The evidence clearly shows that General Dyer acted reckless on April 13, 1919. Therefore, the case against General Dyer is a simple one. The days before the massacre was ordered, the people were protesting and rioting ("Amritsar Massacre"). General Dyer was sent to Amritsar to restore order, but he did more than that, he got revenge on the Indians ("Amritsar Massacre"). In addition to this, Dyer was near the end of his career and on the way to going into obscurity, and the only way he could change this was to make a name for himself (Source 3).…
As the fierce fight had continued, many of the people injured or killed by British soldiers. Some of the soldiers associated with killing the colonists were relatively light penalties and released soon. As a result, it case brought wrath to the colonists. The bloody Boston Massacre demonstrated to the momentous disturbance…
According to Gandhi's speech, the British impoverished India, controlled the Indian government instead of letting India’s rule, and disregarded the interests of Indians most of the time (Document 7). Document 8 states, “Socially the ogre of racial segregation and discrimination makes it extremely difficult for the colonial to develop his personality to the full”…
However, to make Britain look bad they called it a "massacre" to make it seem worse than what it was. (O I) The British had also implied acts and taxes upon the…
Gandhi helped calm down the violence towards the British but the vehement resentment remained as many Indians died during the British rule. Indians wanted freedom similar to America's breakaway from Britain and they would eventually receive that…
The Boston Massacre was the result of the colonists' frustration with British policies after the French and Indian War ended in 1763. They disliked Parliament's active involvement, and hated the presence of British soldiers, who seemed to be policing the colonists. They also resented the numerous attempts at taxation, such as the Sugar Act and Stamp Act, which Parliament tried to impose on them without their consent. When Parliament would not listen to their verbal protests, the expressions of their discontent became violent. Eventually, the Boston Massacre exploded onto the Boston political scene, and brought the colonies closer to revolution.…
Although it might have seemed good to give a new rule over India it took away all their freedom, therefore when they took over all their land they also ran it carelessly. Without consideration of others they miss ruled and ran others into the ground while taking all their goods but leaving them to rote. “The English had 960 people controlling India but only 60 of those people were Indians” (doc 2) which might have been a good thing to the english because they then would have more power over the people but then having the 60 Indians that they did also let them have just enough of their own kind over them but not enough that they couldn’t control and handle. The British controlled India with a hard hand and the need to change everything making…
The British soldiers were responsible for the Boston Massacre because they used unnecessary means of force and weapons. The colonists were completely unarmed and innocent. They had no weapons on them that was capable of killing any soldier. They also were only nagging at the soldiers and yelling at them, if the soldiers told them to stop they would because the colonists fear the soldiers. The British soldiers fired at the colonists and hit them with their swords.…
This became what is known as the Boston Massacre, even though only five colonists lost their lives. The massacre became a rallying point for anti-British feelings and many colonists attitudes toward the British changed…
The Boston Massacre was on the fifth of March seventeen- seventy, where sentry Hugh White was standing outside of the House of Commons. Colonist, Edward Garrick, saw him and attacked by, “ insulting private White, saying among other things, that his company commander was a cheat and did not pay him for a wig” (N.A. Hardly a Massacre- British View, www.boston massacre.net). When Garrick started making a scene, a crowd drew in. Captain Preston of the British army came and tried to appease the mob, but to no avail.…
The Boston Massacre March 5, 1770, British soldiers fired upon a mob of rowdy crowd of colonists. This event, officially named the Boston Massacre, killed 5 colonists. The British soldiers not only fired without order, but fired without order on an unarmed crowd, unless you consider stones and snowballs ‘armed’. The British fired without order from a captain, or a commander. In fact, their Captain, Thomas Preston was not on sight when the attack occurred and had to travel to the section of soldiers, as stated in his own testimony.…
This day became known as the Boston or Bloody Massacre, on which three men were killed and more were wounded. This event jeopardized the ties between Britain and the colonies. The colonists would not stand for this unfair treatment much longer. John Adams wrote about the treatment of the British towards the colonists saying “ Nothing but equal Liberty and kind Treatment can secure the attachment of the Colonies to Britain.” (Doc 2).…
On March 5, 1770 a mob of colonists armed with clubs surrounded the customs house in Boston where the kings money was kept. The mob surrounded the guard posted there and threatened his life so the red coats were called in, to disperse the mob and the defend the customs house. The colonists started to attack the redcoats tasked with defending the customs house, Which lead to an unordered shot fired by one of the soldiers, not directly at the colonists. According to the Captain Thomas Preston the first shot was on ascended because the gun hit the ground after the soldier holding it was clubbed to the ground. The shot was than followed by multiple others.…
To Whom it May Concern at the Boston Gazette: The colonists are to blame for the Boston Massacre, because they have provoked the British to open fire by forming a mob, through taunts, and by the uncertainty of who was saying fire. First, the colonists have attempted to portray an act of violence without any provocation, which got matters complicated. According to the report of Captain Preston, the colonist “[assembled together] to attack the troops, and [they rang] the bells…as the signal for that purpose and not for fire”. Additionally, someone “ [sounded] the alarm bells, [under the normal routine for] fire. This means that the colonists used a normal sign of warning to gather the people to attack the soldiers, for they used an underhanded technique to catch the soldiers off-guard.…
They stole from ancient shrines and sacred places, and they caused many famines. They protected other ancient buildings like the taj mahal (#20). Some shrines were completely baron due to English tourists taking artifacts, and Englishmen took whole sections of ruins(Quora.com). This shows how disrespectful and how much the british ruined Indian culture and some major parts of India socially, even though they claim to have protected these types of buildings. They also improved health and stopped some disease.…