How far could the historian use sources 10 and 12 together to investigate the Amritsar Massacre?
The Amritsar Massacre occurred on the 13th of April, 1919. Both sources 10 and 12 are useful for investigating the Amritsar Massacre, however source 12 is more useful due to its nature of being a report by an investigational committee, whereas source 10 is a report by Dyer himself, making it more defensive. Both sources were produced at a time where the tensions between the British and the Indians were at a high, and this is reflected in their content and usefulness.
Source 10 is convincing as it is written by General Dyer himself. However, in order to reduce the public backlash from his actions he would have a greater incentive to falsify his intentions in order to justify his actions. For example, he states "I
…show more content…
Whilst he states that his intention was just, it is less convincing as it is in a report to his superior officers and he would have to justify his actions to them. Moreover, the purpose of his writing was to warrant his actions, and thus it makes it less convincing. Despite this, it is a convincing first person account which can be used to investigate British attitudes toward the Amritsar Massacre. This is as it reflects British perspectives to the massacre. It conveys their fear of revolt, "I was very
Ishmael Beah illustrates pathetic fallacy by illustrating the image that the sky turned gloomy after the Lieutenant finished his speech. Ishmaels listens to the Lieutenant explain every foul act the rebels performed and the speech convinces Ishmael and the other children revenge on the rebels must occur. Beah uses the pathetic fallacy “the morning sun had disappeared and the day became gloomy” to describe the aura of the village after the speech. The children were enraged and filled with a sense of revenge after hearing the influencing speech but they were also still frightened of going to war and fighting and the gloomy sky represents their somber mood. Furthermore, Beah claims “the morning sun had disappeared…”.
He had a plan and brought his rifflemen with him. He wanted to kill these people and didn't care who died, only how they died. Dyer barked orders at soldiers telling them to “take your time”(“Source 5”). He was “interested more in the technique of his soldiers than in the human tragedy”(“Source 5”). He has something wrong with him but it's not the disease.
The Declaratory Act was passed by the British parliament immediately after the Stamp Act was repealed. It did not require anything from the colonists except an understanding of their subordinate role to the British crown. It was designed for the relationship of Britain and America. The Townshend Act were a series of acts passed by the Parliament of Great Britain relating to the Britain colonies in North America.
After imitating this strategy, I learned that historians must be able to narrow down the information they are provided and choose only the specific details that is most valuable to the topic under investigation. However, this may come at an expense. It is difficult to decide what is valuable and what is insignificant, and there will always be some useful details that may be left
The demonstration of the narrator's imagination unconsciously leads his own thoughts to grow into a chaotic mess that ultimately ends in a death. By murdering, it’s his own way of finding peace. He is portrayed as being a sadist, sick man with an unnatural obsession for
He applies the logic of facts to the situation to make the reader agree with his viewpoint because it is hard to argue with facts. He also clarifies saying, “Most men will never turn violent. Most men will turn out fine. Most will learn to navigate the deep waters of their feelings without ever engaging in any form of destruction. Most will grow up to be kind.
On March 5, 1770, British soldiers fired into a crowd on King’s Street in Boston. Five people died and the soldiers were charged with murder. The events of the Boston Massacre made the colonies hunger for independence even stronger, however I believe that the soldiers are not guilty of committing murder. I will prove through historical accounts and eyewitness testimony that the British Soldiers are indeed not guilty of murder, but were acting purely out of self-defense. William Sawyer, a Boston citizen, gave this account of the incident during the trial, “The people kept huzzaing.
In Sherman Alexie’s poem, “Capital Punishment” he talks about an Indian male in prison, and his last meal. Sherman Alexie choose to write this poem because he is showing a little of himself through this prisoner. He is able to relate to the poem more because he uses himself as a lens for his story. Alexie had a troubled childhood and ended up becoming a writer and has written many poems and stories that seem to be very violent and dark. He chooses to write the way he does because he can get more into his stories since they are based on his life.
Here you see Crisp laying out all the facts on this important date of the war, yet explaining to us his opinion of the matter and why it is that way. A few pages later (p. 49) he then walks us through his trail of documents he had followed to prove
But there were also a large majority of peaceful gatherings, such as the Amritsar Massacre (Gandhi). At least 379 unarmed, helpless, defenceless people(men, women, and children) were shot and killed by British troops.
”(Beah, 112). The corporal uses the rebels as a way to control the children 's emotions and use them for himself. He makes Ishmael’s desire start to transition towards creating destruction. Later, Ishmael and his friend’s enter into the battlefield. During this time, Ishmael kills his first victim and his desire completely turns into killing sprees.
The narrator is quite the character, being cold hearted and killing an innocent man. One reason that the narrator shows his insane side is the fact he is accusing the readers that they say he is “mad” for no apparent reason. The narrator begins the story with saying “but why will you say that I am mad?” (line 2).
For what reason, one may ask; well, the terrible truth is that he killed because of his own delusions. He killed the man because of the man 's "vulture eye." However; it was not just on a whim that he murdered him, no, he spent many nights planning the victim 's demise. Throughout the whole story, it gives off undeniable vibes of suspense and intensity, which is further built by dramatic irony, along with desperate and delusional tones in which he speaks.
The first-person point-of-view found in Poe’s "The Cask of Amontillado" is essential in creating the central theme of the story. This style of narration is also important in this particular story, because when a murderous protagonist, Montresor, is allowed to tell the story from his own perspective, the reader obtains a disconcerting look into his mental composure from the initial conjuring of his plan to the end result. The style of narration develops the unsettling tone of the story by allowing the reader to become personally acquainted with the thoughts and intentions of the protagonist. The first person point of view allows certain ironies to become evident, and furthermore, “The Cask of Amontillado” would not have been as psychologically powerful were
The boundless grief of mother India for her heroic sons, who were killed in alien lands, is poignantly expressed in the poem. The brave sons of India were killed in different climate and in strange lands. Their bodies were burnt in “alien graves’ without any concern or love or a tear. They attained martyrdom in the World War