Looting, Vandalism, and the Boston Tea Party
Hey, a lot of people are referencing the Boston Tea Party, and I'm seeing some WILD misconceptions, so let's have a quick review of how that went:
Other colonies had let the ships leave, but the Massachusetts governor did not allow the ships to leave with the tea, and the citizens would not allow the to be unloaded. There was a tense but peaceful 20 whole days of protesters preventing the tea being unloaded, to no avail.
Under cover of night on the last night, colonists disguised themselves as indigenous people of color, boarded three ships containing the cargo owned by other American-born colonist merchants, and destroyed the modern equivalent of $1.7 billion dollars of local businesspeople's property.
That's the quick version. I'm going to zoom in a bit on the property damage specifically, who it was done to, and how it was responded to by early Americans.
1) The tea DID belong to "innocent bystanders", and the value of the lost property exceeded what was lost in LA's riots in 1992 and was almost double the value of damage done in Baltimore in 2015.
Restating for clarity: the Boston Tea Party did MORE property damage than our largest riot in modern memory. And that was just over TEA, as opposed to a pattern of repeatedly excused extrajudicial brutality and murder of unarmed citizens.
2) Note that the founding fathers did not bemoan the unlawful looting and destruction of private property, or the lost livelihoods of colonial entrepreneurs, nor did they condemn the violence.
Instead they were inspired, and defended the destruction as a justified response to oppression.
We today should be able to summon as much or more sympathy for our fellow Americans than the early colonists showed for TEA, ffs.
So get on that.