User:Makoskelapstcc/sandbox

•Lives inKnoxville, Tennessee

•Student at Pellissippi State Community College

•Future Dental hygienist

Boston Massacre

Fact- The Boston Massacre was a confrontation on March 5, 1770, in which British soldiers shot and killed several people while being harassed by a mob in Boston.

APA Citation- Hinderaker, Eric. Boston's Massacre. 2017.

ISBN : 9780674979116

Quote- On the night of March 5, 1770, in the uncertain light of a quarter moon reflecting on snow­ covered streets, a detachment of British troops fired into a crowd of civilians in front of Boston’s Custom House.

Stuart J Foster, and Elizabeth A Yeager. “"You've Got to Put Together the Pieces": English 12	Year-Olds Encounter and Learn from Historical Evidence.” Journal of Curriculum and	Supervision, vol. 14, no. 4, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,	1999, p. 286.

I had trouble finding a diversity gap, so I picked a different perspective. This article accounts for a twelve-year old’s view of the Boston Massacre. I think having multiple outlooks gives a better perspective of the event.

McArdle, A. (2005). Race and the American originary moment: the Boston massacre narratives and the idea of citizenship. Rutgers Race & the Law Review, 7(1-2), 51.

Fact 1- The 12 year old's were able to recount for what happened and put into their own perspective. Summary 1- Using overheads and maps, one of the researchers briefly explained to students the background of the Boston Massacre of 1770. Essentially, the 15-minute presentation focused on the establishment of the American colonies, how these colonies were answerable to Britain, and why many Americans resented British rule. Pupils were provided with enough information for them to understand that the colonists and the British saw events at this time from differing viewpoints. The presentation then quickly focused on the Boston Massacre. Pupils were told that historians disagree about what happened in Boston on March 5, 1770, and that different accounts of events exist.

Fact 2- British American colonist formed a new nation and argues who can and cannot be a citizen.

Summary- This article addresses the strategies through which contested narratives have invested the Boston Massacre with legal and cultural meaning, linked to competing conceptions of American citizenship - one that is based on participation and identification with a community and the other on a more narrow, ethnoracial view, based on anglocentric culture and political tradition. 15 It examines how John Adams, then a rising Boston lawyer engaged to defend the soldiers (although identified with the local opposition to the British), downplayed the political implications of the incident in his closing argument and exploited Attucks's involvement in the fracas to create an image [*55]  of a bloodthirsty "Molatto" 16 whose confrontational behavior was responsible for the violence. By linking Attucks's transgressiveness to his racial identity, reinforcing his outsider status, Adams's trial narrative, I argue, deployed race as a logic of exclusion. This exclusionary logic was bound up with the idea of citizenship - delineating who deserved to be counted among the members of an emerging national community. Arguing against that logic, abolitionist and assimilationist discourses in the 19th century still operated with reference to an exclusionary paradigm that was already ingrained within U.S. public rhetoric, legal thought, and social practice. And in the 20th century, despite the web of constitutional amendments, legislation, and judicial opinions that created a framework for equal rights, the practice of scapegoating victims of color within the American legal system has continued to disenfranchise people who have the formal status of citizens.