1. Read pp. 61-64 in your textbook.
2. Go back to the link to the primary sources that you did earlier this week and read sources 2 and 3 in section B. The pages are 135 - 137.
3. We will have atest next week so if you have time you may want to start reviewing for it.
4. Look at the picture belwo and on the blog comment on how the picture is a piece of propaganda.
According to Merriam Webster Propaganda means "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person." The following painting of Paul Rever's "Boston Massacre" is clearly propaganda. The intent of his painting was to portray the British as mercinaries who were slaughtering innocent American colonists. However, through different eye witness accounts it was discovered that the colonosits were antagonizing the British soldiers who shot the colonists out of selfe defense. Paul Revere's intent was clear to "injur" the reputation of Britain and their army.
ReplyDelete(Also credit to Emily Gregoire for last weeks use of dictionary definitions)
ReplyDeleteChase Conklin
ReplyDeleteThe image of the Boston Massacre is a piece of propaganda, for many reasons. This piece is propaganda because the British are attacking the victim colonists, where, as mentioned in our textbook, America Past and Present, “In the gathering dusk of that afternoon [March 5, 1770], young boys and street toughs used rocks and snowballs to bombard a small isolated patrol…. as the mob grew and became more threatening, the troops panicked and fired, leaving five Americans dead. (60)” If one were to look at different editions of this picture, the blood may be far greater or less, showing how it is changed to better suit the patriots’ needs. The picture is also made by Paul Revere, a patriot, who made it seem like the British were the aggressors and like the British had opened fire on defenseless colonists who had done nothing at all, quite far from the truth. The target of this piece of propaganda are the colonists, who would be inflamed if they saw that they would be attacked by armed British soldiers, making it too biased and targeted towards a specific group for it to be an actual representation of what happened.
Chase Conklin
ReplyDeleteBridget,
I agree with what you mentioned about the British firing in self defense, and how it was used to injure the British reputation. Paul Revere was able to make the event seem far different than it actually occurred, and even the use of the name of the "Boston Massacre" indicates that is a strong piece of propaganda. How effective was this piece of propaganda at enflaming and uniting the colonists against the British?
Boyd Green
ReplyDeleteI was literally about to give the exact same definition on propaganda before I read Bridgets post. I also planned to credit Emily.The paining of the Boston Massacre is an example of propaganda because it demonstrates someone’s opinion and not actual facts. Revere portrays the British as ruthless and as murderers. He shows them killing defenseless colonists from point blank range. As Bridget stated, the colonists actually provoked the British soldiers. This propaganda had a couple crucial purposes. The first was that it allowed the colonists to unite under their hatred of the evil British. The other was the ability to generate pity among other countries who could prove to be crucial allies in hypothetical rebellions.
Boyd Green
ReplyDeleteChase, I completely agree that the target of this propaganda is to the colonists. I agree when you say that the colonists would be inflamed upon seeing this depiction. I would take it one step farther and say it was meant to spark action, not just emotion. Revere was a man of action and he wanted others to follow suit. Could this propaganda, however, have negative effects towards the colonists?
Connor Kilian
ReplyDeleteThis picture paints the colonists as a people who have been wronged. Just calling it the "Boston Massacre" sets them up to be the blame-free victims. According to Merriam Webster online dictionary, a massacre is " the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty." The name of the event implies that the victims were not resisting . Even though in this picture the British are portrayed as the assailants, it was the colonists who were the provocateurs. The colonist bent the truth in the picture and used the falsities to aid their cause, which, according to the definition Bridget supplied for us, would make this into a piece of propaganda.
Nathan Fritz
ReplyDeleteIn order to further the understanding that this image of the "Boston Massacre" is an example of propaganda, I believe we should analyze the different segments of the image. The most evident part of the image is the smoke in the background. This emphasizes the utilization of weapons by the British soldiers. They are formed into a concise line carrying stern expressions and their red of their coats immediately identify them as the subject of the image. To the left of the picture, there are colonists standing in fear and distress. They are unarmed and unprotected from the apparent onslaught of the British. On the ground in front of the other colonists, there lie two bodies mangled and bloodstained depicting the colonists as the victims.
Paul Revere uses this image, to quote Bridget, as "The spreading of ideas to injure" the British in the eyes of the colonists. The different aspects of this image portray the British as ruthless killers who only want the control of the colonists and the domination of their lives and liberties. What began as a simple prank quickly escalated into a brawl that served as a uniting idea throughout the colonies through the use of these events in the propaganda of the time. In my mind this is a clear concise piece of propaganda with a strong message to the colonies in America.
Nathan Fritz
ReplyDeleteConnor, I agree that the colonists used this image as an aid to their cause by bending the truth of the events that took place. However when you said that the colonists were the provocateurs, I had to reflect for a moment. To me it seems that even though the colonists used the "Boston Massacre" as a means for their objective and though the British fired upon the crowd on people, I feel that the provocation came from a culmination of resentments from both sides. there were defiantly hard feelings circulating in the British as well as the colonists and I wonder if this "friction" caused the augmentation of events.
Connor Kilian
ReplyDeleteNate, I believe that you are right and that tensions were building on both sides. However, could you say that the situation was like a barrel full of gun powder next to a fire just waiting for a spark to set it off? If this is the case then the colonists throwing snowballs and rocks at the British was the spark to set things ablaze. You say that the building tensions were what set into motion the chain of events but the British were not the ones to start throwing things. They reacted to the colonists but the picture suggests that the British planned the first strike. By changing the picture to aid their cause and circulating it around the colonies, the colonists created a piece of propaganda.
The etching by Paul Revere of the Boston Massacre is a huge example of propaganda. It was designed to show the redcoats in a horrible light and make the American colonists look like heroes. Although it was in fact the colonists who started the struggle by provoking patrol officers with rocks and snowballs, the troops fired at the colonists out of self defense and killed five Americans. By spreading around pictures such as Paul Revere's, depicting the redcoats mercilessly killing "innocent" citizens, he successfully spread a rumor for the purpose of injuring a group of people, as defined above by Bridget. In the caption of the etching pictured on page 60 of America Past and Present, it is even noted that in future editions of the print, more blood is shown streaming from the colonists' dead bodies.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone think that extra blood would be excessive?
Sean Foster
ReplyDeleteThis picture is clear use of propaganda directed at the American colonists to irritate and spark hatred in the fragile relationship with England. The picture portrays the colonists as common folk unarmed and defenseless against the apparent ruthless attack, as depicted by the picture, of the British. The smoke is a clear indication of just how much shooting is going on in this scene directed solely at the colonists. Looking at this picture, the British are shown lined up looking stern and orderly with a clear intent into what they are doing, while the other side shows chaos, panic, and fear in seemingly innocent colonists. The events in the picture and the title itself, “Boston Massacre,” portray the British as ruthless people stirring up problems and controversies by themselves when in reality the colonists had provoked the British to act the way they did. This poster altered the truth by blaming solely the British for the events, which killed and injured American colonists. This helped rally the colonists together to protect their men against the British, who, through the usage of propaganda and stretching the truth in the poster, were now seen as merciless killers.
Sean Foster
ReplyDeleteEmily, I think adding extra blood is certainly not hurting the cause the poster is intended to serve. The purpose of the poster was to make it seem like the British were "mercilessly killing innocent citizens" as you put it. The more thorough this message is conveyed the more effective the propaganda will be on the colonists, making them feel resentment and hatred toward England. Adding blood is only increasing this effectiveness the poster had stirring up the colonists.
Conor Helfrich
ReplyDeletePaul Revere's picture is a brillant use of propaganda. There were no televisions or video cameras in that day and age, so the only people that really knew what happened were the ones that were there. Revere must have known that, for the most part, he could have painted the scene of the "Boston Massacre" any way he wanted. The way he depicted it with the red coats shooting at the seemingly innocent Americans was meant to provoke and fire up the colonists. It shows the viewers that the British had no control and were acting barbaric towards their "fellow servants of the King". The relationship between America and the mother country at the time was on thin ice, so Revere's painting was a piece of propaganda that woke up the colonists and showed them that the British had taken action against them.
Also, the title itself speaks volumes. Revere calling the painting "The Boston Massacre" shows that then colonists had been seriously harmed; they had been "massacred". If Revere called it "The Big Misunderstanding," people wouldn't have had reason or felt it neccessary to go under their bed and grab their rifle because it was simply a misunderstanding. Even if it was just a mix up in reality-- it didn't matter. That is the power of effective propaganda-- misunderstandings can turn into massacres with just the altercation of a couple words.
ReplyDeleteBoyd,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your reasoning for Paul Revere to exploit the Boston Massacre. I believe that to the propagandists it was important to unite the colonists to see the "wrongdoing" of the British, and having other nations pity them and join forces against the British would be another perk as well. Adding on to your ideas, the propagandists wanted to get the colonists upset so that they could more easily resist the British and get them to retreat their army. It worked, and the British moved the army to an island in Boston harbor.
Also, even though it was unnecessary, it was very thoughtful of both you and Bridget to give me credit for the idea of defining the term last week. Thank you!
Conor Helfrich
ReplyDeleteSean, I liked how you said, "This helped rally the colonists together to protect their men against the British, who, through the usage of propaganda and stretching the truth in the poster, were now seen as merciless killers." After reading your comment I now realize that "stretching the truth" was the phrase I was looking for. I completely agree. By stretching the truth, Revere was able to show the British as "merciless killers".
Geoffrey Keane
ReplyDeletePaul Revere's etching of the Boston Massacre is a piece of propaganda because it deliberately alters the actuality of the situation in order to rile up and unite the colonists in their displeasure for the British. The truth of the event is that the British soldiers were assaulted by a mob of hostile colonists who threw rocks and snowballs at them. However, this was not what the etching displays. Many aspects of the etching play to the image of wrongdoing to the colonists that Revere wanted to portray. These aspects range from subtle to obvious, from the expressions that the British soldiers have on their faces to the prominently displayed blood. Other aspects include the dog placed in the foreground, the implication that the crowd was just walking along, the leadership of the British officer behind the soldiers, and even the title displayed above the etching “the Bloody Massacre”. All these aspects have the same goal, to show the public that there was no provocation but, instead the British fired out without cause or reason and took away the valuable lives of five countrymen. This intentional altering of a truth to influence the opinion of the general public is a textbook definition of propaganda and so Paul Revere's etching of the “Boston Massacre” is most definitely propaganda.
Geoffrey Keane
ReplyDeleteEmily,
While I agree with the majority of what you are saying, one thing struck me. Yes, the colonist started the struggle and provoked the British patrol that was passing through and yes, Paul Revere unfavorably depicted the patrol in this confrontation. However, I have a question on your point that the British soldiers were shown in a horrible light and the American colonists were shown as heroes. Do you think that Paul Revere intended to show the colonists depicted as heroes or rather as martyrs and victims to the British? As for the blood, like Sean, I think the addition of more and more blood to the etching suits the purpose that it designed for. It is designed to the sway the public opinion against the British, and the more barbaric, bloody and savage the killings look, the message would take proportionally more effect on the population that viewed it.
Chase I agree with you statement even the use of the name of the "Boston Massacre" indicates that is a strong piece of propaganda. Paul Revere painted and titled his piece of work with the intent of portraying the British in a certain light. My question is what was Paul Revere's propaganda trying to accomplish with his piece. Did Paul want a further boycott of British taxed goods, or a revolt against Britain? If he was trying to display them as "martyrs" as Geoffrey has said then was he trying to promote more patriotism amoung everyday citizens? I believe Paul Revere's propaganda was not only intentional, but with a purpose. He wanted to ignite a fire in the minds of the average colonists not just the high end officials consulting with Britain. The average colonists would be the ones to in the end decide the direction of the next step America took towards their independence or loyalty to Britain.
ReplyDeleteThis etching by Paul Revere is certainly a piece of propaganda. History reveals that only five out of a large group of colonists were shot and killed, but this picture portrays the events as a bloody and horrific massacre. Without even glancing at the picture, the name says a lot, because immidiately, the reader (the Boston Massacre) expects a number of people who injustly were slaughtered. Additionally, the term massacre, along with the image of the British soldiers all shooting in a line suggests that the killings were intentional and organised. If people think the British troops purposefully killed at close range innocent unarmed civilians, it immidiately triggers a response of hatred and disgust towards the red coats. At the center of the etching there are fallen colonists bleeding profusely, which gives the picture an unbalanced feel that the colonists were weak and unprotected, while the British were brutally shooting them. The picture clearly portrays the colonists as victims, and the British as the agressors in a biased way, that causes the viewer to sympathize with the colonists, the exact reaction this piece of propaganda is aimed to do.
ReplyDeleteConor Helfrich, I agree with what you said (in your second post)about how wordings and captions are often just as important as the picture itself, and can effect the way we see things. I know people say "a picture is worth a thousand words", but the captions influence how the picture is interpreted. After learning that the "Boston Massacre" was actually a big misunderstanding of multiple injuries on both sides, do you think we (as Americans) should change what we refer to and call the "Boston Massacre"? Is this name still being used as propaganda?
ReplyDeleteGeoffrey, you mentioned that the etching's aim was to "show the public that there was no provocation but, instead the British fired out without cause or reason and took away the valuable lives of five countrymen." What you said reminded me of the Acts of Parliament such as the stamp act generated prior to the "massacre". Do you think maybe the message of this picture fits into the pattern of the British taking from and harming the colonists for no reason?
ReplyDeleteThe question is how this is a piece of propaganda. In my mind, the answer is very simple; everything is blown out of proportion. The first thing that stuck out was that on the top of the etching it is titled "The Bloody Massacre". I think that is a bit ridiculous, and would put that name on something like the Holocaust, not a street brawl. Another thing that is blown out of proportion are the expressions on the colonists faces, and they look like the victims of a horrible crime, which spread the idea to the rest of the colonies that they were fired upon for no reason. The reality is that the British fired to retaliate against colonial provocation. The truth is that the colonists started this fight and then managed to turn it around against the British through mass production of this biased etching. Another way they portrayed the "massacre" in a biased way was how they portrayed the British in such an angry and syndical way, especially the faces they have. They make it look like the British fired because they wanted to, not because they were acting in self-defense.
ReplyDeleteConnor K,
ReplyDeleteI found your metaphor of the gunpowder barrel next to a flame very accurate. I definitely find the situation one that was destined to happen and was inevitable. The way they showed the event through the etching made it appear that it was a spontaneous act of violence against the colonists. I found that rather interesting that the colonists would portray such a strong image.