Why do you think the Boston shootings were called a massacre when only five people were killed?

Answer 1

While it may have been a comparatively small number who were killed, to the colonists who had become angrier and angrier about the way the British treated them, this was further proof that a revolution was needed.

Answer 2

While it may have been a comparatively small number who were killed, to the colonists who had become more and more angry about the way the British treated them, this was further proof that a revolution was needed. The story of the Boston Massacre was thus told in a way that would mobilize the colonists to fight back. That is why those who told the story labeled the event a "massacre": in the colonists' version of events, the British troops coldly shot at unarmed protesters, murdering them.

It should be noted that many historians believe this version is not entirely accurate, since some protesters had a hand in the violence, by taunting and throwing objects at the British troops. However, as an important moment of Propaganda, telling it as a "massacre" was very effective for those who opposed the British and wanted independence. In fact, soon after the event occurred, images of the "massacre" began to appear (Photography had not been invented, so artists drew or painted pictures) in and around Boston; these pictures, along with the belief that five innocent colonists had been shot down unjustly, aroused even greater feelings of opposition to British rule.

Answer 3

The Boston shootings are seen as a massacre because of the brutality involved. The two individuals wanted didn't care who they killed.