
stationed in Boston. The sentry faced verbal harassment from colonists in the town. Eventually, the
group grew larger, and the British sentry called in eight additional soldiers for backup. The large
mob of colonists began to physically attack the colonists with clubs and other weapons, leading to
the British soldiers to fire on the colonists. The colonists were to blame for the events that occurred
on March 5, 1770, because they verbally tormented the British, threatened them with weapons and
largely outnumbered the British soldiers. First, the colonists were to blame for the Boston Massacre
because they verbally tormented the British. The colonists even tricked the British into firing on
them by telling the soldiers to fire. The colonists had told the British to, " 'Fire, fire, and be damned'
" (Doc 2). This shows how the colonists instructed the soldiers to fire on them. One soldier was even
noted to have heard a command to fire, but did not ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The large mob of colonists were assaulting the British with snowballs and clubs. British Captain
Preston described how, "one of the soldiers [had] received a severe blow with a stick, stepped a little
on one side and instantly fired" (Doc 4). This shows how the British were instigated to fire, as the
colonists brutally assaulted them with clubs. Captain Preston went on to say how he was also struck
by a club, as well as being pelted with snowballs. The use of these weapons forced the British
soldiers to fire, as they needed to defend themselves from any further attacks. Overall, the British
were physically harassed by the colonists, which shows how the colonists were at fault for the
events on March 5,

Lincoln's Massacre : The Shootings Of The Boston Massacre
The Boston Massacre trial was the most important event on March 5, 1770. The Massacre consisted
of five deaths, and the trial was suppose to be the deciding factor for those deaths. To this day there
are people that think that the redcoats were the people that instigated the shots that were fired, but
the others think that it was the mob that started it.
Before the Boston Massacre the moment that the redcoats set foot in Boston, they were constantly at
odds with the citizens of the town. The tension between the two seemed to have reached a boiling
point. Private Hugh White was under assault by a crowd of boys throwing things like snowballs,
oysters, and stones and clubs. As claimed by witnesses, a club flew through the air striking one of
the soldiers in the head, causing him to lose his balance and discharge his musket. The rest of the
soldiers thought that the order to fire had been given so they discharged their weapons into the
crowd. There were five citizens that were on the ground, mortally wounded.
John Adams received a knock on his door the next day. Because nobody else would take the case he
was asked to defend the soldiers and Captain Preston. Adams agreed to take the case without
hesitation. John Adams believed in upholding the law, and defending the innocent, above all. Adams
believed that the soldiers were wrongly accused and that they fired their weapons in self–defense. In
Adam's diary, he wrote Samuel Adams, "'This however is no Reason why the Town should not

Essay On The Boston Massacre
Everyone always asks why there were only five people that died in the Boston massacre, it will be
discovered today. The Boston Massacre occurred on March 5, 1770 in Boston Massachusetts at the
Boston's customs house. The British troops were sent to Boston in 1768, because of taxation. While
the British soldiers were in Boston, the American colonist decided to mess with the Soldiers. As this
was happening, the patriots had been protesting against the British troops. The British troops getting
word from their captain, to get ready to guard and attack. As the crowd starts to rile this led to five
people dying.
In the photo, it mentions that "Just three weeks after British soldiers shot and killed five Bostonians
and wounded six others, the silversmith and patriot Paul Revere produced this engraving, which
depicts the British massacring peaceful colonists in cold blood." The leader of the British troops is
Thomas Preston. There's always two sides to every story. Listening to Theodore Bliss, He was on
the Patriots side. Theodore said he saw the patriots throw a couple of snow balls first. A couple of
them hit the soldiers, then before the patriots knew it, the Soldiers started to fire. Theodore says he
didn't hear the captain say to fire when shots were fired. He was uncertain, soldiers and patriots
were saying it, and Theodore could differentiate who was saying what. But Theodore doesn't know
whether it came from the captain or not. There were about a hundred of people

Was The Boston Massacre A Massacre
On March 5, 1770, indignant Boston colonists assembled on King Street, rocketing snowballs and
launching stones at the British soldiers stationed in the English city. The rebels heckled the troops,
threatening them with weapons and ominous declarations, inducing defensive military action by the
British, leading to the deaths of five colonial rebels...Let's try that again.
On March 5, 1770, passionate Boston colonists gathered on King Street to discuss the inequitable,
prejudiced taxes enacted by their tyrannical mother country. The British soldiers embarked on a
fervid rampage, terrorizing the colonial people with hostile words and menacing attacks. The
altercation ended with innocent colonists splattered on the icy ground, the pure snow now stained
with burgundy blood, their frosty bodies pierced with lethal bullets, their brisk breaths reduced to
clouds of death... Much better.
If you were educated in the United States of America, you know the Boston Massacre as the
slaughtering of innocent Patriots fighting for liberty, for justice, for freedom. Yet if you are British,
the Boston Massacre is an irrelevant event in your Civil War. The victors dictate history, therefore,
perspective is skewed and history is fabricated. Because of historical inaccuracy, you were probably
unaware that the Boston Massacre was not a massacre at all; it became a "massacre" through
propaganda, specifically, Paul Revere's engraving, The Bloody Massacre Perpetrated in King Street
and colonial

The American Massacre : The Causes Of The Boston Massacre
What happened on March 5, 1770? The Boston Massacre happened. Many of the colonist had just
lost their jobs so they gathered around together. The colonist were not happy that they had lost their
jobs most of the colonists were furious. A seventeen year old boy who was an apprentice had
stepped out of his group and was screaming at the British that's when it happen. A British soldier
had hit the seventeen–year old apprentice that's when the crowd went wild and started to fight with
the British. The British soldiers had fired their guns. There were five colonists who were dead. The
first man to be shot was an African American man. Paul Revere had seen what the British had done
so he wrote a poster and called it the Bloody Massacre. After that had happened in Boston with the
British soon after the other colonists heard about it as well.The British did not know that what they
had done was the beginning of the war and they had started. (Miller & Perry,2017) (American
Revolution, 2010). September 5,1774, that is when the first continental meeting was. Each colony
was getting guns secretly and hiding them because they didn't want the British to know that they had
weapons also because they were preparing for a war with the British. Each town had started a militia
every person who joined the militia under went training. They were taught to fire a gun. Once the
British had heard each colony had there own milta they went to stop them. Once it was dark the
British soldiers headed out of Boston to go to the colonies and end there militia's. Paul Revere hears
about the British going so he gets on a horse riding to each colony telling them the British are
coming. In September 5, 1775, the battle of Lexington and Concord. The militia group had heard the
British were coming so they got their weapons and were ready to meet the British. There was sixty–
men who met with the British. Nobody knows who fired the first shot. Among the soldiers there
were African American men fighting with us. The militiamen were not as good as the British.The
British fired more than the colonists of Lexington and Concord. Eight patriots were dead ten were
wounded. We had lost the first battle of Lexington and Concord. The British wanted to

Massacre: The Cause Of The Boston Massacre
The tension was evident in every frame. The British and the colonists were anything, but friendly
towards each other in the spring of 1770.
On March 5, 1770 the Boston Massacre took place. Although, it wasn't even a massacre. A massacre
is defined as the mass–murder of a group of innocent, unaware, unarmed people. What really
happened on that day was a riot. Both sides were armed. The colonists had icy snowballs, chunks of
wood, and oyster shells; while the British soldiers were armed with muskets and bayonets. There is
proof that the Boston Massacre was planned by the colonists and even if it wasn't the colonists did
egg on the soldiers, so they were definitely aware of the fact that they were about to start a riot. And
no one was ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Everyone in the 13 colonies had heard about the riot in Boston. But, to the colonists, they saw it as a
massacre because of the iconic picture used by Paul Revere as propaganda. The engraving named
"The Bloody Massacre on King Street, March 5, 1770" was used as propaganda because it portrays
only the British soldiers attacking and the colonists looking scared and defenseless. Also, above the
heads of the British the Customs House was changed into the Butcher's Hall. On horseback, the
Sons of Liberty spread the news. They moved swiftly from Massachusetts and informed all the
colonies in record time. After the news had spread and people saw the photo Paul Revere filled with
propaganda and bias, many colonists who used to be neutral or Loyalists began to think that the
Sons of Liberty were right and they became Patriots too. Paul Revere's contribution to the Patriot
cause created a bigger impact than he could imagine.
All in all, the Boston Massacre was an event that was used to the colonists advantage. It may have
been a riot and the colonists probably realized that too, but if you want to get people to join your
side then you need propaganda. So, in conclusion, the Boston Massacre was a horribly bloody event
that just so happened to be the first battle of the American

Boston Massacre : The York Massacre
Boston Massacre
In the year 1770, tensions between Great Britain and the colonists reached an all–time high. As a
result of more aggressive policies imposed by that of the British parliament, violent opposition grew
immensely and in one case, a historical and very bloody conflict now commonly known as the
Boston Massacre, took place. This event came about as a result of the invasion of a Boston ship
named Liberty, causing Bostonians to riot and push the customs officials out of towns. Statistically,
by the end of 1769, nearly 4,000 troops resided within an area with a population of nearly 15,000.
Although the rebellion and revolts seemed to grow rather quickly, a series of events simply built up
in such a way which makes the Massacre considerably 'a wimpy way to rebel.' First, nearly 5 years
before this gruesome killing, Great Britain enforced the Townshend Act upon the colonists, forcing
the payment and collection of taxes. Consequently, no person wanted to pay this imposed charge to
a country which simply causes conflict. Instead, people began to revolt, rebel, and riot against these
demands. In return, Great Britain passed the Quartering Act to suffice for the shelter of troops whom
of which were placed in towns to act as a means of structure regarding control over the people.
Beginning in 1765, the colonists were expected to provide shelter and food for soldiers at their own
expense. In addition to the shipment of troops in order to control the people, many British

The Boston Massacre
The Boston Massacre
The tension between the colonies and Britain was nothing new. There were several occasions where
the colonies became greatly infuriated with the unpleasant treatment they were receiving. Prior to
the year 1770, much of the outcry came from the acts passed by the British government, such as the
Stamp Act, Quartering Act, and Declaratory Act ("A Timeline of the American Revolution"). Even
though the colonists were infuriated, it would take something more to push them over the edge. This
something would turn out to be what is now called the Boston Massacre. Although the Boston
Massacre won't go down as the deadliest massacre in American history, it will go down as one of the
most pivotal turning points due to the colonists' depiction of the event. Several things happened
leading up to the massacre itself, which are important to note. The colonists were becoming
increasingly frustrated with Britain, which led to political unrest. To counteract this unrest, British
troops were sent to Boston, where they arrived on October 1, 1968. Originally, there wasn't an open
resistance to the presence of the troops. Over time, things would change, which can be derived from
the events of March 5, 1770. There were two sides: the mob of colonists and the the British soldiers.
The colonists ended up attacking a British sentinel, leaving the British captain to call in more
soldiers, who were also attacked. Shots were fired by the British, killing a total of 5 and wounding 6

The Boston Massacre
The Boston Massacre is considered by many historians to be the first battle of the Revolutionary
War. The fatal incident happened on March 5 of 1770. The massacre resulted in the death of five
colonists. British troops in the Massachusetts Bay Colony were there to stop demonstrations against
the Townshend Acts and keep order, but instead they provoked outrage. The British soldiers and
citizens brawled in streets and fought in bars. "The citizens viewed the British soldiers as potential
oppressors, competitors for jobs, and a treat to social mores". A defiant anti–British fever was
lingering among the townspeople. There are three major things that led to the Boston Massacre:
First was the growing mistrust among the British soldiers and Americans. There were a number of
other incidents were the British clashed with the patriots and their supporters. Individual soldiers
were beaten on street corners and soldiers abused unarmed civilians. In all the Americans in Boston
made it clear that the British soldiers were unwanted. The second reason is somewhat odd. The
removal of two out of four regiments meant there were to inadequate amounts of soldiers to keep
the peace. There were enough on the other hand to remind the patriots of the great British military.
The last reason would be the revolt of the Townshend Acts. The patriots and Americans did not
agree and strife with the British soldiers over it. The Act built tension between the two. On March 5,
1770 the dreadful day came. A

The Engraving Of The Boston Massacre
The engraving of the Boston Massacre mislead people's thoughts about what happened on the said
day. The engraving was considered to be propaganda because it was especially of a biased, and was
used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. The day of the Boston
Massacre rose several questions about what happened and who was at fault. Paul Revere
intentionally changed details about the Boston Massacre in order to influence the decisions of the
Bostonians.
The setting of the Boston Massacre was changed to mislead colonists. The engraving shows a clear
sky, Butcher's Hall and a lack of snow. The engraving shows a clear sky, not with a cloud in sight. In
the far left side of the engraving was a crescent moon. In several documents were witness' who said
the events took place at least after 8 pm. Richard Palmes told investigators, " Between the hours ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If the Boston Massacre was to have taken place in the morning, one could deduce this it was no
accident. This piece of evidence was crucial because if the shooting happened at night rather than in
the morning it would rule out this being accidental. In reality, this event took place around 8 pm
where no one could see specifically what happened. The engraving of the Boston Massacre shows
no signs of precipitation or earlier precipitation. The engraving looks sunny because there are
shadows of the soldiers and colonists. In document 6, General Thomas Gage, Commander of all
British soldiers in Boston states, " The party of soldiers were attacked with bricks, stones, pieces of
ice, and snowballs." This and several other documents wrote, the colonists threw snowballs and
pieces of ice. This was the complete opposite than what the engraving shows. This shows, Paul
Revere poorly showed the climate surrounding the Boston Massacre. Behind the captain in the
engraving was a building called Butcher's Hall and the Customs House. Butcher's Hall was behind
the

A Massacre or a Riot? Essay
Was the Boston Massacre really a massacre? In history, there are many events where the exact
occurrences are not clear. The Boston Massacre, which took place on the evening of March 5, 1770,
was absolutely no exception. Evidence is spotty, details can be lacking, and testimonies are often
told from a personal and bias perspective. Determining the bias of each testimony is key to learning
the motivations behind each witness, which in turn is key in deciphering the actual events of the
Boston Massacre. One is right to wonder, through all of the conflicting testimonies, whether the
Boston Massacre really was a massacre. The Boston Massacre is viewed with overwhelming bias
and many contradictions in accounts exist, yet overall the "Boston ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The town's church bells then rang; a sound that usually signifies a fire. This brought many of the
people living in the town out of their homes. While many of those there were simply curious to
observe what promised to be a good skirmish, there was a large contingent looking for a fight.
Captain Preston then led out seven soldiers to try to defend the lone man standing. While this drew a
reaction from the crowd, reinforcements were very much needed at this point. Various people from
the crowd approach Preston amid the rioting, asking if the guns are loaded and if he has any
intention to order his men to fire. Preston replied that indeed his men's muskets are loaded but that
he has no intention to order them to fire. While it may be argued that Captain Preston bid his men
prime and load with the intention to fire, it would seem that having soldiers load their guns would
be a reasonable precautionary step. As the crowd escalated, snow and ice were hurled at the soldiers,
and even once a stick or club. Theodore Bliss recalls seeing, "a Stick about 3 feet long strike a
Soldier upon the right." The crowd, as Captain Preston remembers, was calling out, "fire if you
dare" and other such encouragements. What happened next was and still is a matter of considerable
controversy. What is known, however, is that the soldiers started to fire upon the crowd. Five men
were killed, and six were wounded. While these deaths are pointed to in order to justify calling the
event

The Nanjing Massacre
The Nanjing Massacre occurred for six weeks, having fell to the Japanese, they began their
infamous massacre 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 (Controversial, as there are different
numbers thrown around) and civilians were killed. The Nanjing massacre is known as one of the
most destructive mass murders in history (staff, 2009). Nanjing, one of China's greatest ancient
capitals located in eastern china is found in Jiangsu, China. Nanjing has a prominent place in
Chinese history and culture having served as the capital of various Chinese dynasties, kingdoms and
republican governments. Zhu Yuanzhang, the first emperor of the Ming Dynasty (1378–1644) rose
to throne in 1368, over throwing the Yuan dynasty and renaming it Yingtian and making it the
dynastic capital in 1368. Emerging as the political and cultural center of southeastern China at the
time, it ultimately ended in a disaster and stained Chinese history forever (Kuo, 2016). Nanjing at
the time with about a population of approximately a million was a prime target when Japan invaded
china in 1937. That November, Japanese troops made their way into the city, and the gruesome
fighting and raping went on for weeks. Japanese troops killed Chinese men assuming they were
disguised soldiers as they were stripping off citizen's

Colfax Massacre Essay
Lalita Tademy is an interesting case of a writer, as she has a large amount of potential source
material at her disposal due to her family history, the Colfax Massacre is one of those source
materials. Lalita has a rich family history that puts her distant relatives in the middle of one of the
most overlooked and important moments in United States history. These relatives setup and
attempted to protect the courthouse in Colfax 1873, but abruptly ended with the deaths of all the
men in the building in a truly one sided battle. Lalita stated in an interview with NPR, "My aunt
Ellen had told me at one point that our people were mixed up in the courthouse incident, and some
got out and some didn't." This moment with her aunt could have been ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
There aren't too many critical reviews about "Red River" and Lalita Tademy's historic accuracy, but
the reviews that do exist do acknowledge the fact that her works are based on her family history
with what she was able to recover. This means they know that not all of the book is historically
accurate which Lalita also acknowledges on her own website, "Lalita Tademy weaves together
history and the story of her own family to bring us and epic work of fiction, the dramatic,
intertwining story of two families struggling to make a place for themselves in an America deeply
divided after the Civil War". This ends up being a useful tool for Lalita as she can make her book
engaging to readers with intense moments, and pages of emotion towards the people represented.
The writing style of an author is arguably one of the most important aspects when making a book as
it is what keeps the reader invested and having them want to keep flipping through the pages, if you
have a badly written and overall simple story, you will lose a majority of your readers and lower
your credibility as an author. When it comes to Lalita Tademy's "Red River", she definitely nails an
excellent spot for a well written story, but there are still flaws as with every author, nobody is
perfect. Throughout this book, it is apparent that Lalita is fond of using

In March of 1770, the tensions were high between the American colonist and the British soldiers
stationed in Boston Massachusetts. The massacre happened on March 5, between the British troops
and a crowd in Boston. In the evening of that day, tension would reach a bloody and dangours point
resulting in what has been named The Boston Massacre which had also been called the "Incident on
King Street" by the British. This incident would turn out to be one of the major events leading to the
American Revolution. The story about how the Boston Massacre happened always is different for
each person, and varies on how it is told. (Boston Massacre Facts) (Wallenfeldt) (White)
In order to protect colonial officials who had the job of enforcing very ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Eventually seeing the torment against White, an officer and six privates came to Private White 's
aid. There was a rule about how the soldiers were only allowed to fire if and only if the crowd had
not dispersed within an hour. They loaded their weapons and positioned themselves in a defensive
form. The mob grew to over 300 angry colonists. In the mob of angry colonist there was confusion,
some soldiers though that they had heard the command to fire and followed through. When a British
soldier, was struck and hit by an object thrown by one of the colonists, he fired his weapon into the
crowd. Several other British troops followed his actions, before the massacre came to an end and the
crowd dispersed. Captain Thomas Preston was the British officer in charge on the day. He insisted
that he never gave the order for his troops to fire their guns. Yet at some point, they fired their guns,
and the deaths and injuries mounted. It was Preston who ended the shooting. (Boston Massacre
Facts) (Wallenfeldt) (White)
Not long after, Preston and the seven soldiers that he led were under arrest. The sentry who they had
went to rescue was under arrest as well. A town meeting the next morning had produced a demand
for the removal of all the troops, and by March 11 both the 14th. Fearing for their safety, customs
commissioners had left town. Various conflictions had delayed the soldier's trials for months. In the
provisional, both sides of the clash attempted to

The Nanking Massacre: In What Causes Of The Nannking Massacre
Research Question
In what ways has the Nanking Massacre (1937–1938) been mythologized in history?
Abstract
Through an investigation of the existing accounts of the Nanking Massacre (1937–1938), this
extended essay endeavours to address the research question: In what ways has the Nanking
Massacre (1937–1938) been mythologized in history? By drawing upon the main arguments and
framework that Paul Cohen developed in his book "History in Three Keys" in order to assess the
Boxer Rebellion, this essay applied a similar framework in order to interpret the Nanking Massacre.
This essay has arrived at a conclusion that no historian will ever find the "complete truth" about the
Nanking Massacre but Cohen's framework is viable in interpreting ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
This is due to the mythologization of history that has resulted in the historical event to be potentially
fictitious.
The Chinese insist that the Japanese need to realise like how the Nazis will be remembered for their
atrocious treatment towards Jews, the Japanese will be remembered for their inhumane treatment
towards the 300 000 civilians that they had "brutally slaughtered and systematically tortured" during
the "Asian Holocaust", as Chang put it in the Rape of Nanking. On the other hand, the Japanese
government does not feel the obligation to fully disclose information and results of the incident in
their high school textbooks and instead prefer to build a nation of oblivious youth. Given the severe
impact of the problems of history on current Sino–Japanese relations, the two states are now
encountering an urgent task to eliminate historical mythmaking in national historiography. Thus the
debate is sure to continue; both sides have too much invested in the meaning and identity of these
now distant events. The divergent tone and focus of these two pioneering volumes illustrate how the
gap between Japanese and Chinese positions remains formidable and likely

Munich Massacre
RESEARCH PROPOSAL
Name: Nick Karvountzis Date: 10/5/09
Topic: 1972 Munich Olympic Massacre
Area of Investigation:
Outline the main historical debates, perspectives or interpretations you will be discussing
Discuss the role that West–German authorities played during the 1972 Munich Olympic crisis,
specifically addressing their preparation prior to Black September's terrorist, as well as their
consequent actions and decisions made during the crisis. Primarily, assess whether criticisms of the
West–German authorities' handling and preparation of the 1972 Munich Massacre are valid, and
thus justifiable.
Focus Inquiry Question:
Discuss and assess the preparations and actions taken by West–German authorities in response to
1972 Munich ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Nevertheless, they still could prove to be beneficial towards my final project.
Regarding my question, I am trying to find a variety of sources which portray differing perspectives
as I not only intend on recounting the actions of the West–German Authorities, but also portray
differing views and criticisms of their response. From what I have gathered from my initial research,
these historical interpretations don't necessarily derive from specific schools of thought (as the event
is quite recent) but more–so from differing sociopolitical/cultural regions of the world. These
include a Western view, such as American Simon Reeve, Israeli view such as Yarin Kimor and
German perspective such as Manfried Schreiber. Furthermore, some of these sources aren't
necessarily historical scholars but rather journalists, experts in their respective field, or simply
significant characters surrounding the crisis.
Another one of the major issues surrounding this topic is the limited amount of information readily
available. However, I have not let that deter me – in fact I have used it as a motivating force. I
believe that this essay will, to a degree, be groundbreaking, as it looks specifically at the numerous
errors and inadequate preparation by the West–Germans. This is something very few of the texts I
have

Significance Of The Boston Massacre
The Boston Massacre took place on the night of March 5, 1770. The Boston Massacre was a major
event in American History that led to the Revolutionary War.
The Boston Massacre began on the evening of March 5, 1770. With a small argument between
British Private High White and a few colonists outside the custom house in Boston on King Street.
The argument began to escalate as more colonists gathered and began to harass and throw sticks and
snowballs at Private White. British soldiers in Boston opened fire on a group of American colonists
killing five men. Prior to the Boston Massacre, the British had instituted a number of new taxes on
Americans including taxes on tea, glass, paper, paint and lead. (American Revolution)
With the killing of the five colonists, British regulars thought that the Culmination of tensions in the
American colonies that had been growing since Royal troops first appeared in Massachusetts in
October 1786 to enforce the heavy tax burden imposed by the Townshed Act.
Since 1765, the people of Boston had been heading protests against British taxation, first against the
Stamp Act and then in 1767, against the Townshed Act. On October 1768, troops arrived in Boston
requested by Governor Francis Bernard. Conflicts between the British and the colonists had been on
the rise because the British government had been trying to increase control over the colonies and
raise taxes at the same time. This event in Boston helped unite the colonies all over Britain. With the

The Massacre At Nanjing
Historical Idea: The Japanese were particularly brutal because they saw the Chinese as an inferior
race.
A topic of debate in recent history is the reasoning behind the Japanese' overly–brutal violence
towards the Chinese during the massacre at Nanjing. The prevailing theory is that the Japanese saw
the Chinese as an inferior race, or 'Chancorro' (sub–human)– thus, killing Chinese held no great
significance. Chinese soldiers were not the only targets for the brutality, innocent Chinese citizens
were treated with the same violence. Chinese men were used for bayonet practice, as well as in
'decapitation contests', and an estimated 20,000 – 80,000 Chinese women were raped. Other
examples of brutality include live burials, castration and nailing ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Frank Tillman Durdin was a foreign correspondent for the New York Times, he was in Nanjing
when it fell to the Imperial Japanese Army. Durdin left Nanjing on December 15th, two days after
the initial invasion– he made a tour of Nanjing before his departure. In his report for the NYT, he
stated that he heard "waves of machine–gun fire and witnessed the Japanese soldiers gun down
some two hundred Chinese within ten minutes." Durdin's report was one of the first printed accounts
of the Nanjing Massacre. The report has been called "one of the best journalistic accounts of the fall
of Nanjing". He covered all the major issues at Nanjing– including the murder of civilians, the
execution of Chinese soldiers, conscription, looting and rape. But his report, along with the few
others that were published was met with scepticism from the American public, because the stories
seemed almost 'too fantastic to be

Essay On Boston Massacre
The Boston Massacre
From the beginning of history, the events that have happened have been created by something, these
events have caused emotions to lift and tensions to come to a snapping point. The Boston Massacre
was defiantly not an exception; America was feeling all the pressure of what the British was doing
to them and was completely ready to break away from the rule. However, the separation between the
two parties would not come without a fight on both sides. The British did not feel the American's
had the right to separate from them under the British rule. Although, the Americans were fed up of
the taxes and rules being placed upon them and wanted to break free from their political tyrants. The
Boston Massacre is what would be ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Boston Massacre as history shows us was the explosion in history that led American's and the
British into the American Revolution. However, the events that lead to the happening of the Boston
Massacre, put the British soldiers at a disadvantage that day. However, the British Army had
occupied the city, but they were just following the orders given to them by the British Parliament.
They did not grasp the pressure that the colonist was being put under and if they did, they did not
fully understand the consequences or it never crossed their minds.
Boston had withstood the life with British soldiers before the Boston Massacre in 1770 for two
years. The British Army landed on the shores of Boston in October of 1768. The citizens of the city
had endured the everyday life of the soldiers as they rose in the morning, trained throughout the day
and went back to their tents in the evening. Not only did they see them every day they
communicated with them in town when the soldiers came into the town to buy goods and utilized
services within the city limits of Boston. A very famous citizen of Boston, Paul Revere, described
what he saw as the solider came into the city. Revere said, "They (the British) formed and marched
with insolent parade, drums beating, fifes playing and colors flying, up King Street. Each soldier has
received 16 rounds of powder and ball." Troops of the 29th, unable

Dbq The Boston Massacre
The Boston Massacre occurred on March 5, 1770 in Boston, Massachusetts. The Boston Massacre
was a small riot between the colonists and British soldiers. Evidence supports that the colonists were
to blame for the events that led to the Boston Massacre, which resulted in five colonial deaths. The
colonists used propaganda to invoke anger in the colonists. Document 1, which is an engraving of
the Boston Massacre by Paul Revere depicts the colonists as helpless bystanders that were shot
down by the British soldiers. In the engraving, colonists are shown unarmed in the town square.
This leads the viewer to believe that the British were the only ones with clubs and other weapons.
The engraving depicted the colonists as the victims as a way of getting

Essay On The Boston Massacre
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 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
We will not have you here. We'll get rid of you, we'll drive you away!" Most consider the acts of the
British Soldiers as self–defense against the colonists, and personally, that is true. The Second reason
is that is that the colonists pushed their rights against the British Soldiers. The colonists would hurt
and taunt the British Soldiers while knowing that they couldn't taunt them back. The British were
quick–tempered but managed to stay loyal and not fire until it got too out of hand and the colonists
started a riot, then that when the British Soldiers responded with force. The colonists essentially
started the fight by using force first.
The third reason is that the colonists were very violent and brought weapons. They would pick
things up from the ground such as sticks, stones, shovels, and clubs. Although the British Soldiers
had powerful muskets, the muskets take a long time to reload and by the time they reload almost 50
or more stones or sticks could have been thrown. The colonists had a big advantage over the British
Soldiers. The British Soldiers used self–defense not an act of violence.
Part African and part Native American, it was Crispus Attucks. Crispus Attucks was the first to get
shot and die in the Boston Massacre. He was a dock worker and his death was considered the first
death in the Revolutionary War.
There are many reasons why people would

The Booston Massacre: The Boston Massacre
THE BOSTON MASSACURE
On the night of March 5, 1770, colonists went to the Boston Customs House. They were angered
from all the laws, for example, the Quartering Act, Stamp Act, and the Townshend Act. The
colonists took snowballs with oyster shells and threw them at the soldiers. The soldiers panicked
and fired at the colonists, 5 civilians laid died and the colonist protested the massacre and the
soldiers were arrested and branded. Personally, the soldiers are to blame for the Boston Massacre
because the colonists were treated unfairly, the fight wasn't fair and the Private Montgomery fired
first. First, colonists were taxed for the use of paper, certain goods, and required colonists to cloth
and feed the soldiers that were sent to the

The Boston Massacre : A 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 first reason I believe the Boston Massacre is because of Paul Revere's painting. After studying
his painting, I would say it is very inaccurate. Not only was Crispus Attucks not shown as an
African American, but Paul Revere shows innocence to the crowd of colonists. It was said that
colonists had started by throwing snowballs, but snow is also not located anywhere on the painting.
The saying that the Boston Massacre must've started after nine o'clock in the evening may be a false
statement too because there is a patch of blue sky showing. I believe the Boston Massacre may
actually have started in the morning as the moon can still be up, even during light. Paul Revere's
painting was basically an

The Munich Massacre
The 1972 Olympics were supposed to show that Germany had changed as a country. They were
supposed to be "The Happy Games" but instead are remembered for the massacre of the Israeli
athletes. The Munich Massacre has changed how terrorism is dealt with in different countries and in
the Olympics as a whole. The Massacre occurred on September 5th, the eleventh day of the 1972
Olympics. Eight Palestinian Terrorists that belonged to the group Black september killed two Israeli
athletes and took another nine hostage. The terrorists did this because Israel has Arabs in their
prisons. They wanted Israel to "release over 230 Arab prisoners being held in Israeli jails and two
German terrorists" (History). The Olympics did not have very good security during this time so this
made it easy for the terrorists to carry out their plan. Israel did not want any negotiations to be made
however, German authorities tried to make many with the terrorists. "The terrorists demanded
transportation to Cairo following more than twelve hours of unsuccessful negotiations. Authorities
led the terrorists to believe they would comply while in truth they were planning to ambush them at
the airport" (NPS).The ambush did not go as planned. The authorities thought that there were only
five terrorists although there were eight. The rescue failed for a few reasons. First, "the German
snipers that were chosen had no sharpshooting experience and had no communication with each
other. [...] Second, the police were

On March 5, 1770, what is considered to be the first battle of the American Revolution occurred;
although, it's clear that this was an extremely one sided battle. A culmination of frustration of the
American colonists resulted in the wounding of twelve civilians, half of which died in the shootout.
Despite all the injuries occurring on the American side, it must be acknowledged that the British
soldiers were heavily provoked and harassed; they were being relentlessly pelted with snowballs
and assorted objects by a mob of colonists. The city of Boston beforehand had long been known as a
rebellious city, from also harassing new customs commissioners that led to British militia being
placed in the city. While it is technically the fault of the colonist mob for the massacre occurring, the
Boston Massacre was but one of many explosive culminations of American frustration with the
British crown. From pieces of legislature that ridiculously taxed the colonies to an excess military
presence, the Boston Massacre, despite the casualties, was a victory for rallying support for the
coming war against the British army. This is why the Boston Massacre is considered to be the first
battle of the American Revolution, because of the great frustration expressed with the colonies'
mother country that led to this explosion of tension as well as how the public perceived the event,
aided by none other than Samuel Adams. There were many things that led to the Boston Massacre.
Although this event,

Essay On Munich Massacre
Resolution of issue: "Israeli Jets Punish Syria; Hijack Frees Munich Trio." The Evening Times , 30
Oct. 1972, p. 1.: Assuming a non–partisan stance, The Evening Times includes multiple statistics
and facts about the events following the Munich massacre. It reports on the violence in Syria by
retrieving information directly from Syrian sources, but also from Israel, showing no partiality by
origin of source. Correspondingly, there are statements from both a Foreign Minister and a military
spokesman, exhibiting no bias by use of sources. The empathy of the reader is triggered through the
statement "a number of of civilians, including women and children, were killed or wounded in the
raids". While the inclusion of that description is meant to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
The flags later were lowered to half–staff." This quote especially makes clear the distinction from
the centrist perspective, as conservative–leaning news sources have a tendency to want to preserve
the goodness and morals of people by adding details of actions that honor the fallen or ensure peace.
The reporter incorporates some bias by repetition, by referencing the efforts of the military force
multiple times and moving away from the concern of morality. However, the language of the article
begins with formality, but gradually becomes very casual, almost losing the attention of the reader
as the words distract from the main points of the report.
Climax of issue: "Shootout Sequence Remains in Doubt." Dallas Morning News, 7 Sept. 1972,
phw01.newsbank.com.: Unlike the other two news outlets, this article portrays the Munich police to
be heroic and valiant during the attempted rescue of the hostages. The article focuses on what
appears to be a well thought–out and properly equipped rescue mission, while in all actuality, the
police were unprepared and inadequately trained. Highlighting the police efforts while omitting their
lack of preparedness and training, the newspaper states that "[t]he television pictures also showed
exploding flares apparently sent up as police with dogs set out to chase three fleeing terrorists who
were later captured." This omission makes readers more inclined to

The Symbolism Of The Boston Massacre
On the night of March 5th 1770, chaos broke out into the streets Boston. Colonists went to King
Street, weapons in hand and ready to fight. Soldiers stood by the Customs House, Bayonets at ready.
Colonists went against British soldiers on King Street, creating more unrest between Britain and the
Colonies. The Stamp Act, the Sugar Act, and many more laws and taxes from Britain made colonists
upset. Many people, like the Sons of Liberty, wanted to break away from Britain and be
independent. All of the tension between Britain and the Colonies led to the Boston Massacre. A
popular myth about the Boston Massacre was it was one sided, soldiers overpowered helpless
colonists. In reality, colonists played a large role against soldiers during the Boston Massacre.
Colonists not fighting back was perpetuated by Paul Revere's engraving, "The Bloody Massacre in
King Street". The engraving can be considered propaganda of the Sons of Liberty, used to push their
ideologies. Colonists in the Boston Massacre fought against soldiers, they weren't as helpless as
people were led to believe. Theodore Bliss, a man who was there that night, reported, "I saw people
throw snowballs... [and] a stick about 2 feet long strike a soldier upon the right." (Doc 3). This quote
proves the claim because it shows people were throwing things and even hitting soldiers with sticks
to hurt them, not being pushed back and being helpless. Another man, Benjamin Burdick was also at
the Boston Massacre, arriving at 9pm,

Nanking Massacre
On December 13, 1937, one of the worst atrocities in history took place generating what the
majority of the population in the world is unaware about. Students learn about World War Two
almost every year, specifically what happened in Europe while missing what took place in China.
When Prince Akaska was the in charge of China in the absence of General Matsui, the Japanese
decided to invade the City of Nanking. Nanking, the capital of China, went from being great to ruins
in a matter of six weeks. As soon as the Japanese invaded China, about 300,000 soldiers surrendered
along with a lot of citizens of Nanking in order to avoid experiencing one of the worst acts ever
taken place. Soldiers knew, if they chose to fight, conditions were going to ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Overall, a lot of women were killed and about 200,000 Chinese soldiers were killed. The attack left
bodies littering the streets for months. Raping did not take place only in houses or by individuals. It
was being done in religious places, gangs were raping women before killing them. Raping was
taken to another level by the Japanese forces. They forced fathers to rape their daughters and forced
sons to rape their mothers, those who resisted were murdered. In addition to the horrors visited upon
the people, Nanking itself was also being impacted through the violence.
The Japanese did not also cause physical damage to the citizens of Nanking but also to Nanking
itself. They looted all the storehouses and seized virtually everything from the civilians. They also
organized the burning of buildings in the city. After they set fire to buildings using either gasoline or
some other flammable chemical, they hid, waited and killed people who came to extinguish the fire.
Numerous people were killed from this specific

Boston Massacre Analysis
The British Side of the Boston Massacre
Mykenzie Cotiaux
"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 ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Boston massacre was played out to be such a big thing, although it was a misunderstanding. It
was the colonists who were asking for there to be trouble. If the colonists were not throwing things
and beating the British then the gun would have never gone off. The colonists were protesting
against someone who was not doing anything wrong. Why were the colonists protesting something
that we still have today? Before the colonists were threatening the British the British was just doing
their jobs. The colonists were the ones threatening the British so why were the British put in jail for
it? In conclusion, 8 British soldiers were arrested for using self defense. If the colonists were not
protesting no shots would have been fired so the Boston massacre would have never happened, in
the end the Boston massacre was just propaganda towards the

Examining Whether or not the Boston Massacre was a True...
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 ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The act also gave customs agents the authority to search property, including the colonists' homes.
The colonial response to these acts was increasing violence against the customs officials. In 1768,
the British government sent troops to America to reinforce the Townshend Acts and protect the
customs agents. At one point there were 4,000 British soldiers in a city of only 16,000 people
(Phelan, 24). According to Phelan, there were "almost daily confrontations" between soldiers and
civilians (38). There was increasing tension between the troops and the American colonists. Some
children as well as adults tormented the troops by throwing snowballs and chunks of ice at the
soldiers. There was also increasing tension between the colonists who were loyal to the Crown and
those who were loyal to the colonies because some store owners broke their agreements about
importing and selling British goods. Children threw trash and rocks at those storeowners' buildings.
Several days before the Boston Massacre, one of the loyalist merchants shot and killed a young man
who was a part of group vandalizing his business (Phelan, 44–46). The colonists' tempers flared. By
March 5, 1770, only 600 British troops remained in the city (Zobel, 181). "On Monday, March 5,
Boston seemed to be holding its breath" (Lukes, 32). The friction between

History of Nanking Massacre
Despite having the horrific Nanking Massacre occur 70 years ago, its history is barely buried like
many of the dead were at the time. The Nanking Massacre (also known as the Rape of Nanking)
occurred as a part of the 2nd Sino–Japanese War, which would then become part of World War II.
This war involved the Republic of China defending against the invading Japanese forces.
Unfortunately, China was weakened due to a civil war between the Communists and the
Nationalists, so it was easily invaded. The Nanking Massacre shows the negative elements of
Human Nature and should be taught in schools because it portrays the brutality of the Japanese in
Asia. The Rape of Nanking started on December 13, 1937. This was the day the Japanese invaded ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It is estimated from 150,000 to 300,000 people were killed during the seven week period. The Rape
of Nanking shows the negative elements of humanity by portraying how the Japanese were
relentless at their tactics toward the civilians. The people of Nanking were at their mercy at all times
and any violation meant instant death. The Japanese soldiers acted without any discipline, chivalry,
or honor, which were what the original bushido code had strived for.
The massacre is significant because it would pave the way for the future of any relations between
China and Japan. Their relationship is very strained already because Japan has not issued a mutually
accepted apology for its war crimes (Yew). Neither country is willing to give in due to denial in
Japan and anger in China (Yew). The Nanking Massacre should be taught in schools alongside the
Holocaust because even though the Holocaust was extermination, both of these tragic events show
hatred at its core: Nazis against the Jews and the Japanese against the Chinese. This event displayed
that each gruesome mass killing, "does not highlight, but instead blurs the distinctions between us"
(Yew). Japanese troops were trained to believe the Chinese were inferior to them, therefore they
must be killed. Similarly, the Nazis were trained to believe the Jews were inferior. The Nanking
Massacre also showed how no

American Massacre Dbq
There was growing tension between the British and the colonists due to several laws enforced on the
colonists. These laws varied from the proclamation of 1763 to the tea act of 1773. The laws
enforced by the Parliament was a large factor in the event that occurred on March 5, 1770. I believe
that there was not a massacre on March 5, 1770. In the event of a massacre, there is the cruel and
meaningless killing of the innocent. I believe this event should not be considered a massacre for the
reason that both parties, the Colonist and the British guardsmen were armed with weapons. Along
with that, not only were the colonists armed, they were provoking the British soldiers and urging
them to shoot.
I believe that this event was not a massacre because both the British and the colonists were armed
with weapons. According to Document 4, where Captain Thomas Preston was tried for murder, he
stated "by a great number of heavy clubs and snowballs being thrown at them [Soldiers]". The fact
that both the colonists and the British had been armed, signals this event was not a massacre. What
Captain Thomas Preston states occurred that night in Boston, it justifies my claim that if both parties
were armed and used their weapons accordingly, it defies the definition of a ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Also according to Document 4, it states "damn your bloods–why don't you fire.". This demonstrates
that the colonists were taunting the British, urging them to shoot. The colonists in Boston were
promoting violence and were not an innocent party in the scenario. The fact that the colonists were
taunting the British also justifies my belief that this event was not a massacre. Since the colonists
were taunting the British, they cannot be considered the innocent party. This also portrays how this
event does not fit into the category of massacre, since the colonists were provoking

The Tlatelolco Massacre

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Cyndi Ruppel

More from Cyndi Ruppel (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Tlatelolco Massacre