Search

Specialists on early modern violence and on human rights history have much to gain through collaboration, or at least mutual awareness. Human rights historians are increasingly drawing on studies of early modern violence. However, as contended here, early modernists tend to approach the subject framed by their own geographical areas of interest. As such, we lack an overarching sense of violence and its meanings across the Tudor and Stuart realms and colonies, something that would be of great utility in understanding how developments in the early modern period relate to later ones. In the interests of promoting such broader investigation and comparison, the present essay briefly surveys important aspects of the approach to violence in the English, Irish and Atlantic historiographies, and in the literatures of massacre and of human rights. In doing so, it sets the essays included in this special edition in their historiographical contexts and highlights crucial interventions. It concludes with thoughts not only on how a more comprehensive understanding of violence in the early British empire might be of value to human rights historians, but how the new meta-narrative of human rights history might spur greater comparative work amongst early modernists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two events, both labelled massacres by the English who suffered death at the hands of their rivals, took place within the space of a year on opposite sides of the globe and in widely different overseas contexts. The first episode took place in Virginia in March 1622, when Opechancanough and his soldiers killed one-third of the English colonists in a surprise attack. The second episode transpired in February 1623 in the Spice Islands, when Dutch East India Company officials in Ambon suspected English East India Company employees of conspiring with Japanese soldiers to seize the trading post, interrogated and tried them, and executed twenty-one men. This episode, known in England by 1624 as the ' Amboyna massacre', endured as a meaningful frame of reference well into the eighteenth century. This article explores the particular contexts of each episode and analyses what violence meant to different participants. It investigates how each event became a 'massacre' to survivors and to observers in England. In both Virginia and Amboyna, the English were victims, not perpetrators, of violence, and thus these events offer an opportunity to explore how victims of violence deployed their ordeals, in pamphlets, images, plays, and songs, to further their own ends. Labelled as massacres, these two episodes acquired a meaning apart from the actual course of events, helping the English to reassess their overseas goals, to re-evaluate their prospects and to define themselves anew. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Crisis, a London weekly published between January 1775 and October 1776, attempted to join Britain and the American colonies in a transatlantic community of protest. It did so more stridently than virtually anything printed either in the colonies or elsewhere in the London press. King George III, his chief ministers, and their supporters in parliament were all fair game for its caustic commentary. It condemned their imperial policy as self-destructive and their treatment of the Americans as foolishly shortsighted. It condoned American resistance to what it characterized as tyrannical policies and called on Britons to beware that what began as oppression of the colonies could end up threatening rights on their own side of the Atlantic as well. Even so, the men behind The Crisis hoped for a solution to the problems of empire within it, not outside it, and their ardour for the Patriot cause cooled once Revolutionary Americans declared independence. Despite their rhetorical blasts at Whitehall and Westminster, the men behind The Crisis were not looking to turn protest into rebellion nor were they interested in trading monarchy for a republic. They fell silent when their differences with American Revolutionaries became too obvious to deny. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]