A Q&A with with Serena Zabin, author of 鈥楾he Boston Massacre: A Family History鈥�
The fatal shooting of five Massachusetts colonists by British soldiers in 1770 helped kindle the Revolutionary War. But it wasn鈥檛 just a clash among men. As Carleton College historian Serena Zabin writes in 鈥淭he Boston Massacre: A Family History,鈥� the rift split the town. British soldiers had blended into the community by marrying local women. 鈥淭his wasn鈥檛 just brother versus brother,鈥� she tells Monitor correspondent Randy Dotinga. 鈥淚t was sister versus sister too.鈥�
Q:聽What do you mean when you say the massacre is a 鈥渇amily history鈥�?
First, this was a conflict between people who knew each other, largely through neighbor and family relationships. Second, the Boston Massacre marks the end of a familial relationship between the British colonies and England. In that way, it鈥檚 not so much the beginning of the Revolution, but the end of a family.
Q:聽Why was there tension between England and the Boston colonists in the first place?
At the end of the Seven Years鈥� War [in 1763], the British Empire ends up with a much more enormous space to administer than they鈥檝e ever had. They need more money to do this, so they come up with new taxes. There are a lot of protests in the colonies, and the taxes are essentially repealed. But the need for money hasn鈥檛 gone away, so they come up with taxes on imports. This leads to riots and smuggling.聽
Troops are brought to Boston to try to support the government, and the Quartering Act says they鈥檙e supposed to be put up there. The army ends up renting people鈥檚 extra houses, spare rooms, sheds, and basements, putting soldiers all over the town of Boston.聽
Q:聽The massacre happens during a standoff. How do eyewitness accounts diverge?聽
People see, and say they see, different things. It鈥檚 not surprising for a couple of reasons. For one, it鈥檚 9 o鈥檆lock at night in March. There are no streetlights, and it鈥檚 dark.聽
But part of the reason there鈥檚 so many contradictory accounts is because people had such particular reasons for seeing what they saw and for telling the stories that they did. Everyone was shaping their story to talk about blame.聽
Q:聽Who was responsible?
It doesn鈥檛 really matter. The importance of this shooting is less about whose fault it was than what people did once the smoke cleared. With all the spin and propaganda and politics, this turns into 鈥渢he Boston Massacre.鈥� That鈥檚 what鈥檚 really significant.
Q:聽Were these protesters revolutionaries?
Nobody鈥檚 a revolutionary in 1770. But Boston has the Sons of Liberty, a politically organized and committed group of men who think their relationship with the British Empire needs fixing. They see this as potential fodder for making their argument that Boston needs a different kind of relationship to the British Empire.聽
Q:聽Was the Revolution a kind of divorce?
Yes. We think of it as a political event, but it鈥檚 a lot more like a bad divorce in which we forget all the good things that brought people together in the first place.
Q:聽What can we learn about how the bloodshed could have been avoided?
We don鈥檛 have to be defined by the political stories that are told about our relationships 鈥� the tales that erase the complicated bonds that people in our communities have with each other. We can step back and embrace the messiness of our relationships. We don鈥檛 have to divide the world into us and them.
