3.10.07: The Dovishness of Crispus Attucks ‹ Blog

There are, in every age, new errors to be rectified and new prejudices to be opposed.
Samuel Johnson

The Dovishness of Crispus Attucks

March 10, 2007

I have a few bones to pick with the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary. First off, I just found the error while randomly flipping through, and—oh, don’t you know about that? Yes, all dictionaries and encyclopedias have a deliberate error in them, so that if they’re copied and resold under a different name, the dictionary/encyclopedia-maker will know what happened and the copier will look like an idiot. Yes, I’ve always found that a rather brilliant idea. That’s why each of my blog posts contains at least one made-up word. (There’s one in here somewhere; you’ll just have to look for it, won’t you?) Anyway, returning to my rant: I found the deliberate error while randomly flipping through, and that seems far too easy; I was looking forward to months, perhaps even years of close scrutiny and careful searching. Way to ruin my fun, Merriam-Webster.

I also take issue with the biographical section listing Crispus Attucks as an Am. patriot—actually, I take issue with it listing him at all, as I always have and always will. I’ve been bitching about Crispus Attucks since I was in elementary school. For those of you not in the know, he was one of the five people killed in the Boston Massacre of 1770, which I’m sure was a pain in the butt for him but which does not exactly give him lasting celebrity credits and the label of Am. patriot, especially since the reference books and textbooks that make careful mention of him (and always, always make sure that we know he was black) can’t seem to back up that label with any actions on Crispus’ part (aside from being in the wrong place at a very patriotically wrong time) and never bother to name the other four victims. If he was a patriot (and he very well might have been, but we’ll never really know because he’s only known for dying), then why doesn’t anyone seem to know what he did? I find it a waste of time and dictionary paper to celebrate someone who apparently did nothing worth celebrating. Of course, there’s no mention of either Deborah Sampson or Sybil Ludington, whose actions for the Am. patriot cause are at least as well-known as those of Mr. Attucks. Considering space limitations, I probably wouldn’t list any of the three; it’s the listing of the least important one that ticks me off.

The problem with all this is that I feel guilty for even thinking about it, as if it’s wrong to question Attucks’s inclusion at all; part of me feels that it’s racist to question his achievements, but… seriously, what were his achievements? Maybe he was just walking down the street and got caught up in the fight, or maybe he was throwing stuff at the redcoats—either way, he’s not exactly a role model. I don’t want to celebrate someone simply because of their race or gender or sexual preference; I want to celebrate people who contribute good things to the world, who have actual recorded achievements to back up their fame. Isn’t it just as racist to celebrate someone simply because of their skin color as it is to condemn them for it? The question—and the issue that surrounds it—has been bugging me for decades now. Will someone please try to answer it for me?

Or maybe this is just another of Merriam-Webster’s little tricks. How very pernisnarkerous of them…