Boston Massacre Open Conversation, February 24th

Open conversations are an important part of our curriculum.  During an open conversation, the class gathers on the rug to discuss a topic related to something we're studying.  The class votes on the topic ahead of time, or I choose the topic.  Each student prepares his or her "beginning thought" about the topic so they come to the meeting with something to say.  The class talks without raising their hands, and with minimal direction from me about who should speak.

Our study of the Boston Massacre culminated in an open conversation last week.  Here's what we did leading up to it:

We compared Paul Revere's etching of the Boston Massacre with Alonzo Chappel's painting of the Boston Massacre and asked, What story does this tell?  What really happened?  Where does truth fit in?  Both images tell different versions of the story.  You'll find a link to both images in the Links section.  Check them out with your child and talk about what you see!

We read the accounts of 4 of the men who were involved in the massacre as they were described at the trial about whether Captain Preston had ordered his men to fire on the crowd of colonists.  Again, we wondered, What story do these accounts tell?  What really happened?  Where does truth fit in?  We also read a part of John Adams' closing argument (he represented the British soldiers).

To think more about the idea that there are several different points of view on any story, we read John Scieszka's "The True Story of the 3 Little Pigs," which is told from the wolf's point of view (It's not his fault he had a cold and the pigs' houses were poorly built!).  Look for references to this in the transcript below.

The class concluded that Paul Revere's etching placed too much blame on the British soldiers and made the colonists seem unprepared and pathetic.  It was inaccuarte, but it was a mighty powerful piece of propaganda for the Patriots' cause.  Based on all the other evidence, the class concluded that the colonists provoked the soldiers, and that they fired because colonists were yelling "fire!  fire!"  Neither side was innocent.  To wrap up, we watched the first hour of the HBO series on John Adams.  That tied everything we'd learned together.

Finally, we gathered for an open conversation to discuss what we'd learned.  The transcript is below (Please forgive my typos--transcribing is hard!).  You'll notice that there are some chaotic moments in the conversation--we're working on it.  More on how in the next post about open conversations.

RW--Revolutionary War

B--Britain

C--Colonists

BM--Boston Massacre

PR--Paul Revere

Lots of talking

MM What I didn’t get, or what was really shocking was the Colonists in a way were the ones that started the RW because Paul Revere drew this picture and they used it to show the different colonies to say “hey look at what they’re doing to us, they’re like slaughtering us up here in Boston” and also, B is being very, nobody’s liking them because it said the soldiers when they could would run away, and if they got caught they’d get killed.  B was really full force

Lots of voices

HH It’s kind of one of those things—PR drew that picture so people would say, “oh my god, we’re getting slaughtered and we’re innocent people” PR wanted to get into the war.  He wanted followers.  The BM started a little at first, they started throwing snowballs, and the B got mad and started saying back off, and they started poking them with bayonets, and it just erupted in massacre.

Voices

DM I sort of agree with Max, and it’s related to the True Story of the Three Little Pigs… it’s like the C were framing the Big Bad Wolf, the B in this case.

HZ I definitely agree with Devin.  In this picture it looks like they C were innocent, but they hit the soldiers and were provoking

Voices

SRS It was kind of true.  What PR drew wasn’t the truth, so it was kind of like framing like in the Three Little Pigs, what PR was drawing wasn’t true from what actually happened because it was the C that started it.  The B did as much wrong as the C did, but the truth isn’t what the picture says.

Voices

TG What PR did was started propaganda, and that started the war.

JD PR did that to show that it was exaggerating that they were taking us but they were but it wasn’t like that.  We weren’t the helpless ones—we were just the ones being defeated in what we started.

Voices

ML In PR pictures the C look innocent, but really they were hitting the B.  One hit one over the head with a stick, and one hit the general guy in the arm with a stick.

HG It’s like in the Three Pigs I want some sugar and I can’t get it because you’re mean to me.  The C were being mean to the B.

Voices

LD I agree with Henry because the pigs were being bad to the wolf, and the C were being bad to the B.  The B were more powerful, the wolf was more powerful.  The C provoked the B to attack them.

Voices, voices, voices…

HH Let Viktoria speak!

VC No, I didn’t speak at all!  It’s true because the colonists thought the B were going to do something to them, like the 3 Little Pigs, they didn’t think the wolf wanted a cup of sugar, they thought he wanted to eat them.

Voices… she didn’t finish!

VC That’s why they didn’t let him come in.  Yeah, I forgot.

JA I agree with Viktoria and Lauren.  The B were the powerfulest, and the wolf was more powerful.  You would have thought the wolf and the B would have started it all, but they didn’t.  The B got really confused.  When they heard the C saying “fire fire fire” they thought it meant to fire.  They were all confused.

Voices voices

SS excuse me! Excuse me!  I’ve been waiting for about 5 minutes!

SL I kind of disagree with Joanna because the B soldiers didn’t want to fight the C, the only reason the B soldiers fired was because the C were taunting them.  They didn’t want to fire.

MK the BM really started when B soldiers were moving into the B homes.

DM Well all these acts are trying to help the C because the C are letting the B stay so they can’t be in a lot of debt.  They just need the C to try and give them donations so they can pay off their debt.

CS I agree with Steven and sort of disagree with Joanna.  They didn’t want to hurt the C.  They were always protecting the C.  The C were taunting the soldiers, so of course the C were going to

LQ Imagine yourself in a country where everyone hates you.  You’re an outcast.  People will try to kill you if they get a chance.  People are throwing rocks and hitting you with sticks, it’s a natural reflex.

ER It wasn’t anybody’s fault.  The townspeople were saying “fire,” so then the soldiers mistook it for a command, so when they heard this, they started firing.  The townspeople were afraid of the B because they thought they would start killing everybody there.

LR I disagree.  The townspeople kind of thought they were tough, like You can shoot us, we don’t care.

Voices…

HG Who hasn’t talked yet?

JA I disagree with Luke because the British…  oh yeah, Sammy, you can talk.

SS No one's actually sure what really happened.  Can you believe if any of those accounts are true?  The historical version is pieced together.  What’s true, what’s real, it’s really difficult to rely on one of the accounts of the story that was told.

MM I definitely disagree.  There’s pretty much one big idea that’s going around.  There’s really only a few stories.  The story is that this group of boys got the B angry and the massacre started.  The bigger story is clear.

Voices “Let Maya speak!”

MG I sort of disagree with Sammy and agree with Luke because it’s sort of like the C were like, “Yeah, kill me!” and the C were throwing rocks and basically like “he he, we’re going to hurt you.”  If you were standing there letting someone kill you and you had a gun that works, would you let them kill you or would you fight back?

Voices… voices…

LEB—Only those who haven’t spoken.

SJ I agree with Maya.  The B couldn’t just stand there.  They had to fight.  It was also weird that the C started it because they were weaker…

RG I agree with Stella because the B were just waiting with guns.  The C don’t have big heavy guns like the B do, and I don’t get why they would start it.  Why would the B let the C kill them?  They’re not going to just stand there.

HS I think the C were fighting back.  They had bayonets to their back and were prodding them along.  The least you could do is throw a snowball at the person who’s holding a sword to your back.  So they kind of had to.

EA I don’t agree with Stella J and Romane.  It wasn’t like all the C were ganging up on the soldiers.  It was a group of stupid people doing stupid stuff to people with guns.  It was just stupid people, it wasn’t like they thought they could overpower those soldiers.

RR I don’t think it was a good idea for the C to fight the B in the first place because they knew the B had guns and could kill them.

CL I disagree with Edie because the B didn’t have a choice.  The C were kind of forcing them to fight.

LH At the beginning, there was only one soldier and then he called for help.

LEB What did you learn about truth and how history is told?

JD I think it’s weird that… every story has two sides, like in the Three Little Pigs.  There’s each side, and you have to pick which one feels more likely.

MK Normally it’s somewhere in the middle.

TG You never know which one is true.

HG When you look at the pictures, they don’t tell the same thing.  They’re like opposite.  You can’t go back in time and look at the BM.

MM But history can be truth and it can be the worst, but it’s the best thing to say now we know the C started it and that’s the truth… the actual true story is always a mystery.  But as Jackson said, there are two sides, and the guilty side will never tell the truth.  Some things that ended up sticking in history might be the opposite of the real story.  History could be wrong, but we just know it as the wrong way.

JA I think you’re really right.  There B aren’t completely innocent and the C aren’t completely innocent.  We know they did something terrible to each other.  The BM wasn’t just one side killing the other.  You pretty much never know.