https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/boston-tea-party https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-seeds-of-revolution-stamp-act-protests-in-boston https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/boston-massacre
From your own link: No one was hurt, and aside from the destruction of the tea and a padlock, no property was damaged or looted during the Boston Tea Party. The participants reportedly swept the ships’ decks clean before they left.
technically these losers aren't looting their own businesses because they don't own or run anything, so they fuck over and harm their own neighbors & citizens who are trying to improve their lives.
So aside from the damaged property (the tea), no property was damaged, and nothing was looted except what was looted.
Probably not. It's still in their neighborhood. It's where they shop. It's where they and their neighbors work. So they don't own it but they still are going to suffer. (at least until Target comes back) How many times has it been pointed out that areas of previous riots going as far back as Watts are still economic wastelands because of the riots? The founding fathers didn't riot. They didn't cause wanton destruction. They formed a new government, an army, and they fought to make a new country. Are the rioters doing that? Wouldn't surprise me if there were a few but I'd say it's not even close to today. Also from Amaris' link something I didn't know but found interesting: In June of 1774, George Washington wrote: “the cause of Boston…ever will be considered as the cause of America.” But his personal views of the event were far different. He voiced strong disapproval of “their conduct in destroying the Tea” and claimed Bostonians “were mad.” Washington, like many other elites, held private property to be sacrosanct. Benjamin Franklin insisted the British East India Company be reimbursed for the lost tea and even offered to pay for it himself. Even after American independence, participants refused to reveal their identities, fearing they could still face civil and criminal charges as well as condemnation from elites for the destruction of private property. Most participants in the Boston Tea Party were under the age of forty and sixteen of them were teenagers.
How many times would it have to happen, causing more problems, before you think that riots would become an inevitable outcome of the system that supports it?
Not only that, but the U.S. had a civil war based on the concept of having the right to other human beings as personal property. Half of the country was willing to burn the other half down to see their own vision through. The U.S. is built on burning shit to the ground.
Almost like a mindset that holds the lives of black people to be worth less than private property was engrained in the system from the beginning.
The first sentence is correct. The Confederacy left the union to protect slavery. Anyone that says otherwise is lying. However your second sentence is wrong. The Confederacy for all it's vile behavior did not want to burn down the rest of the country. It just wanted to leave and form the CSA. Had Lincoln given in and let them go there would have been no Civil War. Thank God though Lincoln said no to that and fought back.
Yep. George was a shit heel, too. When he moved to his estate in Pennsylvania, he had to engage in some trickery to get around the law (the state had enacted the Gradual Abolition Act) that said after a set number of years living in the state, slaves would have to be freed. So Washington would rotate his slaves (of which he and Martha had somewhere around 300) between Pennsylvania and his home in Mount Vernon, so that they couldn't be freed because technically they weren't living in Pennsylvania long enough to qualify for freedom. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...loopholes-avoid-freeing-his-slaves-180954283/
https://wynninghistory.com/2019/06/27/confederate-coal-region/ Never let it be said we won't burn shit down to keep an authority from gaining benefit. Again, the U.S. is founded upon the idea that it will burn this motherfucker down if it has to.
My point still stands. Your point doesn't. Your link doesn't help your argument. Do you know why? Because the plan to burn was created in 1863. In the middle of the war.
Yes, in the middle of a war. A war which was started over property, the definitions of property, and the entitlement to that purported property. We were killing people over the concept of property.
this is how you protest in a civilized society folks. What part of "peaceful" don't the looters/rioters understand? "Augusta came together peacefully to protest Floyd’s death, according to news outlet WRDW. Hundreds marched down Washington Road in unity, holding signs that read “Am I next?” “No justice, no peace” and “WE can't breathe.” Protesters were joined by Richmond County Sheriff's Office personnel, who walked with the crowd and helped direct traffic, WRDW reported. Sheriff Richard Roundtree spoke before the march and thanked the crowd for its peaceful protest Saturday afternoon along Wrightsboro Road. He also told protesters they had the Sheriff’s Office’s support and pleaded for peace, according to the news outlet. The march started at the Hooters on Washington Road and extended to Eisenhower Drive. Protesters stopped at each intersection, forming a circle for a moment of reflection, WRDW reported. People driving nearby reportedly honked their horns in support. Augusta has had three recent protests, and all were peaceful, according to WRDW." And in related local news, nearby Aiken SC cops were passing out water to their protesters.
“…it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?…It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.” - Martin Luther King, Jr. (“The Other America,” 1968) King was non-violent. They assassinated him. George Floyd wasn't attacking anyone. They murdered him in front of witnesses. Non-violent protest always works to the benefit of the oppressor, because they can ignore you. Stonewall was a riot.
Weird how when it's cops it's just a few bad apples, but when its protesters the worst of them tarnish them all. For those individuals I'd suggest part of what makes them think peaceful protest is a waste of time is the years they've been told things like this: Or to put it in simpler form:
Has anyone mentioned that the looters disguised themselves as Indians, or would that cause the snowflakes to blame history for "playing the race card"?
But it is the truth. I'm not sure why you guys are not getting that point. The CSA didn't want a war. It just wanted to secede from the Union. Had the Union caved in the CSA would be its own country today. Thankfully the rest of the Union and Lincoln said no. That doesn't change anything else about the Civil War or how the first shots started it.
Most of the looting going on right now is just general mayhem. Nothing to do with any kind of protest or political movement.
If they keep on like this it can only be a matter of time before someone starts firing back at the police. This is the type of shit that we all condemned in Hong Kong.
I'd like to say that I seriously doubt you'll find anyone who sees that video and thinks what happened is okay, but I actually got into an argument with one guy on Twitter. A defense lawyer who specializes in self-defense/2nd Amendment whose opinion I respected and outside of this case still do. I can understand how he might look at things a certain view because he's been a defense lawyer for decades but I got the impression that he doesn't give a damn about Floyd because Floyd was a "bad guy" and the police can do no wrong. He actually blocked me. And I've seen a couple people bring up Floyd's criminal history and they thankfully have been smacked down by everyone on the right who point out that nothing in Floyd's past justifies what happened that day. (most leftists don't follow the people I've seen bring up Floyd's history). Fortunately people like that seem to be a minority because from what I've seen, heard, and read is that video shocked the whole country. Left and right. Unfortunately as these riots drag on George Floyd's death, which could have been used for a constructive purpose of reforming law enforcement because it is rare when both sides of the political spectrum are in agreement these days, is quickly fading into the background of history. If you hear Floyd's name it's only in passing.
