F1.1

F1.1 - Declaring Independence toc Describe the ideas, experiences, and interactions that influenced the colonists’ decisions to declare independence by analyzing
 * colonial ideas about government (e.g., limited government, republicanism, protecting individual rights and promoting the common good, representative government, natural rights)
 * experiences with self-government (e.g., House of Burgesses and town meetings)
 * changing interactions with the royal government of Great Britain after the French and Indian War

=Historical Process=
 * Why were the colonists so upset?**
 * How did events like the "Boston Massacre" lead to a Declaration of Independence?**
 * What precipitated the "Boston Massacre"?**

Using these questions as guides, we will dig deeper into the people, places, and events that culminated in the Declaration of Independence.

=Resources=

Revere's Boston Massacre Lithograph Deposition of Captain Thomas Preston Map of Boston 1722 Samuel Drowne's Testimony An Account of a Late Military Massacre at Boston A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre
 * Primary Sources**

[|Riots and the Police]
 * Secondary Sources**

=Trial= Trial of the British Soldiers Examination of John Hill

Boston 1775 - boston1775.blogspot.com/ This blog is a miscellany of information about New England just before, during, and after the Revolutionary War, and about how that history has been studied, taught, preserved, politicized, mythologized, lost, recovered, discussed, described, distorted, and now digitized. Boston 1775 grows out of my research, which started with the idea for a novel about the Boston Massacre. Since then I’ve published or delivered papers on the Battle of Lexington & Concord, the Massacre, the town’s public schools, the Pope Night holiday, and the politicization of its youth. I became a Fellow of the Massachusetts Historical Society in 2008 and a Member of the American Antiquarian Society in 2011.
 * Links**

The Flint-lock Musket This is a YouTube video of how a musket fires (like the ones used by British soldiers in the Boston Massacre). Additionally, this video, How to Load and Fire a Flintlock, allows us to see the whole process that would be used in the field.

=Assessment= Does this video add up? media type="custom" key="24026070" View in Google Drive

Today, you have the opportunity to assess and evaluate The History Channel. Since 1995, The History Channel has become a leading authority on history understanding. For better or worse, millions rely on this source for trustworthy documentaries that tell us and show us what happened in the past. However, what if the past they present to us is missing pieces? What if they are portraying an event or circumstance with bias? Who is there to keep that from happening?

YOU ARE!

Assessment Option 1
Your job is to write a letter to the executive producer at The History Channel about the video above. You will:
 * Introduce yourself
 * Explain the video
 * State/Express your concerns
 * Detail your concerns
 * Back up concerns with evidence
 * Close with a summary of why you are writing
 * Salutation

Address your letter to: Dirk Hoogstra, Executive Vice President, General Manager, HISTORY and H2. Be sure to write in a way that is respectful and informative, as a citizen concerned about how we remember our past.

-- OR -- For an amped up version... media type="custom" key="24001804" View in Google Drive

Assessment Option 2
Same thing as above, just writing a letter to the producer/director of the HBO hit miniseries John Adams regarding the episode(s) referencing the Boston Massacre as seen in the excerpted video. This miniseries has been very highly regarded and award-winning (including a Golden Globe) for it's ability to communicate the character of John Adams and the struggle of the early America. However, does it portray events in ways that intentionally mislead? Can you find errors and/or contradictions? In your leter you will:
 * Introduce yourself
 * Explain the video
 * State/Express your concerns
 * Detail your concerns
 * Back up concerns with evidence
 * Close with a summary of why you are writing
 * Salutation

Address your letter to: Mr. Tom Hooper, Director. Be sure to write in a way that is respectful and informative, as a citizen concerned about how we remember our past.

-- OR --

Assessment Option 3
Write a section on the Boston Massacre for a new textbook. You will include all the things that are typically in a textbook (for an example, see under your desk), but with a particular emphasis on the evidence-based truth.

=Citing Evidence= We are asked to use evidence to back up our statements of historical understanding. In order to do this, follow the examples below.

Long Quote When looking at the "Testimony of Samuel Drowne" we can see that he placed the blame squarely on Captain Preston when he said he: > "//heard Capt. Preston say to the soldiers, Damn your bloods! Why don't you fire? The soldiers not regarding those words of their captain, he immediately said FIRE. Upon which they fired irregularly, pointing their guns variously in a part of a circle as they stood...//"
 * Use this when you are quoting something longer than 30 words:**

Short Quote As Samuel Drowne begins his testimony, he uses very vivid details and descriptions. An example of this is when he says the soldiers with "naked cutlasses, swords, or bayonets, others with clubs, fire-shovels or tongs, and came upon the inhabitants of the town, then standing or walking in Cornhill."
 * Use this when you are quoting something less than 30 words:**

=Rubric= **//Historical sources are not all equal//** **//Historical interpretations are not all equal//**
 * ~ **TLH Historical Process** ||~ **Level 4** ||~ **Level 3** ||~ **Level 2** ||~ **Level1** ||
 * **Questions**
 * //Some questions are better than others; the most interesting and meaningful questions recognize that the human experience in the past was as complex as the present//
 * //Historical events unfolded as different people, groups, and institutions with different experiences, needs, ideas, and degrees of power interacted// || * requires attention to multiple perspectives or experiences
 * requires significant manipulation and use of evidence to support answer
 * requires analysis that incorporates two or more TLH categories
 * requires consideration of historical context and change over time || * requires attention to multiple perspectives or experiences
 * requires some explanation or manipulation of evidence
 * requires some use of evidence to support answer
 * may call for compare/contrast or before/after statements
 * may not require consideration of historical context || * requires attention to only one perspective or experience
 * little explanation of evidence required
 * may not require consideration of historical context || * can be answered with simple yes/no or true/false or fill-in-the-blank
 * seeks factual responses that require little to no explanation or integration of evidence
 * does not require consideration of historical context ||
 * **Evidence**
 * //It is necessary to consider all the factors that affect the validity of each source//
 * //Among these are: the creator, the creator’s perspective and knowledge of the events, the reason why it was created, and the intended audience//
 * //Multiple sources are needed to fully understand the complexity and importance of any historical event, era, person, or group// || * uses primary and secondary sources representing a variety of perspectives and/or types of information
 * identifies author/creator of sources and requires assessment of effect of this on validity and perspective
 * requires deep analysis of information, motivation, and perspectives expressed in sources
 * requires comparison/contrasts with other sources as part of each source analysis || * uses multiple sources
 * generally includes combination of primary and secondary sources, although may use one or two of each
 * identifies author/creator, although may not consider the effect of this on validity, perspective, or how to evaluate the source(s)
 * requires some consideration of information, motivation, and perspective expressed in source || * uses one or two sources, generally secondary; source(s) presents its account of the past as “authoritative uncontested truth”
 * no attention to evaluating validity or perspective of the source(s) || * uses one, generally secondary source (textbook, encyclopedia, Wikipedia)
 * no attempt to evaluate validity, perspective, or credibility of the source ||
 * **Interpretation**
 * //Some are better than others//
 * //Some are wrong//
 * //Some are misleading// || * analysis and synthesis are fully supported by ideas, concepts, and information from multiple sources
 * explains historical context and reasons for change over time
 * accounts for multiple perspectives and experiences
 * explanation of significance is clear and recognizes complex connections between people, events, concepts, and/or past and present || * explains how and why (as well as what, when, where, who)
 * may concentrate on presenting a linked chronology or juxtaposing two different perspectives
 * uses some evidence from sources to support explanations
 * may recognize, but does not analyze reasons for differences, similarities, change over time
 * offers generalized explanation of significance || * primarily addresses what, when, where, who
 * responses are low on Bloom’s taxonomy (identify and describe)
 * little use of evidence to support response || * responses are at recall level of Bloom’s taxonomy
 * does not use evidence to support responses ||