What is a different way of rewriting the battles of Lexington and Concord as well as the Boston Massacre?

Most people portray the colonists as innocent victims of the Boston Massacre. While the British acted inappropriately by being rude and by insulting the colonists, the colonists also had a role in how the events of the night unfolded. The colonists were throwing things at the British soldiers. They were pressing closer and closer to the soldiers who were guarding the Customs house. The British soldiers fired into the crowd, killing five colonists. If the colonists changed their actions, the shootings probably wouldn’t have occurred.

The battles of Lexington and Concord are portrayed as the colonists defending the land from the advancing British army. The British had good reasons for moving into the countryside. The colonists of Massachusetts, led by Samuel Adams and John Hancock, were refusing to obey the provisions of the Intolerable Acts, which punished the colonists for the damage caused by the Boston Tea Party. If the British could find Samuel Adams and John Hancock, they felt things would calm down in Massachusetts. Additionally, the British heard the colonists had stored some ammunition at the courthouse in Concord. The British wanted to capture this ammunition. The British hoped their actions would calm things down, but, in reality, it just made things worse.

The colonists are often shown as responding to aggressive British actions. However, the colonists were not so innocent themselves.