So. There was a riot awhile ago that is lauded by most Americans. Respected. The same people who say today that Baltimore was a crime against innocent shopkeepers tend to think this riot was awesome, even though it completely destroyed hundreds of thousands of dollars of property. Which is, obviously, an outrage.
And it was put on by smugglers. These individuals smuggled goods here in the states, and then gave them to shop owners who sold them. Only, the government got smart about it and made it so that the smuggled goods got taxed and what it saw as the legitimately obtained goods did not.
This angered the smugglers. So they went to a location for the delivery of the legitimate goods and completely ruined them. They meant to make a statement. Served the government right, they figured — trying to ruin their lucrative smuggling business. Jerks.
All told, they ruined about $1.7 million worth of merchandise. And the aftermath started an even greater era of violence that ended in millions more in destructive consequences, when the government sought to retaliate and the people fought back.
And yet, today the rioters are not only respected — they’re celebrated. That’s right — celebrated.
I get why, though. Even though their actions eventually contributed to an escalation that resulted in the loss of thousands of lives…I think, in a way, they managed to get some semblance of justice. And that’s recognized today, it seems, because people choose to recognize it.
I’m talking, of course, about folks like Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and Paul Revere, the — what’s the word we use for them? Oh, the “thugs” who participated in the Boston Tea Party, which led to the the Boston Port Act, which, arguably, led to the Revolutionary War.
Which we celebrate every July 4th.
So…that riot seemed to, like, totally matter to many of us; its causes were anything but ignored.
Here’s the question I’m having trouble getting past: Why didn’t the riot manage to not matter? I mean, if Britain had its version of FOX News at the time, they would have interviewed the protesters, talked about the damage, and King George would insist that this was not the way to respond to problems with taxes. He would condemn the violence, saying that it wasn’t helping in the least.
And yet, it clearly did have what have turned out to be highly respected effects.
What is the difference between The Boston Tea Party and the Baltimore Riots, in principle? Why did one take off while the other, people insist, fundamentally undercut the voice of blacks in this country?