The Boston Massacre: A Comparative Analysis

Another area which must be discussed is the metropole responses to acts of resistance in the peripheries. W.A. Speck mentions some British politicians believed duty on Tea was ‘a symbol of parliamentary sovereignty over the colonies’ (Speck, 2015, p.32). It could be argued the reprisal policies following The Boston Massacre demonstrate the metropole believed they had a right to exercise they perceived superiority, as they considered the peoples in the peripheries as children. Measures such as the The Quartering Act could be seen as the metropole exercising to its parliamentary sovereign. As mentioned above, the colonists saw these polices by the metropole is unfair. From a British point of view the acts of resistance were not only caused disruption to profits, it is highly likely some politicians they saw the acts of resistance as
With many politicians believing the British were civilising the peoples of periphery, the British probably believed the peoples of the American colonies needed to be taught to respect the metropole, which believed it had a parent role. In contrast, in the Indian case acts of resistance had yield some success. It could, however, be argued that the war a make factor in this success. As Fieldhouse points out: Stafford Cripps promised India dominion status ‘to rally Indian opinion in the crisis caused by Japan’s entry into the war’ (Secondary Source 19.2, 2015, p.10). As well as the civil disobedience, which was part of the ‘Quit India’ campaign, the British were also concerned about the Japanese-back ‘Indian National Army’ who had have some military success. In this context, then, the British high likely perceived those whom taken in the civil disobedience as moderates. As Indian support was needed to fight Japan, the British probably felt placating moderates was a small price to pay considering the circumstances. Therefore, the circumstances of war played in a major factor in Indian progress towards