tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post114901740917155110..comments2024-03-28T04:26:30.557-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: Boston Massacre: really a "massacre"?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-56666267867986650752007-09-20T11:31:00.000-05:002007-09-20T11:31:00.000-05:00Thanks for the comment. It’s quite true that in th...Thanks for the comment. It’s quite true that in the confrontation on King Street, neither side was defenseless. The soldiers had firearms; the crowd had sticks and overwhelming numbers. <BR/><BR/>But what's the source of that definition of “massacre”? My edition of Dr. Samuel Johnson's dictionary (which is not an 18th-century printing and therefore may not reflect the original) defines a massacre as “Butchery; indiscriminate destruction...Murder.” <BR/><BR/>That label may not seem justified, but I think that’s how the action looked to Bostonians in 1770. Certainly that’s the picture they tried to paint of the shooting.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-65185825594068581822007-09-20T06:08:00.000-05:002007-09-20T06:08:00.000-05:00What about the acual definition of a massacre. A c...What about the acual definition of a massacre. A cruel slaughtering of two or mmore people who are defenseless. There was nothing about the colonists or British being defenseless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com