Different Take on the Boston Tea Party

[David]

This is really interesting reading:

 

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/15-10

 

I'm not knowledgeable enough to determine whether or not he's on the right track, but if he is, that's never been explained to me that way.

 

Any historians know how accurate this account is? It makes me want to read more.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I can't speak to the motives/themes involved, but I guess I never appreciated the magnitude of the original tea party:

 

The people of the country arrived in great numbers, the inhabitants of the town assembled. This assembly, on the 16th of December 1773, was the most numerous ever known, there being more than 2000 from the country present," said Hewes.

 

There are some pretty big protests nowadays, but 2000 back then was frickin huge, a much larger percentage of the population at the time than now. All done without the internet/Twitter, or modern transportation. People obviously felt pretty strongly and invested a lot of time/effort in order to show up at that meeting.

 

That night, Hewes dressed as an Indian, blackening his face with coal dust, and joined crowds of other men in hacking apart the chests of tea and throwing them into the harbor. In all, the 342 chests of tea-over 90,000 pounds-thrown overboard that night were enough to make 24 million cups of tea and were valued by the East India Company at 9,659 Pounds Sterling or, in today's currency, just over $1 million.

 

Imagine the news noawadays if a protest had resulted in the deliberate, targeted destruction (i.e. not just kicking in a few windows or overturning a random car) of $1M in corporate property. Wow.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

From the article:

 

Between 1681 and 1773, a series of laws were passed granting the Company monopoly on tea sold in the American colonies and exempting it from tea taxes. Thus, the Company was able to lower its tea prices to undercut the prices of the local importers and the small tea houses in every town in America. But the colonists were unappreciative of their colonies being used as a profit center for the multinational corporation.

 

So the BIEC's tea was exempted from taxes, according to this article. The Wikipedia article on the Boston tea party says only that they were exempted from a portion of the normal taxes, although the net effect was the same, i.e. a major/unfair competitive advantage relative to colonial tea sellers.

 

I guess a very simplistic interpretation would be that an unfair tax policy was implemented at least in part because there was no colonial representation in the British Parliement, but the reality is a bit more complicated than that; Hartmann's article sheds some light on the complexities and motives of the event, but the Wikipedia article offers more information on the laws and tax policies that led up to the whole shebang.

[David]

I guess many large events in history are a little more complex than what they put in textbooks!

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I guess many large events in history are a little more complex than what they put in textbooks!

 

In terms of motive for a revolution - or at least for such a massive display of civil disobedience - the idea of a multinational corporation being given an advantage (through blatantly biased taxation policy) that enables them to crush small-scale businesses and give themselves a monopoly makes a lot more sense than the idea of some whiny tea addicts complaining that "they've taxed our tea without asking us about it!" But if you ask the average Joe*, he'll tell you it was the latter.

 

* Per the Lake Wobegon effect, I do not consider myself an average Joe: I am, in fact, far above average.

[Matts_12GS]

* Per the Lake Wobegon effect, I do not consider myself an average Joe: I am, in fact, far above average.

 

And your modesty is only overcome by your humility!

 

See you this week Mitch!

[James Clark]

This is really interesting reading:

 

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/15-10

 

Complete with the obligatory Walmart bashing.

 

Does this make General Electric the new East India Company?

[Shaman97]

I guess many large events in history are a little more complex than what they put in textbooks!

 

I agree. Just for the fun of it, I took two American History courses online last semester. Quite the eye-opener, but nothing that doesn't stand the test of reasonability.

 

For the longest time (since High School) I was under the impression most large events, especially involving the US, were based on morality or lofty ideals. Not quite correct. Upon further investigation, almost all the events in this country, from it's founding,(with a large assist from Sir Isaac Newton) to the Emancipation Proclamation, to events in the 20th Century, have an enormously strong base in economics, and who could control particular markets. Quite surprising to me.

[velomoto]

I guess many large events in history are a little more complex than what they put in textbooks!

This is but the tip of the proverbial iceberg. History (yes, even American history) is filled with omissions, misrepresentations or dare I say distortions!

 

Thanks for sharing - that's the first I read that perspective of the Boston Tea Party. But to be honest, until this past so called tea party I hadn't been enlightened on the concept of "tea bagging".

[MattS]

...over 90,000 pounds-thrown overboard that night were enough to make 24 million cups of tea and were valued by the East India Company at 9,659 Pounds Sterling or, in today's currency, just over $1 million.

Imagine the news noawadays if a protest had resulted in the deliberate, targeted destruction (i.e. not just kicking in a few windows or overturning a random car) of $1M in corporate property. Wow.

Imagine the deliberate, targeted destruction of a billion-plus dollars in corporate property, or just channel the distant memory of 9/11. A tea party of a completely different flavor, yet remaining true to original principles.

 

Perhaps the East India Company's valuation of 24 million cups of tea at only $1 million explains why they went out of business. That, or Starbucks was just too far in the future for them to make it.