24 v. 5

[unhappycamper]

From u-s-history.com:

British soldiers occupied the city of Boston for a tension-filled 18 months before mutual hatred turned to outright violence. The events of March 5, 1770, which resulted in the deaths of five Americans, were described as the Boston Massacre by patriot propagandists.

Incidents between citizen and soldier were frequent; the most incendiary was the so-called Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770. On that day a single sentry was on duty at the Customs House on King Street, present-day State Street. An argument broke out between the soldier and a local merchant, who was struck by the butt of a musket during the confrontation. A crowd assembled quickly and began pelting the sentry with a variety of materials — stones, oyster shells, ice, and chunks of coal. Tensions were further heightened when the bells of the city’s churches began to toll, the traditional means of summoning help in fighting fires. Reinforcements under Captain Thomas Preston were rushed in to relieve the beleaguered sentry. The mob taunted the soldiers, daring them to fire, while remaining somewhat secure in the widely held knowledge that the soldiers could not discharge their weapons within the city without prior authorization from a civil magistrate.

At this juncture, someone in the crowd hurled a wooden club at the redcoats. Private Hugh Montgomery was struck and fell to the ground. As he regained his footing, someone — Montgomery, another soldier, or someone in the jeering mob — yelled, “Fire!” The redcoats did so; Preston, who clearly had not given the order, ended the firing and tried to restore order. By that time, however, three colonists lay dead and two others mortally wounded; six others would later recover from their wounds.

The Boston Massacre was, of course, not a “massacre.” Samuel Adams and other propagandists immediately capitalized on this incident, using it to fan colonial passions. Paul Revere assisted the effort by issuing one of his most famous engravings, possibly plagiarized, depicting the American version of the event.

~snip~

Historians tended for many years to regard the Boston Massacre as a watershed event. American opinion was radicalized by skillful propaganda, which moved many former moderates to outspoken opposition to British policies. More recent scholars, however, have found evidence of a more discerning Boston public that was appreciative of British restraint and disapproving of provocative mob actions. Evidence of the latter view was found in the relative quiet that descended on the community after the funeral. Further unpopular British actions would have to occur before a larger portion of the populace would embrace the radical view.




The slaughter in Haditha resulted in a death toll almost five times greater than the Boston Massacre. Haditha is just one 'incident' of many: Falluja, Ramadi, and Isahaqi to name a few. Is there anything to learn from this little history lesson? Anyone?

[peacetalksforall]

1. One lesson that must get through to the 29-34% is that we are a

blatantly hypocritical nation. Across all issues, across all time lines, across all verbal and written claims of superiority, our 200+ years of self-delusion must be acknowledged - we must humble ourselves before the more dominant ethical force among us can survive. We must also have truth and openness in historical documentation. We cannot allow any PNAC type forces rule us or the world. We must negotiate equally with other nations and abandon false superiority.

The superiority of this country was in its work ethics. Now the work is vanishing. We need to work for ourselves, not for a few executives and their stockholders who have inferior ethics.

It is obvious that there has been and is a foundation of money lust and crime at a level over the heads of the ordinary citizens that is getting legalized with every turn of the PNAC force that is ruling us. Their profits and crimes have been and are at the core of the starting point of what is wrong with our country.

We must stop and let it sink in that all this results in our freedoms being turned back. At the core of our losses of freedom is the protection of the wealthy.

[Poppyseedman]

2. Is there anything to learn from this little history lesson? Anyone?

Interesting comparison. A nation thousands of miles away occupying another nation. A military incident, one of many, that results in the death of innocents that spark a revolution.

The insurgents are hardly revolutionaries, if they ever mange to "win" Iraq will be in worse shape than when Saddam was in charge. As opposed to the intention of the founding fathers.

You forgot the biggest difference between to two: The British were denying the people of the colonials representative government and their independence. We on the other hand are just about having to beg the Iraq people to form a government so they can have their independence.

The British came to enforce the crown rule, we have come to overthrown a dictator, granted the results have been far from successful.

But, your point is taken.

[teamster633]

3. Might I point out the obvious...

"You forgot the biggest difference between to two: The British were denying the people of the colonials representative government and their independence. We on the other hand are just about having to beg the Iraq people to form a government so they can have their independence."

Any choice they make is subject to our approval. Somehow that sounds a little less noble.

[Mikimouse]

4. Thanks for the clarification...

Silly me, I thought we went into Iraq to prevent Hussein from using his weapons of mass destruction.

[Poppyseedman]

5. Normally you have to overthrow a dictator to stop him from using

his non-existent WMD first. Just a minor point!!!

[Mikimouse]

6. I remain unconvinced, sorry...n/t