• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Iraq and the Boston Tea Party

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It amazes me when people respond to a protest of government by accusations of anti-Americanism. Even for someone who never went to school, it wouldn't take too many 4th of July's to know that this country was born out of dissent for its government [in this case the monarchy of England]. If I was to draw an analogy between Iraq and the Boston Tea Party, it would be as follows:
"Do you consider the people that through the Tea overboard to be
Americans? Would there protest of government [figuratively, not
literally], if done today, be considered anti-American?"

Taking your government to task, whether or not you are pro-Bush or anti-Clinton, is what this country's fabric is made of. It is un-American not to do this when, you, as an American citizen, percieve your government (regardless of party affiliations), stray from the coarse of Democracy and the laws of our land.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
6,280
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Ok, I will bite.

If I was to draw an analogy between Iraq and the Boston Tea Party, it would be as follows.
The only analogy that I can see logically would be that we are not making monitary profit on this war. We are opperating on a loss.

Billo_Really said:
"Do you consider the people that through the Tea overboard to be Americans?
No, we were undeclared at the time. We were British under the ownership of the king. We were quite mad that European Tea companies were making profit on our labor and our founding forefathers were SOL. Not only was this greedy, but it was the first major spark of capitolism as we know it on this side of the pond.

Would there protest of government [figuratively, not literally], if done today, be considered anti-American?"
It would be illegal as it would be destroying others property. The tea was owned by a tea company, not the government.
 
Last edited:

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Vauge:
It would be illegal as it would be destroying others property. The tea was owned by a tea company, not the government
You make a good point. But the point of the thread was to draw attention to the fact that it is every American's civic duty to take his government to task when he percieves wrong doing by the latter.
 

Stherngntlmn

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
236
Reaction score
0
Location
Richmond, Va
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Billo_Really said:
You make a good point. But the point of the thread was to draw attention to the fact that it is every American's civic duty to take his government to task when he percieves wrong doing by the latter.
the difference being... since at the time, they had no vote or true representation in parlament, this was their only recourse to draw that attention. Since in modern society, you have the ability to vote in the candidate you feel best represents your views, it's a bit overkill to vandalize in order to make a political point.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Stherngntlmn:
the difference being... since at the time, they had no vote or true representation in parlament, this was their only recourse to draw that attention.
This is true.

Originally posted by Stherngntlmn:
Since in modern society, you have the ability to vote in the candidate you feel best represents your views,
This is also true.

Originally posted by Stherngntlmn:
it's a bit overkill to vandalize...
I'm offended by this inference.

Originally posted by Stherngntlmn:
...in order to make a political point.
What was my point?
 
H

HTColeman

I think the point of this thread was completely missed. This is not talking about whether it was legal or illegal to throw tea into the bay, it is the principle of why they did it. I hear too many people say that you should support Bush because he is our president, that is blindly following someone based on their position. To say it is unAmerican not to support the Iraq War is ignorance. I am all the more American because I have used my American rights to voice my opinion about American issues
 

Diogenes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
3,059
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
HTColeman said:
I think the point of this thread was completely missed. This is not talking about whether it was legal or illegal to throw tea into the bay, it is the principle of why they did it.
I once had an iconoclastic history prof with a novel take on the incident.

The British government of the time had ruled that there was to be no trade directly from one colony to another; all shipments had to go through Britain: sugar, rum and molasses from Jamaica had to go to Britain on its way to the American colonies. This made it more expensive, and invited entrepreneurs into a career of smuggling. At that time, according to the prof, three quarters of the adult population of New England made at least part of their annual income from smuggling. Then the British East India Company ran into financial difficulties, and got a special dispensation from the Crown to ship tea directly from wherever they got it to the colonies. So one day a ship shows up in Boston harbor with a load of better tea than the smugglers could provide, and at a cheaper price. THAT is when we had the Boston Tea Party.

I hear too many people say that you should support Bush because he is our president, that is blindly following someone based on their position. To say it is unAmerican not to support the Iraq War is ignorance. I am all the more American because I have used my American rights to voice my opinion about American issues.
I hear too many people who confuse protest with patriotism, automatically assuming that one implies the other.

In order for representative government to work, two things are necessary: The winners must not overplay their hand by disenfranchising the losers, and the losers must accept the verdict of the ballot box with all its consequences. It's okay to oppose a decision before it is made, but it is not okay to provide aid and comfort to the enemy once the decision has been made.
 
H

HTColeman

Diogenes said:
I once had an iconoclastic history prof with a novel take on the incident.

The British government of the time had ruled that there was to be no trade directly from one colony to another; all shipments had to go through Britain: sugar, rum and molasses from Jamaica had to go to Britain on its way to the American colonies. This made it more expensive, and invited entrepreneurs into a career of smuggling. At that time, according to the prof, three quarters of the adult population of New England made at least part of their annual income from smuggling. Then the British East India Company ran into financial difficulties, and got a special dispensation from the Crown to ship tea directly from wherever they got it to the colonies. So one day a ship shows up in Boston harbor with a load of better tea than the smugglers could provide, and at a cheaper price. THAT is when we had the Boston Tea Party.
Yet and still, the origin of the problem was that disagreed with the rulings that British Government had imposed on them without proper representation. This is good to know information, but it does not disprove the principle of the Boston Tea Party.

Diogenes said:
I hear too many people who confuse protest with patriotism, automatically assuming that one implies the other.
I never said anything about patriotism, patriotism is simply pride of your country. I was talking about those who think it is unAmerican to not support Bush or the War.

Diogenes said:
In order for representative government to work, two things are necessary: The winners must not overplay their hand by disenfranchising the losers, and the losers must accept the verdict of the ballot box with all its consequences. It's okay to oppose a decision before it is made, but it is not okay to provide aid and comfort to the enemy once the decision has been made.
Even if the decision is made against my own opinion I can still openly oppose the decision, and it is okay, that is what makes America, America. I am not sure what you are refering to as far as providing aid and comfort to the enemy, I'm just talking about voicing my opinion.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by HTColeman:
Even if the decision is made against my own opinion I can still openly oppose the decision, and it is okay, that is what makes America, America. I am not sure what you are refering to as far as providing aid and comfort to the enemy, I'm just talking about voicing my opinion.
All you need to do with someone like that, is ask them "Who is Thomas Paine?" If they don't know anything more than he was one of the founding fathers, then they don't have a clue as to what exactly is an American.
 
Top Bottom