There are three sides to every story: One person’s side, the other person’s side, and the truth. This is no different for the Boston Massacre. The Boston Massacre took place in March 5, 1770 in the streets of Boston. Some people believe that the colonists were more responsible for the death of the 5 colonists. Others, including myself, believe that the Redcoats were more responsible. I believe this for the following reasons: 1. The Redcoat who started this was drunk, 2. They used extreme force against the colonists, and 3. Tensions were very high between the two groups, so the Redcoats should have been more controlled. Let’s go into greater detail as to why I believe the Redcoats are responsible.
Firstly, the Redcoat soldier who initially began this incident was drunk. This soldier was singing his sword around and striking buildings with it as he was parading down an alleyway. With every strike of his sword against the walls of the buildings, he created sparks, sparks that could potentially start a fire. Some “good Samaritans”, if you will, saw the soldier creating these sparks and thought that he needed to be taken care of. They did not use force to try to calm him, but they simply talked with him and tried to persuade him to go home and lay down. But as we all …show more content…
When two sides are in a conflict, tensions are going to be high. If the tensions are high, you need to tread lightly. If you act rashly and without care, you may start something that could turn into something far worse. As Isoroku Yamamoto said after the bombing of Pearl Harbor: “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” This simply means one small act could change everything drastically and for the worse. If you are having an argument with someone and that argument becomes very heated, do you start fighting the other debater? I know I
Firstly, the Redcoat soldier who initially began this incident was drunk. This soldier was singing his sword around and striking buildings with it as he was parading down an alleyway. With every strike of his sword against the walls of the buildings, he created sparks, sparks that could potentially start a fire. Some “good Samaritans”, if you will, saw the soldier creating these sparks and thought that he needed to be taken care of. They did not use force to try to calm him, but they simply talked with him and tried to persuade him to go home and lay down. But as we all …show more content…
When two sides are in a conflict, tensions are going to be high. If the tensions are high, you need to tread lightly. If you act rashly and without care, you may start something that could turn into something far worse. As Isoroku Yamamoto said after the bombing of Pearl Harbor: “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” This simply means one small act could change everything drastically and for the worse. If you are having an argument with someone and that argument becomes very heated, do you start fighting the other debater? I know I