Is the "Tea Party" Really An Appropriate Name?
First calling themselves "tea baggers" - thanks to lack of cultural knowledge about the sexual nature of that term - increasingly this nation-wide collection of populace is being referred to as the "Tea Party." While it surely intended to stoke the "patriotic" fervor of those who see themselves as part of this movement, this appellation is very inaccurate.
The Boston "Tea Party" was populist activism by the colonists in "America" who were protesting the Tea Act of the British Parliament which imposed a tax on tea. The "rebels" felt that they should not pay a tax that was not passed by their elected officials. Interestingly, the Tea Act was passed by the Parliament to save the East India Tea Company from bankruptcy (Encyclopedia Britannica - Boston tea Party). The East India Company was given a monopoly on all tea exported from Britain to the colonies, as well as imposing a tax on that tea. The refrain of "No taxation without representation" was one of the arguments of the rebelling colonists (Wikipedia - Boston Tea Party)
Regardless of frequently claiming to be "bi-partisan" or "non-partisan," the current Tea Party is highly conservative in the contemporary sense of that word. They are anti-tax (meaning individual taxation and increasing taxes for the wealthy), anti-immigrant, and pro-corporate and privatization. They are largely anti-government, which is the supposedly "Libertarian" strain - which in the current popular rendition is largely "conservative" as well. (See site sampling at end of article).
This is a far cry from the rebel terrorists (and as far as the British were concerned the folks in Boston were terrorists) of the original "Tea Partyers". The Boston Tea Party rebels were acting against British rule in the American colonies, but particularly British taxation. They were acting against monopoly corporatism as represented by the East Indian Tea Company. They were making a first strike for liberating the colonies from Britain.
However, the current "Tea Party" does have close corollaries to another historical party. The party in mind is the "Know Nothings" also known as the American Party which arose roughly 80 years after the revolt of 1773. Both parties were responding to a social environment of slavery (and the conflicts around the institution), and to waves of European immigration. Feagin (1997: 19-20 as quoted in Wolf) characterizes this period as follows:
"In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the 'white race' emerged as a constructed social group for the first time in history." ... "Early English invaders and their descendants saw themselves as culturally and physically different from Native and African Americans, the stereotyped 'uncivilized savages.' Moreover, by the early 1800s the importance of Southern cotton plantations for the U.S. economy had brought a growing demand for Native American land and African and African American slaves. Slavery was being abolished in the North, and the number of free black men and women was growing. In this period, the Anglo-Protestant ruling elite developed the ideology of a superior 'white race' as one way of providing racial privileges for poorer European Americans and keeping the latter from joining with black Americans in worker organisations. By the mid-nineteenth century, not only later English "immigrants" but also "immigrants" from Scotland, Ireland, and Germany had come to accept a place in this socially constructed 'white race' whose special racial privileges included the rights of personal liberty, travel and voting." (As quoted in Wolf, 2008)
The Know Nothings were anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic, though they were split North and South on the issue of slavery. As stated in Wolf (2008):
The Know Nothings grew out of a secret society called the Order of the Star Spangled Banner. They were formally known as the American Party. They were anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic and claimed to be champion of the rights of American male Protestant voters. The northern part of the party being anti-slavery and the southern part being pro-slavery (Anbinder, 1992; Billington, 1952). They took political control of many state and city governments from 1855 to 1860. They supported Millard Fillmore in the 1856 Presidential election and he took 21% of the popular vote and eight votes from the electoral college.
The "nativist" Know Nothing/American Party, were vehemently anti-immigrant, mirroring one of the foci of the current "Tea Party." As noted in Wolf:
The American Party platform included the following:1. Only native-born Americans could hold public office;
2. A 21 year waiting period before foreign-born could vote;
3. Restrict public schooling to Protestants and have the Protestant bible read daily in classrooms. (Anbinder, 1992)
So called "native" Americans, those white descendants of primarily western Europeans who had been born here, saw the "immigrant" influx as a threat in a number of regards. They saw them as racially and culturally different and inferior to themselves. Samuel Busey (1856) wrote a book called "Immigration and its Evils" in which he presented a detailed discussion of the inferiority of the "immigrants." In the following passage he compares the illiterate American born to the illiterate foreigner.
"The ignorant natives who speak our language have been reared under our institutions, and are acquainted with the practical workings of our government; the ignorant foreigner is totally unacquainted with the language; has not enjoyed the advantages of experience and practical observation of the complex machinery of our government, and is consequently far inferior, intellectually, to the uneducated native. He cannot understand the theory of a free government, because he is destitute of the knowledge sufficient to comprehend its objects, purposes and blessings. He cannot acquaint himself with its practical operation and direct and immediate advantages to himself, because he wants the experience and observation, which birth and habits have taught; besides he is totally unacquainted with our language, and has been reared under institutions hostile to personal liberty, to free institutions, and to a Republican government; hence it is that foreigners are so prone to congregate together, to organise themselves into clubs, societies and even communities, occupying entire sections of a county, State, and of a country. These foreign organisations are dangerous to our established institutions; because, wherever they have been in our country, they have repudiated the fundamental principles of our government. (Bussey, 1856: 127-129)."
After WWI, white nativism reared its head again in the context of economic turmoil and rising immigration. The depression of the 1930s intensified nativism - now focused largely against Mexicans. It re-emerged again after WWII with the return of troops, and the displacement of the "substitute" workers who had been women, African Americans and Mexicans who had been encouraged into the country to fill labor demands. The racism that arose obviously focused in its hostility against Japanese Americans , "Asians," Jews, "Mexicans," Germans and Italians.
The point here is that nativism is an old theme, and the current "Tea Party" joins a long line of white "nativism" and so-called conservatism.
It seems disingenuous to call them the "Tea Party," and "Know Nothings" seems more appropriate. Regardless, it joins the long theme of racism and exclusion that is the uglier part of the history of the United States. While even loosely this movement does not represent the majority of Americans, they are currently influencing - even defining - the social and political terrain. Their effectiveness, one might even say their very existence, is due to corporate funding and big monied interests on the right. For example, their birthis out of Fox "News" owned by Rupert Murdock. This has given them - or their corporate inventors and sponsors - a media megaphone. If they are allowed to continue to define the social and political terrain, we are likely to see an extremely difficult and challenging time become very destructive and ugly as well.
Notes
The Know Nothing and American Party sections are quoted in Chapter 6 of The Dialectic of Social Inequality by Rowan Wolf. 2008.
Time Line of the Boston Tea Part. Google.
Sampling of "Tea Party" Sites
Tea Party Patriots
Re-Tea Party (ironically, the "principles" page is "not found")













Outstanding, Rowan.
Just outstanding.
November 20, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
)( )( )( clapping flippers
Thanks flowerchild!!
November 20, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another: Kudos!
P.S. I love the clapping flippers sign! :-)
November 20, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then here are some for you too, and thank you!
)( )( )( )(
November 20, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, goody! :-)
November 21, 2009 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
First calling themselves "tea baggers" . . . .
I don't know who started calling the vocal opposition to the stimulus plan teabaggers -- Rick Santelli called for a Tea Party in February -- but I don't think it was this group.
I suspect it was the media and probably that pseudoleftist embarrassment, Keith Olbermann.*
* Don't miss the clever Philip K. Dick reference -- you know Philip K. DICK and TEABAGGERS -- ho, ho, ho.
November 20, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Psuedo left Olbermann or not, it was Rachel Maddow playing Fox News Clips where Fox "News" commentators brought up "teabagging" the politicians in Washington. Of course, Fox "News" coordinated and promoted the "grassroots" "Tea Parties" - which in poli-speak is called 'astro turf."
November 20, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No -- astroturfing is secretive; Fox was upfront about what it was doing.
Most of clips Maddow played referred to the protests as Tea Parties.
In the event your link supports my suspicion that the off-color name was coined not by the participants but by the media. And a wink-wink, nudge-nudge salacious Maddow was right there to jump on board.
November 20, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you had watched even the first minute of that clip, you would have heard from an oddly theme dressed Fox News commentator state: "Teabag the fools in D.C."
Watching Fox News myself through this farce, I heard, teabagging Washington and like comments as number of times.
Regardless, the point is not teabagging, but "Tea Party" which is the focus of my post.
November 20, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No -- the "point of your post" was stated in the opening sentence (else, you wouldn't have located it there and given it pride of position) --
that is, the ridiculing of a group of people for their supposed lack of sophistication in not knowing, unlike thigh-rubbing Olbermann and pandering Maddow, a particular vulgar term (primarily used by gays) to describe a certain sexualized act.
Rather than ask yourself why these people, the Tea Partiers, should be upset watching our kleptocrats award themselves several trillion dollars of tax payers' money, you've decided that the views of this unsophisticated hoi polloi should be mocked by any and all good liberals.
November 21, 2009 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, you are now a certified revisionist historian.
I got such a hoot out of hearing and watching the the 'baggers distance themselves from the term "teabaggers" immediately after they started using it, just because someone suggested it had an alternative sexual meaning in the gay community.
They are so homophobic, they bit down hard on that bigot bait, and swallowed it hook-line-and-stinker.
Do they know what the term "Partiers" means in some places, like The Castro or Christopher Street?
Our language is so full of ambiguities, they had better be prepared to defend their own definitions, rather than changing their name to avoid association with "undesirables."
It just makes them look weak and timid.
November 21, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS. Ellen, your "hoi polloi" reference is one of those not-so-subtle lies you all tell each other, that you somehow represent "the masses", and not a wingnut derivation/parody thereof.
If you really were a majority, you wouldn't be flailing in the wind.
November 21, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think an important part of the "movement" is a strategy taken from the Republicans when they controlled the House, Senate and Presidency - namely the beleagured minority under assault by the forces of "evil." Meanwhile, the "Movement" carries the water for the very forces and ideology that created the corporate theft of the United States. IMO.
November 21, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The unsophisticated illiterates shuld be ridiculed for being unsophisticateed illiterates becasue they are unsophisticated illiterates:
The kleptocrats you label include FOX "news," especially extreme rightwingnut multi-billionaire immigrant Rupert Murdoch, and the other mega-wealthy corporations who fund ("Here's yer donut!") the "Tea Party" adherants, and bus them to rallies and such so they can scream and yell in protest against their own interests, in favor of those kleptocrats.
November 21, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, no matter who started it, it's Maddow or Olbermann's fault, isn't it, Ellen?
November 20, 2009 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first illegal immigrants to this continent were such as Popham and Jamestown, Pilgrims and Puritans. All were sufficiently white, though.
The latter two were the most vociferous of "Christian" bible-thumpers, the Puritans being vociferous to the extreme of mouth-foaming. It is they -- both Pilgrims and Puritans -- who established their colonies, and ultimately the US, on genocide against the insufficiently white landlords.
As for the "Tea Party" illiteracy: it began with the notion of sending teabags to Congresspersons as protest symbol in order to "remind" them of the "revolutionary" "Boston Tea Party" protest against taxation.
It quickly evolved from that to adherents who -- though they likely couldn't afford a stamp or write an address -- called themselves "teabaggers".
I think they didn't follow through on sending the teabags to Congress; perhaps they couldn't decide on which brand, or felt the "flo-thru" teabag design was of too modern vintage to properly reflect the "revolutionary" era with due sobriety.
None of any of that had any factual knowledge of, or relation to, the actual "Boston Tea Party," which wasn't in fact a noble defense of "freedom" but rather a criminal defense of smuggling. Among the smugglers was dim bulb (I flatter) John Hancock.
Interesting footnote concerning Hancock's decendants, and their apparent (inherited) insanity:
The "new" Massachusetts-Bay state house was built on the top of Beacon Hill. Rather, the peak of Beacon Hill was removed in order to build the "new" state house on the flattened top of the Hill.
John Hancock's house -- which was eventually taken for back taxes -- was on Beacon Hill, near to the top before the peak was removed. And for many decades, claiming ownership of the Hill, Hancock's family litigated the matter in court in case after case.
During that litigation process (and before the peak was removed to build the state house) the Hancock decendents, under dark of night, would fill a wheelbarrow with dirt from the peak -- they claimed to own the peak, ya see -- and take it away and hide it. (Where they hid it doesn't seem to be known; I suspect they hid it in their cellar.)
Amazing absurdity:
"We own the Hill, and to ensure that we retain possession of it we're gonna haul it away and put it into storage!"
Before defending the "teabaggers"/history-illiterates, it would be wise to exercise sufficient caution as to learn the actual history of the so-called "revolution," and of the actual nature of the "revolutionaries'" not-entirely-noble actions before asserting rants, in favor of the "teabaggers," which reveal your history-illiteracy.
November 21, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I truly wish we had crossed paths years ago when I was struggling trying to trace out the history of racist nativism in the U.S. However, I do appreciate doing so now. If you have a couple of sources to restart me on that journey, I would truly appreciate it.
November 21, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't know where the racist naativism began; but currently there's a PBS "American Experience: We Shall Remain" about the Indian wars. Reading about the Indian wars, at least those in New England, reveals the underlying racist assumptions about "heathen".
Where that racist nativism applies to immigrants -- from, of course, immigrants: I don't know where that begins, but it may have begun essentially with the "freedom of (MY) religion (but NOT YOURS) beginnings of the several colonies. As I noted in another post, anti-Catholic bigotry existing before, during, and after the so-called "revolution" -- but also predated it as virtual tradition from the foundings of such colonies (at very least) as New-Plimoth, Massachusetts-Bay, and Virginia.
That "They came here for freedom of religion" is at least partly amnesiac: the Massachusetts-Bay Puritans, as I detailed, came here for freedom of THEIR religion; those who had a "wrong" religion, and were allowed to live in the colony, couldn't own property -- which was necessary (also) to be eligible to run for and hold public office. I've not studied the "religious" history of Massachusetts-Bay, but (aside from the sexual hypocrisies, and like, familiar corruptions), there was a long period of time during which the religiotyranny -- theocracy -- was a marriage of the established "religion" and the gov't, and laws were enacted to maintain that power structure. All others were kept out.
And after the ratification of Constitution and Bill of Rights it apparently took over a hundred years of litigation to overcome the established state "religion". I believe it was as late as the mid-19th century when the anti-Catholic terrorism was still the open tradition, with the burning, as example, of a Catholic convent, along with the nuns inside it, by a mobb, based upon the various superstitions about what went on in convents.
Yet today the (Irish) Catholic church is one of the largest landowners in Massachusetts.
Gad, what an irony: the boasts of "religious" "diversity" and all the many different churches as the quintessential evidence of "freedom" . . . enough with "religion" already as some sort of salvation other than killing non-adherents in order to speed the ascendence of the non-adherents into the adherent's version of Heaven.
November 21, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. Ive seen the PBS special. I just hoped you might have some source leads. Thanks for yur contributions to the discussion.
November 21, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
My habit, when I'm doing whatever work I'm doing, is to tune the TeeVee to the least offensive programing. That usually ends up being PBS (by that means I stumbled on the fascinating one-hour documentary about how The Beatles destroyed Soviet communism). So it was by accident that I saw the first episode of that series -- the one about the New-Plimoth and Massachusetts-Bay Indian wars.
My usual focus is legal history (colony, province, and state laws up to and through ratifications of US Constitution and Bill of Rights), and where necessary "local" histories which give those illustrative context*. I've not focused on the political, except as it is "part of" the legal history, so know nothing about the "nativist" as history; only as hatefulness.
(And the only reading I've done about the "Know Nothings," of which I'd heard in passing, over decades, is that you posted.) Nor, as said, have I studied the history of "religion" concerning the colonies; but the anti-Catholic -- and Quaker -- bigotries are unavoidable as they regularly appear front and center in the legal history, such as the statutes oppressing Catholics and Quakers.
(Another fascinating statute I happened upon, and which blew my mind, concerned "Anabaptist tracts": it read exactly like a "drug war" statute, except that it prohibited the production, possession, and distribution of "Anabaptist tracts". And it wasn't objective, or "professional," in the writing: the vicious, irrational hatred against "Anabaptists" was overt.)
_____
*An example is from reading the New-Plimoth laws. Suddenly, out of nowhere, there appeared a statutue prohibiting sale of alcohol to Indians, without any indication of context. (That brought to mind the cultural artifacts about Indians not being able to "handle" "their liquor".)
A bit later came a statute prohibiting sale of "shot & powder" to the Indians, again sans context.
And shortly thereafter a statute prohibiting smuggling of alcohol and "shot & powder" to the Indians (also lacking context, but understandable to the degree that smuggling is and should be, well, illegal).
I was puzzled about those -- why "all of a sudden"? -- until I stepped out of the legal history into the parallel local history and found myself in the midst of a raging Indian war.
I almost found myself ducking and looking around, and deciding to not be out of doors unless absolutely necessary, and only under cover of dark.
_____
At any rate, the bigotry-based brutalities against the Indians, from the outset of the foundings of the colonies, are shown in that first episode of "American Experience". And The Minute Man reference I cited references the fact that getting men to fight against the Indians was effectuated in part by putting a bounty on the scalps of Indians.
(That episode gives emphasis to "King Philip's War," which the colonists were losing until they finally listened to and learned from the "Christianized" Indians about how to conduct their side of the war: by ambush, and other guerilla tactics. "We" boast that those tactics were used by "us" later used against the British. And today "we" whine that "insurgents" in their own countries use them.)
November 22, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, they were sending tea bags to their Representatives; they really named themselves, not knowing the modern scatalogical reference. :-}
November 20, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who's "they"?
November 21, 2009 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://teabagcongress.com/
http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/
November 21, 2009 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"They" are the people YOU mean when you say "We."
November 21, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
And instead of Catholics, it's Jews and brown-skinned people, and ACORN people, and Muslims, and, and, and...
The Know-nothings. Let's keep it.
Good job, manatee.
And they are funded by Freedom Works, and United Health, and, and, and...Not so much about a populous movement.
The queer thing is now they are attacking Republicans who don't show purity to the cause. Even John McCain may be challenged in a primary. Zounds. Spoilers in 2010, 2012?
November 20, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Wendy!
Nativist movements are frightening things an yes they are to the right of Himmler. What I do not know about earlier renditions of nativist movements is the monied/corporate influence behind them. I suspect given the ongoing fight from the mid 1800s forward to expand the rights and power of corporations under the Constitution, is that the influence was certainly there.
What is different (at least in my lifetime) is that there is very little attempt to even disguise the corporate and monied interests behind the extreme right. That went out with the Bush administrations. I guess, that doesn't faze the folks on the streets (or being bussed in).
What they are doing is the hard press tactics by which the so-called Christian Right took over the Republican Party as part of the Reagan Revolution. Now, they are pushing even further right to a narrower and narrower litmus test. What is interesting to me - astro turf or not - is that folks can be so blatantly pro corporate after the Grand Theft Wall Street we are still watching unfold. How people reconcile the obvious conflicts is beyond me.
I think that where those not in that camp go astray, is to assume that they will tear up the Republican Party leaving the Democrats standing by default. That is not a good strategy to pursue. For example, in the NY 23 district where Democratic Owens won with 49% trailed closely by Conservative Hoffman (45.9%) after Scozzafava dropped out and threw her support behind Owens. (NY Times election 2009 results)
November 20, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's still the Catholics. But they are sufficiently white that they have to wait their turn until all the less-sufficently white are got rid of.
W.A.S.P. excludes any who are not protestant -- which means also Catholics. Recently threre has been an occasional exposure of the anti-Catholic bigotry around the edges of the fringe. And one sees it regularly in the "fear" that a Catholic politician will listen first to the Pope and second if at all to the Constitution.
November 21, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that many of them really believe that their Movement is almost universal. Their letters in our local paper often refer to themes akin to "we've got you surrounded." Odd.
Game theory says, apparently, that revenge will cause many people to cut off their noses to spite their faces, if they sense basic unfairness. Given that they have been led to believe that Liberal equal Socialist, the opposite to be embraced becomes Capitalism, the kind with no government regulation, since government is bad. It makes an odd sort of sense for me, if illogical, it's at least explainable and durable.
November 20, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so good! :-)
November 21, 2009 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahh, it is all so convoluted. After working for so long to equate capitalism and democracy, then fighting for capitalism is fighting for democracy, and socialism - the supposed foe of capitalism is ipso loco the foe of democracy. Meanwhile, capitalism becomes fascism and hocus pocus, you have the defenders of democracy doing the mud work of corporate fascism.
November 21, 2009 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Know-Nothings" is an apt description for the Nocialists.
Sharing and furthering the common good don't fit with authoritarian control.
November 21, 2009 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Know No Nocialists don't play well with others because they won't let go of the ball; they shout and destroy. The masses moved by fear and cultural trigger points of hate. Ugliness all around.
November 21, 2009 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
And they work very hard to keep their circles of association "pure", which inevitably just magnifies their prejudices.
Like a CEO surrounding himself with "Yes Men", the 'baggers intentionally insulate themselves from reality.
November 21, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the Nocialist label, but wouldn't Noeverything be more accurate?
Maybe we should call them the "Noitalls?"
November 21, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Noitalls" Ha!
But seriously, group think is problematic wherever it occurs, and you are right that the narrower the circle the more magnification of the group think bias.
November 21, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Rowen, I think your post and my post are in sync in a funny way! You as a sociologist might be able to make some sense of that.
November 21, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that those who strive for total control are similar if not clones. C Street cults who absolve the god's "chosen" from the laws of god are little different than Popes dispensating. One chosen or another, the rules for the masses are not the rules for hand picked of god. Self serving, but compensation for selling your soul to advance in the power structure. It is no accident that from popes, to C street and the "Family" to Manson, to the Tea Party manipulators, that religion and the reification of same is a consistent tool of control and firing up the masses - or silencing them as needed.
November 21, 2009 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a matter of fact, I just noticed - with a kind of horror - that the straussian principles I extracted months ago - seem to fit the Vatican almost to a "t"!
Here's the link. Just scroll down to the numbered list:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/05/who-is-leo-strauss-and-why-sho.php
The only outlier is "perpetual war" - though I suppose they've got a war on sex going! (except for the elite, of course...)
November 21, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought of this link to historical movements. But you have done such a fine job really demonstrating the similarities and the angst that precipitated the movements.
Somehow Roosevelt was able to unite all of these people into a movement that encompassed the likes of Huey Long and the socialist Wallace for more than a decade.
There are problems within the tea bag movement of course. Those disagreements have come to light recently.
How these idiots can be captured by repubs who wish only for tax relief for the rich, deregulation for the rich and socialism for the corporations is beyond me. It is sooooooo difficult to understand.
November 21, 2009 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
My foster sister lives in rural Missouri. She says that the only news she gets is Fox News. They can't afford satellite and cable does not extend to their area. Murdoch has been very smart in his placement of his channels across the country. While the rest of the MSM have focused on the "urban dweller" Murdoch has not. Likewise, she does not have a computer, and if she did it would be dialup. Her daughter who is a 3rd grade teacher in the same area, also does not own a computer, but uses the one at the school - also a dialup - and only to check her email.
We have an urban bias in this country. We also have class and race biases. All of them are tied into the technological divide. One of the consequences of this is a divide in access to information and verifying information.
November 21, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wha-
"Regardless of frequently claiming to be "bi-partisan" or "non-partisan," the current Tea Party is highly conservative"
Unless I am mistaken, doesn't partisan refer to political Parties?
They are anti-tax (meaning individual taxation and increasing taxes for the wealthy)
Where do you get that? I am only speaking of my views here and don't know of any of the Tea Party people. It is not about paying NO tax. The tax burden on Americans is tough on everybody... As to tax on the Rich I think each American should pay his/her fair share. Until the horrendous tax code changes or we move to a flat tax it will remain the same.
anti-immigrant, NO anti ILLEGAL immigrant.
and pro-corporate I will go on a limb here and say I think the majority of Tea Party people would and have been against bailing out the AUTO industry with TAX dollars.
They are largely anti-government, you are sooooo wrong! They are for smaller FEDERAL Government.
I really see nothing wrong with a healthy criticism of any large group but I think you either don't get or focus on fringe elements.
I would be just as bad if I equated every liberal/progressive by believing they only get there news from MSNBC and they were all as fringe as the code pink folks.
November 21, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"anti-immigrant, NO anti ILLEGAL immigrant."
I'd like to know exactly how you distinguish between the two.
Because my co-worker's blonde, blue-eyed British wife never gets hassled at the airport like my Hispanic born-in-the-USA wife does.
I think that people who claim to be anti-illegal immigration are actually just racists who don't like brown people, and so far, I haven't found anyone who's been able to refute that and present a truly race-blind method for distinguishing legal immigrants from illegal ones.
The floor is yours. Spell it out for us.
November 21, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly Signalman. From Lou Dobbs on, claims of race not being an issue in the undocumented alien issue is beyond disingenuous. Otherwise, we would be talking about the uncounted number of people who are in the country from everywhere - not just the southern border. You wouldn't get folks like Jack Cafferty (CNN) who said during the massive immigration protests under Bush that we should just call out the army and round all those millions of protesters up and send them across the border. Regardless of the fact the fact that many of those on the streets were U.S. citizens (and many not "Hispanic").
November 21, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Because my co-worker's blonde, blue-eyed British wife never gets hassled at the airport like my Hispanic born-in-the-USA wife does."
What does that have to do with being legal or illegal? As to how its enforced isn't that always going to be an issue for every crime? How do you know who is going to steal or murder or rape?
So your calling me a racist because I think people should obey the law? That is just asinine. I could give a rats ass who comes here to live... I just think it should be legal. If we are not doing enough to facilitate legal entry then change it.
Your really confusing different issues. Anti-Illegal immigration does not equate to pro-harass people.
November 21, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the issue is that the targeting of who is an "illegal immigrant" has focused on people who assumedly come from Mexico and areas south and who are "brown." Therefore, a broad brush is used where all folks who appear Hispanic (as it is racially structured in the U.S.)are suspected of being "illegal immigrants." It is not you in particular who are being "racist," but the structure of the anti-(illegal) immigration rhetoric that is utilizing race and racism.
November 21, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
It also neglects mention of the illegal immigrants who are sufficently white, such as those from Ireland, Russia, etc.
So it isn't actually about illegal immigration at all.
November 21, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Because my co-worker's blonde, blue-eyed British wife never gets hassled at the airport like my Hispanic born-in-the-USA wife does."
"What does that have to do with being legal or illegal?"
It's got absolutely nothing to do with it, which is exactly the point. A blonde, blue-eyed woman with an English accent (demonstrating that she likely *wasn't* born here) gets left alone at the airport, while a brown-haired, brown-eyed, brown-skinned woman who speaks English quite well and with no accent (and whose family has been in the US longer than mine has) gets pulled aside for special screening almost every time.
Perhaps you could tell me why that *shouldn't* be called racism? Because the immigrant clearly is being passed over because of her appearance and the born-in-the-USA lady is clearly being singled out because of hers.
"As to how its enforced isn't that always going to be an issue for every crime?"
If, each time a bank was robbed in your town, all white men with red hair were rounded up for interrogation, would you find that an enforcement issue or not? How about if all men with facial hair got rounded up? Would that be a problem for you? I suspect that so long as you aren't in the profiled group, you don't really care who gets singled out unfairly.
"How do you know who is going to steal or murder or rape?"
Thanks for equating rapists and murderers with being Hispanic. It's good to know how you think.
"So your calling me a racist because I think people should obey the law?"
No, I'm calling you a racist because you've equated being a rapist and/or a murderer with being Hispanic. And I'm saying that the law is not being applied wisely or fairly if a white immigrant gets passed over while a Hispanic American gets picked out of line just about every time. Once again, I bet you don't really care who gets profiled or unfairly singled out, so long as it isn't a demographic that you personally belong to.
"That is just asinine."
Yeah, it would be if I had actually done that. Good job trying to put words in my mouth, but FAIL.
"I could give a rats ass who comes here to live... I just think it should be legal. If we are not doing enough to facilitate legal entry then change it."
You need to give some thought to the fact that there are a lot of nonwhite people already living in the US, and that not all of them are immigrants. Clearly you've been somewhere else over the last few years.
"Your really confusing different issues. Anti-Illegal immigration does not equate to pro-harass people."
I'm not confusing a single thing -- my wife and I *LIVE* those two issues every single day. Furthermore, If you can't substantively answer the question I asked you above, then yes, the two absolutely are the same.
Once again, here's the question -- how do *you* distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants? Please explain how *you* distinguish between the two.
November 21, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Signalman, you are right on every point. I apologize for trying to throw the roo a sop and hopefully send him/her on his/her way.
November 21, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Show me where the Founders/Framers -- not the anti-regulation corporatists/unindicted criminal class Republican party/fringe teabaggers -- stressed "small gov't" -- Federal OR state.
I ask because I know you can't because they never stressed any such thing. Rather, they stressed the need for a STRONG, CENTRAL Federal gov't -- the very thing your America-hating bullshitized ilk OPPOSE.
In addition: the Constitution, even before ratification of the Bill of Rights, stipulated LIMITS on STATES -- so the limitations have never ONLY been on the Federal gov't.
Beyond the supremacy clause, one of those limitations, "states' rights" fool, is prohibition against states forming confederacies.
November 21, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Boston "Tea Party" was populist activism by the colonists in "America" who were protesting the Tea Act of the British Parliament which imposed a tax on tea. The "rebels" felt that they should not pay a tax that was not passed by their elected officials. Interestingly, the Tea Act was passed by the Parliament to save the East India Tea Company from bankruptcy (Encyclopedia Britannica - Boston tea Party). The East India Company was given a monopoly on all tea exported from Britain to the colonies, as well as imposing a tax on that tea. The refrain of "No taxation without representation" was one of the arguments of the rebelling colonists (Wikipedia - Boston Tea Party)
_____
You left out that the Tea Tax undercut the MA-Bay colonists illegal smugglings. And that the associated "Non-Importation Agreement/s" initiated by Sam Adams was enforced against reluctant colony merchants -- who preferred profits over "patriot" politics -- by use of gang violence.
I.e., all the "evil" wasn't on the British side.
November 21, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I did say that the Tea party participants were considered rebels (and in current context, terrorists) and that their smuggling was illegal under British definition. Strong arming was certainly present. And most certainly not all colonists wanted to separate from Britain, nor supported the Revolution.
I am not trying to paint the historic movement as heroic - though certainly they are presented that way in sanitized history.
November 21, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not all the "rebels" were terrorists, though Sam Adams was often certainly that. His "Liberty Boys" were the equivalent of Brown Shirts, and used politically by Adams to intimidate (and worse) political opponents, even if those "opponents" were only more moderate than he.
See Sam Adams: Pioneer in Propaganda (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, paperback, 1960), John C. Miller, and Patriots and Partisans: The Merchants of Newburyport 1764-1815 (NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., paperback, 1975), Benjamin W. Labaree.
And note that the "Tea Tax"/"Taxation without representation"/"Boston Tea Party" issue was resolved and settled during the 1760s. Nor was the slogan, "No taxation without representation" true, as the colones had Benjamin Franklin as their representative in Paliament.
The so-called "revolution," which is marked as beginning in 1775, was not about that issue. Where not ginned up, the issues were more about trying defendants in England, rather than locally. Quartering of troops among the civilian population -- which was not quite the same as quartering them in civilian colonists' homes, on which there was law for at least decades before the "revolution". Appointing the governor, who in turn appointed the judges, thus keeping the (perceived) locus of control in England.
But as Pioneer (above) makes clear, even Sam Adams wasn't actually about "revolution"; he was about "restoring" that which had never actually existed: "Puritan virtue". And, of course, he never missed opportunity to foment, defame, kill and provoke murder in his drive to reestablish that "virtue".
And if "revolution" is defined as "overturning" or "overthrowing" gov't, then it wasn't a "revolution"; which is why it was called "War of/for Independence". No one, colonist or British, shot at any gov't, either in the colonies or in London. No gov'ts were overthrown. In fact, they continued to function throughout the so-called "revolution".
You may know most of those facts. I make the tedious effort to detail them for the "Ellen"'s and other history-illiterates who mistake misguided/FOX, et al.-mislead self-righteous hot-headed vapid illiteracy for patriotism, especially when expressed at the tops of their lungs, and with hateful and racist imagery.
November 21, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the real history lesson. And as far as nativism goes in its US form, the commingling of "God" "virtue" and "American values" are all part of the package.
As a side note, the anti-Catholic component was anti-immigrant with the Know Nothings. Anti-Catholic was code for anti-Irish (the poor Irish Catholics who came to the United States).
November 21, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
See Boston Massacre (NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., paperback, 1976), Hiller Zobell.
Zobell was a Massachusetts judge (now retired) who, as a lawyer, was located in his firm's London office, so he researched the "Boston Massacre" trial materials on both sides of the Atlantic, that book being the result.
The circumstantial evidence is compelling that the "Boston Massacre" was actually planned -- by Sam Adams. There had been a recent case in which the British had run down a child in Ireland, and it had been a big issue, even in the colonies. From then Adams was often heard to say something like, "We need an incident."
The "Massacre" was actually a mob of some 800-1,000 which for some unknown reason "spontaneously" assembled -- well, there was a ringing of church bells . . . -- after midnight at the head of King (now State) Street. Many wear drunk.
A short distance away on Orange (now Washington) Street, in central Boston Town, was a small British barracks. The "Massacre" itself was that mob encircling five British troopers and their captain -- the captain had come from the barracks, through the mob, and essentially rescued his men.
The sanitized history holds that the "patriots" threw snowballs at the troopers in protest against "British oppression". The facts are that the mob threw chunks of ice, and worse; and the "hero" Crispus Attucks, a freed slave, and a huge man, had a large tree branch wielded like a club.
And from within the mob came shouts of, FIRE!" "FIRE!"
In other words, the troopers, who were petrified, were provoked by the mob to shoot.
John Adams, Sam's cousin, undertook the defense of the captain and troops*, in separate trials. In the troopers' tiral, he asserted that they had only been following orders. In the captain's, he asserted that the captain gave no order. Some were subjected to penalty, but most were acquitted.
_____
*When criticized by Sam and his fellow "patriots" -- John not only lost business, but also got threats of violence from the "good" guys -- he said that no man charged with a crime should want for competence derfense; and:
"Justice and the rule of law are to be above politics."
See HBO's excellent "John Adams".
_____
Meanwhile, Sam Adams was stirring up the "rabble" colonists by calling the British troops "MURDERERS!" and pushing for their conviction and hanging.
Why they gathered where they did -- at the head of King St. -- is unclear. But there was a history of an annual fight there: the South Boston (not the current South Boston, which is landfill) gang would meet the North End gang and have a brawl on "Pope's Day" participants were taken away with busted heads). I've not yet found an explanation for that weirdness. There was a history of "Papist" -- anti-Catholic -- bigotry going back to the beginnings of the MA-Bay Colony. In 17th century statute they were prohibited being in the colony; and if caught there were banished from it. And if they returned, the statute stipulated that they be executed. (The Puritan bigots did have some compassion: the statute had an exception: if there were a shipwreck, and among the victims of the shipwreck were Catholics, the Catholics were to be saved from drowning, dried off, perhaps fed -- and then banished.)
During the trial, Sam had his "Liberty Boys" in the court room, attempting to intimidate the jury into convicting. And an affidavit against the British was given in -- which almost destroyed Sam's political career: it was the "testimony" of one of the persons who were shot by the troopers; a teenager who only spoke and read French. The affidavit, which the teenager signed, was written in . . . English.
Sam saved his career, getting around that perjury, by making issue of the fact that the teenager was CATHOLIC.
So anti-Catholic bigotry went all the way back to the beginnings of at least MA-Bay Colony. And Virginia: Jefferson agonized over his "Religious Liberty" statute because it would legalize being a Catholic. He did, as we know, bite the bullet despite that fact.
Quakers didn't fare any better, and even perhaps worse: they were imprisoned for being Quakers, and whipped, sometimes sentenced to be dragged through the streets behind a wagon. And there is the famous case of Mary Dyer. She was banished, along with her husband and another man, for being a quaker. They returned. They were sentenced to death; but at the point of being hung on the Boston Common, her husband's plea succeeded, and only the men were hung: she was banished again. (Which, as a side note, proves that women are oppressed.)
She returned again -- and that time was hung. Today there is a statute of her -- an apparent "apology" -- in front of the state house. (There are no statues of her husband or the other man, again proving that women are oppressed.)
Noting the prestige publishers, and having read them, I recommend the three books cited. Zobell's Boston Massacre especially, as it was an instant classic when published; and because it shows that the pure-of-heart patriotic colonists were, well, rather more human than that.
As a side note: another of value is The Minute Men: The First Fight: Myths & Realities of the American Revolution (McLean, VA: Institute of Land Warfare Association of the U.S. Army/Pergamon-Brassey's International Defense Publisher's, Inc., an AUSA Book, Second Edition, 1989), Gen. John R. Galvin. Here's a telling quote re. the "evolution" of history to self-flattering myth:
"It is a distortion of the facts to say that the battle of April 19 (,1775 -- Lexington-Concord) was a spontaneous uprising of loosely organized "embattled farmers"--it was much more than that. The battle can be seen as the final clash of arms of the old Massachusetts militia, in which forty-seven regiments, containing over 14,000 men, marched against the British regulars (over 4,000 men from fourteen of the regiments actually struck the column) and employed concepts of organization and methods of command and control that had been forged during a century and a half of nearly continuous warfare." Prologue, p. 3.
In essence, the so-called "Minute Men" of Lexington-Concord were an elite force -- a sort of "special forces" -- and therefore a subset of the larger militia, all of which operated under the rule of law -- not outside and in spite of it -- and which were not "embattled farmers" but instead thoroughly trained, with direct military experience during, as said, some 150 years of Indian wars.
And they were definitely NOT "anti-gum'mint" "patriots": the Founders/Framers did not approve of armed gangs running around outside the rule of law and shooting at their gov'ts/systems of law.
November 21, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've not read this yet, but it's directly on point:
The Boston Tea Party (Boston: Northeastern University Press, Classics Edition, paperback, 1979), Benjamin Woods Labaree.
November 21, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink