Anarchists of Today Same as Boston Tea Party Actors?

[Cow Poke]

I keep seeing statements like this....

......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.

[Leonhard]

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.

[Cow Poke]

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.

[Ronson]

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.

[Leonhard]

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.

[Starlight]

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.

[Cow Poke]

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.

[Starlight]

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.

[Cow Poke]

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....

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?

[Starlight]

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.

[Starlight]

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.

You quoted everything JimL said about the Boston tea party. The context in the hyperlink doesn't add anything much... there's certainly no lengthy argument on his part that I can see, beyond the one sentence you quoted, to draw similarities between today's events and the Boston Tea Party.

Sheeeeesh, are you just on a hate rant or something?

You say the weirdest things sometimes...

[Cow Poke]

You quoted everything JimL said about the Boston tea party. The context in the hyperlink doesn't add anything much... there's certainly no lengthy argument on his part that I can see, beyond the one sentence you quoted, to draw similarities between today's events and the Boston Tea Party.

It was a dumb analogy. I've seen it before where somebody tries to make an equivalence between these senseless acts of violence like it was some heroic deed like declaring our independence from England.

[Starlight]

I've seen it before where somebody tries to make an equivalence between these senseless acts of violence like it was some heroic deed like declaring our independence from England.

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all didn't perform that 'heroic deed' and they turned out fine. So from that perspective the war of independence does seem like a relatively senseless act of violence.

[Cow Poke]

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all didn't perform that 'heroic deed' and they turned out fine. So from that perspective the war of independence does seem like a relatively senseless act of violence.

Anything to justify the anarchy of the left.

[Mountain Man]

The Boston Tea Party was organized, brief, and had the intent of accomplishing a specific goal without collateral damage. It wasn't an aimless riot that randomly targeted innocent citizens and their businesses, stretching on for weeks with no end game.