It’s way more complicated than the reductionist 5th grade level story taught in US schools that everyone settles on being reality. Right up there with George Washington’s cherry tree story (didn’t happen) or the pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock (no, they didn’t land there).
The Boston Tea Party was about money, and about people with money being upset that other people with money were undercutting their profits, so they destroyed some really expensive goods in a way that disastrously hurt their own local business owners and not the people they claimed to be trying to hurt.
I’m sure parallels could be made between one of the US’s founding stories being about rich people manipulating the populace into war and today, where rich people are still manipulating people into fighting each other or whomever else.
it actually does hint that perhaps the path to overthrowing Trumpism is to radicalize the merchant class (aka petit bourgeoisie) against his agendas and force direct action. it’s not so far fetched. for instance, Patriotic Millionaires.<- links to a short article about their plan to reduce inequality by taxing wealth
the rich are not a monolith. they each have their own special interests. there are many outside Trump’s inner circle who depends on certain aspects of the economy being stable and profitable. maybe some of those angry multi-millionaites will switch loyalties now they see how bad Elonazi is for their bottom line?
Where’s the other brother? I used to have a roommate that said brethren instead of brother. Brethren is the plural of brother. Just an annoyance from the past resurfacing.
I mentioned this in a more fleshed out comment, but I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. This was the annexation of The British Empire from a forming society over a century and a half. During which the local populace would have to deal with British Militia and The East India Trading Corporation who were more loyal at the time to The British.
Unfortunately, none of that is true. The three ships bringing tea into Boston Harbor, the Dartmouth, Eleanor and Beaver, were privately owned, colonial-built, colonial captained and crewed ships. They were transporting tea belonging to the East India Company, not the British government. The British government lost nothing monetarily.
The British East India Trading Company was a British Corporation and heavily influenced by The Crown / British Empire. It was used primarily to facilitate trade between all the British colonies and outposts. This isn’t even fringe history, which makes me believe that this article is not written in Good Faith.
This meant that imports would primarily be for the British Military Occupants and it’s ongoing war to expand Westward. The Colonists would have to barter with the British Occupants to get anything they wanted.
That’s the root cause of the unrest and eventual revolution. Independence from being under The British Empires thumb and allowing them to separate themselves as a new Nation. The tea was a play to encourage this change in that society, a new society that spanned ~150+ years away from Britain on new lands over a 1600-mile (2574 kilometers) landmass.
These articles always call them “smugglers” but what does that really mean? These people were born ON Americas soil and they were “smuggling” local trade to circumvent dealing with the British Occupants.
The British East India Trading Company was a oldtime Corporation and it certainly had a Monopoly on trade. Either you believe that Corporate and British Governmental Rule is a de facto good thing or you believe in Free Trade, but you can’t have it both ways in this time period.
Y’all really should consider reading this.
https://newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/the-story-of-the-boston-tea-party-in-myth-and-reality/
It’s way more complicated than the reductionist 5th grade level story taught in US schools that everyone settles on being reality. Right up there with George Washington’s cherry tree story (didn’t happen) or the pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock (no, they didn’t land there).
The Boston Tea Party was about money, and about people with money being upset that other people with money were undercutting their profits, so they destroyed some really expensive goods in a way that disastrously hurt their own local business owners and not the people they claimed to be trying to hurt.
I’m sure parallels could be made between one of the US’s founding stories being about rich people manipulating the populace into war and today, where rich people are still manipulating people into fighting each other or whomever else.
it actually does hint that perhaps the path to overthrowing Trumpism is to radicalize the merchant class (aka petit bourgeoisie) against his agendas and force direct action. it’s not so far fetched. for instance, Patriotic Millionaires. <- links to a short article about their plan to reduce inequality by taxing wealth
the rich are not a monolith. they each have their own special interests. there are many outside Trump’s inner circle who depends on certain aspects of the economy being stable and profitable. maybe some of those angry multi-millionaites will switch loyalties now they see how bad Elonazi is for their bottom line?
Ahhh that sounds much more American. Thanks
In their defense they were drunk as fuck at the time. And were wearing racist costumes for some reason.
Obviously they weren’t thinking clearly. Or much at all.
It’s OK now, they’ve changed their name to the Boston Commanders.
Take em to class brethren!!
Where’s the other brother? I used to have a roommate that said brethren instead of brother. Brethren is the plural of brother. Just an annoyance from the past resurfacing.
Well I didn’t know the gender of the poster and “sibling” didn’t fit as well so I defaulted to 3rd plural
… is this convergent evolution? Did a queer white Appalachian reinvent something a black man did?
Comrade is all-inclusive ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
It is, but “brother/sister/sibling” is what I meant.
I mentioned this in a more fleshed out comment, but I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. This was the annexation of The British Empire from a forming society over a century and a half. During which the local populace would have to deal with British Militia and The East India Trading Corporation who were more loyal at the time to The British.
Did you read the article?
Not your linked article, every time I try to get to it I receive 502 - Bad Gateway.
The article covers everything you posted.
You can search it yourself.
“THE STORY OF THE BOSTON TEA PARTY IN MYTH AND REALITY”
I’ve argued pretty much all of this already. But, from the article:
The British East India Trading Company was a British Corporation and heavily influenced by The Crown / British Empire. It was used primarily to facilitate trade between all the British colonies and outposts. This isn’t even fringe history, which makes me believe that this article is not written in Good Faith.
This meant that imports would primarily be for the British Military Occupants and it’s ongoing war to expand Westward. The Colonists would have to barter with the British Occupants to get anything they wanted.
That’s the root cause of the unrest and eventual revolution. Independence from being under The British Empires thumb and allowing them to separate themselves as a new Nation. The tea was a play to encourage this change in that society, a new society that spanned ~150+ years away from Britain on new lands over a 1600-mile (2574 kilometers) landmass.
These articles always call them “smugglers” but what does that really mean? These people were born ON Americas soil and they were “smuggling” local trade to circumvent dealing with the British Occupants.
The British East India Trading Company was a oldtime Corporation and it certainly had a Monopoly on trade. Either you believe that Corporate and British Governmental Rule is a de facto good thing or you believe in Free Trade, but you can’t have it both ways in this time period.