do you think colonial outrage over the boston massacre was justified? explain.?

Answer 1

Well it is more "understandable" than "justified":

It wasn't just that day in 1770 that got the colonials upset. It was everything leading up to that day. The colonials were feeling like 2nd class citizens (not having a vote for Parliament in England) These were ppl that came from England and whose alliance was supposed to be w/ the mother country. England was sort of bossing the colonies around. It was the attitude England had over the colonials that really started to heat things up. England thought the colonials were akin to disobediant children.
The "massacre" in Boston in March 1770 was near the last straw. Only a few more events took place after that before the Revolutionary War began.

Answer 2

That depends on the definition of justified. People are justified to be outraged when anyone dies, but the shootings could also be justified. A large crowd, the noise confusion insubordinate and ciaos throwing stones at solders. Both sides were justified in there responses. Just as both sides were not absolutely correct, neither side was totally wrong.
My history teacher just lectured on this subject today. He presented the information in a different way than I had heard it before. It was enlightening. He is a great teacher.

Answer 3

The outrage wasn't the skirmish in Boston and it could hardly be called a massacre,
The outrage was about the Townshend Acts {taxation with out the slightest representation} and the beginning of the revolution against the English crown and their occupation of the rather poorly governed "New World"

Answer 4

well there are two sides to every story. i think it was wrong for the british soldiers to fire into a crowed not armed. but then they were also outnumbered with an angry mob around them and they were probably scared as hell(i would be). so that is a really tough question. what would have happened to the soldiers if thye hadnt. but i think that there was justification for being angry because even though there was a bunch of angry people the soldiers were not in immediate danger and the situation may have settled down. i think that they should not have shot unless they had to to defend themselves and in this case they didnt so there is justification in the outrage it did cause

Answer 5

IIm not sure. The British should not have fired on them like that, but the colonists were doing things to provoke them. Some of the people, like Paul Revere, would use the "massacre" as propaganda so the people would stay angry and not see the other side to the story.

Answer 6

It wasn't really a "massacre." The press said it was to raise the ire of the colonists. 5 people died. That's hardly a massacre.
But, any excuse to get mad at the British at this point was o.k. for the press.

Answer 7

Their really was no massacre. New England propaganda created the image of a massacre out of a minor event. I guess we Americans can thank the Bostonians for their propaganda talents.

Answer 8

there are two ways to look at it. one way is to go back over 200 yrs. and see the customs, the thinking and the way of life at that time -- on what was acceptable and not acceptable. the other way of looking at the same issue -- is to read the history of the event "to-day, September 27-2006" and to pass a judgment if it is still acceptable. in my view these views are not compatible.

Answer 9

Wouldn't you be mad if an Army shot up a bunch of your townsfolks? Liberals would ignore it and cite it as cultural differences but good ol' fashioned conservatives would kick some ***.

Answer 10

and why don't you just read the book... it will be a lot easier just to read than to ask all of your homework questions on-line and fish through until you think you found the right answer. plus you will do better on the test because you will know more than just the answers to the questions on your homework.