Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  
Home

Tea Party Tantrums: GOP Astroturf Groups Failed to Hit the History Books Before Fomenting Revolution

Submitted by meg on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 2:47pm.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS 
by Meg White

This whole conservative tea party thing has really gotten out of control. The idea that these anti-tax, anti-spending conservatives are anything like the Boston colonists is downright laughable.

What was sparked by CNBC stock market reporter Rick Santelli's on-air freak out over the homeowner bailout has outgrown its anger britches (The brainchild behind this cute repackaging of lusty GOP rage is probably irrevocably obscured, you'll find an interesting round up of the Santelli chase here and here).

No matter whose idea this was, it certainly took on a life of its own before anyone really had a chance to notice how little sense it makes. Conservatives who get warm fuzzies over the idea of overthrowing the government need to abandon the Boston Tea Party as their personal symbolic moment in time. All it's really doing for the right wing is making them look unaware of their country's history, as well as a little nutty.

One really perfect example of this disconnect is this thread on the Don't Go movement's Web site (one of the many groups supporting this tea silliness). Don't Go found a tea shop (described by one commenter as a "hole in the wall in the shitty little town of Somersworth") that agreed to donate 70 pounds of tea to the movement, prompting readers to squeal with delight over the scrumptious idea of a tea party and several promises to buy tea from this particular company. And, of course, the post itself features a huge ad for the tea shop up top.

Much like Glenn Beck and Chuck Norris whine about how nobody knows anything about our Founding Fathers while at the same time advocating secession, these people are taking the Boston Tea Party too literally: In reality, the tea went unconsumed and there was no party.

The thing is, the Boston Tea Party wasn't about consumption or commercialism. In fact, quite the opposite, and the fact that someone would consider having a tea party to commemorate or imitate the event is a mockery of the story.

Several colonies were involved in tea-related protests in 1773 after the Brits instituted a tax on this favored drink, and three of them were successful in preventing tea from being unloaded in their ports. Boston was unique and historically significant because colonists there were unable to get their Royal governor to order the tea returned to England. Instead, they boarded the offending ships and dumped the tea into the harbor. They were willing to not only go without tea but to destroy costly products that people risked their lives to collect and deliver.

Sure, the Boston Tea Party was a collective temper tantrum, and in that way it bears a resemblance to today's protests over a change in tax rates. But at its core was a willingness to sacrifice.

The colonists were protesting taxation without representation. Our forebears understood that once they had representation, it would be their responsibility to help make it work. That's how we got the lovely representative democracy we enjoy today.

On the flip side, the people organizing these modern-day tea parties already enjoy political representation. But they don't want to do all the work it takes to lobby the government or write to their representatives. They don't want to get off their lazy butts and march on the Mall. Those may be productive ideas, but there's no immediate satisfaction there. Those activities are also not as fun as planning a bloody revolution.

So if this group of fired up, angry conservatives has to give up the Boston Tea Party, what should be their new historical mascot?

Perhaps the Battle of Lexington in 1775, where the first shot of the American Revolutionary War was fired, would be a more appropriate event to use as a backdrop. There, colonists had been amassing arms for months in anticipation of a conflict. It was bloody, sure, but what also might appeal to conservatives calling for armed insurrection lately -- such as Reps. Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Michele Bachmann (R-MN) -- is the atmosphere of Massachusetts at the time, described here as a "hotbed of sedition."

That imagery might appeal to those who fancy themselves in the trenches, but for the Rick Santellis (or SGP or Michelle Malkin or GOPUSA or whomever they are) using this populist unrest to try and gather support, the Battle of Lexington might be too messy. Perhaps something stemming from the French monarchy may be more appropriate.

May I suggest a battle cry of "Let them drink tea?"

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Image courtesy of Riot Jane.

Technorati Tags:Technorati Tags:

»

Yeah that party would surely

Submitted by steves on Mon, 08/10/2009 - 7:28am.
Yeah that party would surely be gone out of control. Tea protest was protested by many colonies and people were getting rash. In my opinion Tea party gives more delight if you are sitting on american furniture. It gives nice look to the party and is in your reach.
»

Is this really your problem?

Submitted by BrianSmith on Wed, 04/15/2009 - 10:21am.
So your big problem with having a "tea party" to protest high taxes and out-of-control government spending is that current political conditions don't parallel the actual Boston Tea Party enough? Well, if that's your point, I can help you out. For one thing, the year is 2009, not 1773, like the Boston Tea Party. Also, we are not a British colony anymore. However, having problems like this with "tea parties" is like writing an article about whether "Code Pink" should really be called "Code Pink". After all, do they have a "Code"? Is pink the best color to represent women? Doesn't that just reinforce sexist stereotypes? Or does it represent a condition, like the "national threat level"? If so, what "code" is it now? Green? Cream? Perhaps "Code Blue-Red-White-Sunrise"? Please don't stop me: I'm not missing the forest through the trees. The Boston Tea Party was the culmination of many things, but, primarily, the rejection of the being taxed without representation. While we do have representatives now, there are many in this country that want to protest how they are spending our tax dollars. In that sense, the parallelism is there: citizens upset at their federal government over its handing of taxes and its treatment of its citizens. I think that's sufficient parallelism, despite the fact that there are differences between colonial America and the present-day USA. Faulting the protesters for "not wanting to do the work" is just an assumption you make about what they do when they're not protesting. You have no indication that they aren't appealing to their representatives any more than your average liberal protesters. Finally, faulting the protesters for "not sacrificing enough" is also stupid. Given your accurate description of the differences between this tea party and the Boston Tea Party, what would have them throw into the bay? Their 1040's? Their income was taxed before they got their checks. Should they throw in what income they have left? Or the intangible "goods" that the federal government has provided them over years? Trust me: if some of those could be thrown in the bay, I would. I would gladly go without many of the wonderful pet projects the government wastes money on. Can I chuck the National Endowment for the Arts in the river? How much money should artists be getting while auto workers are being laid off, and the retirement savings of millions of tax payers are worth half of what they were? Of course, if we did that, you wouldn't praise us for being as patriotic as the founding fathers. Because, when all is said and done, you will always have a reason for hating conservative protesters because of their conservative nature. Labeling it "AstroTurf" and blaming it for not paralleling the history of the Boston tea party sufficiently is just avoiding the issue: you like big government, and dislike people who don't. Let's just call it what it is and move on.
»

A Commenter above

Submitted by cal1942 on Fri, 03/27/2009 - 12:38am.
said "Basically, the colonies paid no taxes during this time. The colonists got used to not paying taxes." Not correct. The colonists DID pay taxes. Taxes that their elected assemblies levied. Colonists also paid some taxes levied by Parliament. However, those taxes that Parliament levied and were paid without rancor were considered 'external' taxes. Other taxes that parliament levied in an attempt to pay for some North American defense were considered 'internal' taxes and were subject to significant protest. Another commenter above correctly stated that Parliament had granted monolpoly status to the East India Company. A very small tax was levied on tea imported by the East India Company. As a result, in total cost, a pound of tea at Boston was to be cheaper than a pound of tea purchased in London. One thing that always knocks me out about discussion concerning the American Revolution, especially interpretations from movement conservatives, is that so much is so incredibly oversimplified to the point of mistelling the story. There are no simple ways to narrate the story. The American Revolution was the most complex period in our history and is incoherent without some knowledge of over 150 years of history of the English colonies that preceded the war AND some reasonable knowledge of English history prior to that period.
»

The Boston Tea Party according to Thom Hartman

Submitted by RicKelis on Wed, 03/25/2009 - 3:07am.
For a different account of the event, check out: >http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?id=555< American Rebellions by Thom Hartmann "I came upon a first edition of Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773, ...... this account (published 61 years later) is the only first-person account of the event by a participant that exists, so far as I can find. As I read, I began to understand the true causes of the American Revolution. I learned that the Boston Tea Party resembled in many ways the growing modern-day protests against transnational corporations and small-town efforts to protect themselves from chain-store retailers or factory farms. The Tea Party's participants thought of themselves as protesters against the actions of the multinational East India Company. Although schoolchildren are usually taught that the American Revolution was a rebellion against “taxation without representation,” akin to modern day conservative taxpayer revolts, in fact what led to the revolution was rage against a transnational corporation that, by the 1760s, dominated trade from China to India to the Caribbean, and controlled nearly all commerce to and from North America, with subsidies and special dispensation from the British crown. Hewes notes: “The [East India] Company received permission to transport tea, free of all duty, from Great Britain to America…” allowing it to wipe out New England–based tea wholesalers and mom-and-pop stores and take over the tea business in all of America."
»

Boston Tea Party

Submitted by paganbaby on Thu, 03/26/2009 - 9:53am.
I would like to suggest that the Hartman/Hewes account is accurate and should be added as an addition to the previous analysis.
»

Origins of Boston Tea Party

Submitted by paganbaby on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 7:55pm.
Yikes---this is not an accurate representation of the Tea Party era. From the earliest American colonies until the end of the French & Indian War (known in Europe as the 7 Years War,1754-1761, involving just about every country in Europe) is a span of roughly 150 years. During this time the colonies were pretty much ignored, much like we ignore the scientific posts in Antartica today. Basically, the colonies paid no taxes during this time. The colonists got used to not paying taxes. The French&Indian/7 Years War was fought in North America, the Caribbean, Europe, Egypt and India (could have been labeled WWI?). Very expensive war for Britain and the government had to borrow heavily. The war got started in North America and the colonists benefited when France lost the war and her North American territories. These territories were then exploited by the British colonists moving into what was French territory and treating the Indians badly. The Indians rose up in rebellion. The British had to construct forts to help protect the settlers, at great expense. At this point, the British government decided that the colonists(British citizens living on British soil, subject to British services and protection) should pay their fair share of taxes and passed the Stamp Act requiring an official seal/stamp on certain documents. The colonists, used to not paying any taxes, rebelled (the taxation without representation cry is phony as the school busing issue being about busing --it was about race). The British parliament rescinded the tax, thinking it was the type of tax that was the problem. They then passed the Townshend Acts establishing taxes on such items as paint, glass, lead, and---tea. The colonists proceeded to become a nation of smugglers in an effort to avoid paying these taxes. Smuggling was widespread and rampant. The British decided that instead of trying to catch smugglers while smuggling, a very difficult thing to do (ask the DEA), they would bring some tea in from the East India Company at cut rate prices. This would cause the smuggled tea to be higher priced and unmarketable. John Hancock was one of the smugglers with a warehouse full of smuggled tea. In order to preserve the value of his smuggled tea he organized a bunch of colonists to dress up as Indians and dump the tea into Boston Harbor. Any other description should be classified as national myth making. We are still paying the price for these myths.
»

Tea Party

Submitted by nickdanger on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 6:11pm.
"tea-related protests in 1773 after the Brits instituted a tax on this favored drink" Get your facts straight! The Tea Act LOWERED the tax. Geez, this is annoying. As with most Americans, you seem to think the Boston colonists were protesting a tax. NO! They were protesting a potential corporate monopoly by the East India Company. It doesn't take much to look this up. Parliament LOWERED the tax, but only for the East India Company. The Tea Party wasn't about the tax, it was about the exemption.
»

Nick is right! Not the tax

Submitted by AliceWonderland on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 10:25pm.

Nick is right! Not the tax was the reason for the Tea Party in 1773. I found written in a history book (don't know who allowed its publishing) the same facts - that they RAISED the tax. However, in most of the history books, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Wikipedia etc. they explain what was indeed the reason.

____

Chicago remodeling

»