View Poll Results: Are Anarchists of Today same as Sons of Liberty?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • The anarchists of today are NOTHING LIKE the Boston Tea Party actors

    5 38.46%
  • The anarchists of today are BARELY LIKE the Boston Tea Party actors

    1 7.69%
  • The anarchists of today are KINDA LIKE the Boston Tea Party actors

    7 53.85%
  • The anarchists of today are EXACTLY LIKE the Boston Tea Party actors

    0 0%
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 58

Thread: Anarchists of Today Same as Boston Tea Party Actors?

  1. #1
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    64,928
    Amen (Given)
    14062
    Amen (Received)
    28928

    Anarchists of Today Same as Boston Tea Party Actors?

    I keep seeing statements like this....

    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    ......And sometimes it takes some breaking of the law to get the Government to move on an issue. It was illegal and according to your definition, violent, for Bostonians to throw British tea into the sea. Was that wrong or was it just illegal.
    The hyperlink is there for you to see that this is a very misguided attempt to liken the anarchists of today with the Boston Tea Party.

    The BTT, of course, did not happen in a vacuum, and it was part of a much larger series of events.

    For a quick reminder, and, admittedly, this is the History Channel which is not an official source...

    The Boston Tea Party was a political protest that occurred on December 16, 1773, at Griffin’s Wharf in Boston, Massachusetts. American colonists, frustrated and angry at Britain for imposing “taxation without representation,” dumped 342 chests of tea, imported by the British East India Company into the harbor. The event was the first major act of defiance to British rule over the colonists. It showed Great Britain that Americans wouldn’t take taxation and tyranny sitting down, and rallied American patriots across the 13 colonies to fight for independence.

    Why Did the Boston Tea Party Happen?

    In the 1760s, Britain was deep in debt, so British Parliament imposed a series of taxes on American colonists to help pay those debts.

    The Stamp Act of 1765 taxed colonists on virtually every piece of printed paper they used, from playing cards and business licenses to newspapers and legal documents. The Townshend Acts of 1767 went a step further, taxing essentials such as paint, paper, glass, lead and tea.

    The British government felt the taxes were fair since much of its debt was earned fighting wars on the colonists’ behalf. The colonists, however, disagreed. They were furious at being taxed without having any representation in Parliament, and felt it was wrong for Britain to impose taxes on them to gain revenue.

    Boston Massacre Enrages Colonists

    On March 5, 1770, a street brawl happened in Boston between American colonists and British soldiers.

    Later known as the Boston Massacre, the fight began after an unruly group of colonists—frustrated with the presence of British soldiers in their streets—flung snowballs, ice and oyster shells at a British sentinel guarding the Boston Customs House.

    Reinforcements arrived and opened fire on the mob, killing five colonists and wounding six. The Boston Massacre and its fallout further incited the colonists’ rage towards Britain.

    Tea Act Imposed

    Britain eventually repealed the taxes it had imposed on the colonists except the tea tax. It wasn’t about to give up tax revenue on the nearly 1.2 million pounds of tea the colonists drank each year.

    In protest, the colonists boycotted tea sold by British East India Company and smuggled in Dutch tea, leaving British East India Company with millions of pounds of surplus tea and facing bankruptcy.

    In May 1773, British Parliament passed the Tea Act which allowed British East India Company to sell tea to the colonies duty-free and much cheaper than other tea companies – but still tax the tea when it reached colonial ports.

    Tea smuggling in the colonies increased, although the cost of the smuggled tea soon surpassed that of tea from British East India Company with the added tea tax.

    Still, with the help of prominent tea smugglers such as John Hancock and Samuel Adams —who protested taxation without representation but also wanted to protect their tea smuggling operations—colonists continued to rail against the tea tax and Britain’s control over their interests.

    .......



    I'm wondering if there is anybody else who sees the Boston Tea Party as the same -- or even nearly the same -- as what the anarchists are doing across our nation today.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  2. #2
    Technology Staff Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,865
    Amen (Given)
    1125
    Amen (Received)
    3487
    I don't think this discussion is going to be productive. You can point out a thousand differences in terms of reasons, historical situation, and so forth. You can also be anachronistic and judge the Boston Tea Party in light of the ultimate success of the rebellion, where as you can't do anything like that with recent events.

    Both were acts of vandalism and rebellion against established law at the time. That much is undeniable.

  3. Amen JimL, whag amen'd this post.
  4. #3
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    64,928
    Amen (Given)
    14062
    Amen (Received)
    28928
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    I don't think this discussion is going to be productive.
    Not with anybody who equates the hoodlums of today with the Sons of Liberty, no.

    You can point out a thousand differences in terms of reasons, historical situation, and so forth.
    Clearly.

    You can also be anachronistic and judge the Boston Tea Party in light of the ultimate success of the rebellion, where as you can't do anything like that with recent events.
    Actually, you'd have to judge the Boston Tea Party within the total picture of the history of the British and the Colonies.

    Both were acts of vandalism and rebellion against established law at the time. That much is undeniable.
    And you really have to kinda squint really hard to push it any further than that.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  5. #4
    tWebber Ronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    914
    Amen (Given)
    132
    Amen (Received)
    282
    I said "kind of like" because similarly they are destroying public and private property to achieve some political goal.

    But not exactly like because the Tea Party was a revolt against a distant colonial government for taxation without representation, which spiraled into a battle for independence.

  6. #5
    Technology Staff Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,865
    Amen (Given)
    1125
    Amen (Received)
    3487
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Not with anybody who equates the hoodlums of today with the Sons of Liberty, no.
    We'd both agree that you can't compare them I think. To me they're both acts taking place in different times, for different reasons.

    And you really have to kinda squint really hard to push it any further than that.
    Agreed, in both situations you're dealing with a group of people doing something illegal. That's about it.

  7. Amen Cow Poke amen'd this post.
  8. #6
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,891
    Amen (Given)
    2856
    Amen (Received)
    1928
    I'm confused as to whether the word "actors" in the thread title and poll refers just to people taking action, or whether it refers to "paid actors" as a lot of protesters are often accused of being (e.g. Soros checks were alleged to be behind the Women's day march, Koch money behind the anti-Obama Tea Party protests etc)

    After all, as the History channel points out about the Boston Tea Party:

    2. Commercial interests, perhaps more than political principles, motivated many protesters.

    The Tea Act was a government bailout for a company on the brink of financial collapse, the flailing East India Company, which was deemed to be, in modern terms, “too big to fail.” The legislation gave the East India Company a virtual monopoly on the American tea trade, allowing it to bypass colonial merchants as middlemen and to even undercut the price of smuggled Dutch tea, which was widely consumed in the colonies. Thus, the Tea Act directly threatened the vested commercial interests of Boston’s wealthy merchants and smugglers, such as John Hancock, who fomented the revolt.

    A lot of historians would point to the Boston Tea party as being America's original "paid actors" protest, with the primary goal of the organizer being to further his own commercial and financial interests by sabotaging a rival company.

    From what CP's said in the rest of this thread though, I suspect "actors" isn't meant to refer to the fakeness or legitimacy of either the Boston or current protests, and is just referring to people who take action.
    Last edited by Starlight; 06-27-2020 at 04:21 PM.

  9. #7
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    64,928
    Amen (Given)
    14062
    Amen (Received)
    28928
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    I'm confused as to whether the word "actors" in the thread title and poll refers just to people taking action, or whether it refers to "paid actors" as a lot of protesters are often accused of being (e.g. Soros checks were alleged to be behind the Women's day march, Koch money behind the anti-Obama Tea Party protests etc)

    After all, as the History channel points out about the Boston Tea Party:

    2. Commercial interests, perhaps more than political principles, motivated many protesters.

    The Tea Act was a government bailout for a company on the brink of financial collapse, the flailing East India Company, which was deemed to be, in modern terms, “too big to fail.” The legislation gave the East India Company a virtual monopoly on the American tea trade, allowing it to bypass colonial merchants as middlemen and to even undercut the price of smuggled Dutch tea, which was widely consumed in the colonies. Thus, the Tea Act directly threatened the vested commercial interests of Boston’s wealthy merchants and smugglers, such as John Hancock, who fomented the revolt.

    A lot of historians would point to the Boston Tea party as being America's original "paid actors" protest, with the primary goal of the organised being to further his own commercial and financial interests by sabotaging a rival company.

    From what CP's said in the rest of this thread though, I suspect "actors" isn't meant to refer to the fakeness or legitimacy of either the Boston or current protests, and is just referring to people who take action.
    Those who acted - carried out the act.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  10. #8
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,891
    Amen (Given)
    2856
    Amen (Received)
    1928
    I also note that the statement by JimL quoted in the OP is accurate:

    It was illegal and according to your definition, violent, for Bostonians to throw British tea into the sea.


    Obviously the action of the Bostonians was illegal, and obviously it was violent in the sense of damaging property by unauthorized force.

    JimL in the OP quoted section makes no claim about any other similarities between the protesters today and the Bostonians. He merely states that both took illegal action to destroy things, which is obviously true.

  11. #9
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    64,928
    Amen (Given)
    14062
    Amen (Received)
    28928
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    I also note that the statement by JimL quoted in the OP is accurate:

    It was illegal and according to your definition, violent, for Bostonians to throw British tea into the sea.


    Obviously the action of the Bostonians was illegal, and obviously it was violent in the sense of damaging property by unauthorized force.

    JimL in the OP quoted section makes no claim about any other similarities between the protesters today and the Bostonians. He merely states that both took illegal action to destroy things, which is obviously true.
    From the OP....

    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    The hyperlink is there for you to see that this is a very misguided attempt to liken the anarchists of today with the Boston Tea Party.
    Sheeeeesh, are you just on a hate rant or something?
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  12. #10
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,891
    Amen (Given)
    2856
    Amen (Received)
    1928
    Okay I've voted for "kinda like". I thought about voting for "exactly", but I think the commercial ambiguities involved in the Boston Tea Party (as per my earlier post) mean the motivations of those that took that historic action were a bit morally suspect and involved as much or more commercial and financial selfishness than it did principled politics, whereas the current protest is a clearer example of principled political protest.

  13. Amen JimL amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •