To say that there was a great deal of unrest in the American town of Ferguson, Missouri last year would be an understatement. The truth is that the situation came about as close to warfare as one can get while still qualifying as a domestic example of civil disobedience. Rioting citizens faced off against heavily armed police in a violent clash that left the community a smoldering ruin. The police were accused of tyranny. The people were accused of lawlessness. So who was right, and who, if anyone, had the moral high ground? When things like this occur, the first question historians often ask themselves is "when and where has this happened before?" And then they dig through the historical archives, searching for some sort of precedent.
As an amateur student of history, I was surprised in my own search to uncover an uncannily similar incident, over 200 years ago, in the American colonies. The Boston Massacre of 1770 was a pivotal point in British-American relations, and was part of a series of calamitous events that ultimately led to the American Revolutionary War, in which the colonies fought for independence against the British Monarchy. You can read about the American perspective here.
But there are often two sides to every issue, and what follows is British Captain Preston's account of the Boston Massacre. In it, he describes the protesters as "rioters", "malcontents", as being "a mob", and even accuses them of trying to break into the royal treasury to loot and steal British tax collections (which they undoubtedly believed to have been unfairly taken from the American colonists). That link is here.
So who was right? Who was justified? While I do have my own opinions, I will not make that judgement for others, who have their own unique perspectives on both incidents. I will only point out the similarities between the two events, occurring centuries apart, and yet eerily reminiscent of one another.
Add new comment