3 ms·

Nobody is doubting it was an act of violence. The oddity is that they're calling it an act of murder as opposed to an act of war. Murder sounds like a bunch of

Nobody is doubting it was an act of violence. The oddity is that they're calling it an act of murder as opposed to an act of war. Murder sounds like a bunch of criminals, which is a really one sided take. The british soldiers were there to destroy colonial military supplies. It may be technically correct, but you don't hear about how the GIs murdered a bunch of Nazis on the beaches of Normandy or whatever other war suits your fancy. Save for the particularly one sided conflicts. I got history from american public education, and while half of it was garbage, and half of it was dull internal politics of isolationism, there was no ambiguity that the revolutionary war was a bloody conflict.

beaner 6y ago
I'm not a historian but isn't there some ambiguity here? If war hadn't already been declared by the relevant governments, you can't be killing in the name of war.
- refurb 6y ago
  You don’t want to open up that can of worms. Thousands of war deaths would qualify as murders if you used a declaration as the deciding factor.
  - yread 6y ago
    Well, back in the day wars did usually start with a declaration of war.
  - throwaway287391 6y ago
    What's the danger in "opening that can of worms"? IMHO the world might be a better place if there were a lot less killing, whether it's in the context of a war or not. Some killings throughout history are certainly justifiable or excusable, but it seems far more dangerous to me to stick one's head in the sand and avoid reflecting on whether each killing really needed to happen, or if the victim could reasonably have been spared without significant risk of harm or jeopardizing the larger cause (presuming the cause itself is just). "Murder" doesn't seem like an unreasonable label in the latter case. (Whether and how the killer should be punished in such situations is a separate question that I'm not taking a position on here.)
    - refurb 6y ago
      The danger is there are plenty of rebellions, revolutions and other "positive" conflicts where wars were never declared. You're basically going to be painting the people that took part in conflicts like the American revolution, Irish War of Independence, Indian War of Independence, Cuban Revolution, etc as "murders".
- cafard 6y ago
  The British troops had set out to disarm the local militia. I have a hard time seeing how something that began with armed infantry units confronting each other at Lexington was not a war. And by the way, when the British seized a Spanish fleet--which had imagined itself to be neutral--during the Napoleonic wars, their government stated that the United Kingdom had never been in the habit of starting wars with a declaration.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  This is just semantics, but I think not. If you're attacking a military unit to achieve a military objective, murder feels inappropriate. In my opinion, murder tends: * to be done by an individual, not a group * tends to happen to one, or a few victims. It's odd to describe someone as murdering 70 people at once. * tends to imply the victim was not professionally engaged in such a way that their death in those circumstances is not a plausible concern * the motive is not political, else it is an assassination
disown 6y ago
> It may be technically correct, but you don't hear about how the GIs murdered a bunch of Nazis on the beaches of Normandy or whatever other war suits your fancy. Save for the particularly one sided conflicts. That's because the nazis lost. If they had won, as Robert McNamara said, we'd be called murderers and criminals and our leaders would have been hanged for crimes against humanity. Not only did the british call the revolutionaries murderers, they also called them terrorists since the revolutionaries were attacking and terrorizing the loyalists. Ironic huh? One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. As strange as it sounds, in an alternate universe where the brits won, the history books probably describe the revolutionaries as murderers and terrorists. Can you imagine how odd it would be to view Benedict Arnold as a hero and George Washington as the villain? > there was no ambiguity that the revolutionary war was a bloody conflict. And there certainly was no ambuigity about who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. History is just one part of nation building propaganda. The people in charge ( usually the winners ) get to write it. Fundamentally, there are no good guys or bad guys, just winners and losers in history.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  > That's because the nazis lost. If they had won, as Robert McNamara said, we'd be called murderers and criminals and our leaders would have been hanged for crimes against humanity. Perhaps this is just an American thing, but I wouldn't call the Nazi soldiers killing American soldiers murderers either. The holocaust is murder, if not superceded by the term genocide. Something can be an unjust killing and still not be murder.

beaner 6y ago

I'm not a historian but isn't there some ambiguity here? If war hadn't already been declared by the relevant governments, you can't be killing in the name of war.

refurb 6y ago
You don’t want to open up that can of worms. Thousands of war deaths would qualify as murders if you used a declaration as the deciding factor.
- yread 6y ago
  Well, back in the day wars did usually start with a declaration of war.
- throwaway287391 6y ago
  What's the danger in "opening that can of worms"? IMHO the world might be a better place if there were a lot less killing, whether it's in the context of a war or not. Some killings throughout history are certainly justifiable or excusable, but it seems far more dangerous to me to stick one's head in the sand and avoid reflecting on whether each killing really needed to happen, or if the victim could reasonably have been spared without significant risk of harm or jeopardizing the larger cause (presuming the cause itself is just). "Murder" doesn't seem like an unreasonable label in the latter case. (Whether and how the killer should be punished in such situations is a separate question that I'm not taking a position on here.)
  - refurb 6y ago
    The danger is there are plenty of rebellions, revolutions and other "positive" conflicts where wars were never declared. You're basically going to be painting the people that took part in conflicts like the American revolution, Irish War of Independence, Indian War of Independence, Cuban Revolution, etc as "murders".
cafard 6y ago
The British troops had set out to disarm the local militia. I have a hard time seeing how something that began with armed infantry units confronting each other at Lexington was not a war. And by the way, when the British seized a Spanish fleet--which had imagined itself to be neutral--during the Napoleonic wars, their government stated that the United Kingdom had never been in the habit of starting wars with a declaration.
klmadfejno 6y ago
This is just semantics, but I think not. If you're attacking a military unit to achieve a military objective, murder feels inappropriate. In my opinion, murder tends: * to be done by an individual, not a group * tends to happen to one, or a few victims. It's odd to describe someone as murdering 70 people at once. * tends to imply the victim was not professionally engaged in such a way that their death in those circumstances is not a plausible concern * the motive is not political, else it is an assassination

disown 6y ago

> It may be technically correct, but you don't hear about how the GIs murdered a bunch of Nazis on the beaches of Normandy or whatever other war suits your fancy. Save for the particularly one sided conflicts. That's because the nazis lost. If they had won, as Robert McNamara said, we'd be called murderers and criminals and our leaders would have been hanged for crimes against humanity. Not only did the british call the revolutionaries murderers, they also called them terrorists since the revolutionaries were attacking and terrorizing the loyalists. Ironic huh? One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. As strange as it sounds, in an alternate universe where the brits won, the history books probably describe the revolutionaries as murderers and terrorists. Can you imagine how odd it would be to view Benedict Arnold as a hero and George Washington as the villain? > there was no ambiguity that the revolutionary war was a bloody conflict. And there certainly was no ambuigity about who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. History is just one part of nation building propaganda. The people in charge ( usually the winners ) get to write it. Fundamentally, there are no good guys or bad guys, just winners and losers in history.

klmadfejno 6y ago
> That's because the nazis lost. If they had won, as Robert McNamara said, we'd be called murderers and criminals and our leaders would have been hanged for crimes against humanity. Perhaps this is just an American thing, but I wouldn't call the Nazi soldiers killing American soldiers murderers either. The holocaust is murder, if not superceded by the term genocide. Something can be an unjust killing and still not be murder.