Joel Richard Paul: Which Tea Party?Roundup: Historians' Take
Tea Party activists, I owe you an apology. I used to think that the country was divided between blue states and the "irony-free zone." I realize now that the Tea Party is, in fact, a lot funnier than Democrats ever were.
When the leadership of the Tea Party accused the NAACP of belonging with "the other vile racist groups that emerged in our history," they were obviously just kidding around. In fairness the NAACP president started the scuffle when he said that the Tea Party "must expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take full responsibility for all of their actions." If you said that to the sober leaders of the Democrats or Republicans, they would probably have to admit sheepishly that keeping bigots and racists in your party is a bit off-putting.
But not so the Tea Party. It responded with wild satire. The national Tea Party spokesperson, Mark Williams, told National Public Radio, "I don't recall the NAACP ever speaking out when George Bush was portrayed as Curious George." How's that for a brilliant retort? Now, who ever thought George Bush was curious about anything?
Then Williams really knocked it out of the park by calling the NAACP "professional race-baiters" who "make more money off of race than any slave trader ever." Williams is not only a bold comic in the tradition of Lenny Bruce, but also someone with a unique take on American history. After reading a witty comeback like that one can only conclude that the Tea Party is an April Fool's hoax that just get's better over time.
Some people think that the Tea Party seriously opposes taxes and big government. But, come on, does anyone really think it's a violation of the Constitution to raise taxes? If so, you'd have a hard time explaining Article I, section 9, which authorizes Congress to impose all sorts of taxes.
If you thought that the Tea Party took its name from the Boston Tea Party, you would be mistaken. The Boston Tea Party had nothing to do with high taxes. The Boston Tea Party was organized in response to the British Tea Act of 1773, which did not increase taxes. In fact, the Tea Act was intended to rescue the bankrupt East India Company, the General Motors of the eighteenth century. It exempted tea shipped by the East India Company from the usual three-pence tax. In effect, the British Government subsidized the East India Company so that it could undercut its competitors.
That's right. The Tea Party was a violent demonstration against a corporate tax exemption. And it protested corporate monopoly power by destroying the property of what was then one of the world's largest corporations. The anarchists rioting against global corporations at the meeting of the G-20 have much more in common with our Bostonian ancestors than say Sarah Palin has.
The Tea Party's historical antecedent isn't the Boston tea party. It's the second-most-famous tea party in history: the one the Mad Hatter threw for Alice.
Somewhere the Cheshire Cat is laughing.
comments powered by Disqus
Jonathan Dresner - 7/16/2010
As it says at the top of the blog, this is a collection of writings by historians elsewhere on the web. We present as wide a range of opinions as we find in the interests of promoting discussion of historical questions and contemporary issues in an historical light.
John Jay Myers - 7/16/2010
How do you qualify people to write for this blog?
This guy is long on sad attempts at humor, and short on facts.
I will sum this up by one simple statement.... go read article 1 section 9, among almost all historians it is considered the NO section.
In other words it is nothing but limits on what government can do.
Article 1 section 8 is the enumerated powers of the government and section 9 is a list of things it can not do.
So considering this guy is so willfully ignorant of that... why would you bother listening to the rest of his tripe.
Try the truth... it lies somewhere in the middle of the Tea Party and the NAACP and it doesn't require reinventing history.... but you can't get in the news unless you pander and seem one sided and biased.... at that this guy is brilliant.
- Rubio Surges Into Second In New Hampshire
- Branstad Says Cruz Ran ‘Unethical’ Campaign
- Christie Highlights Santorum’s Endorsement of Rubio
- Portman Comes Out Against Trade Deal
- Megyn Kelly Gets a Book Deal
- A Big List of the Bad Things Clinton Has Done
- An Unambiguous Sign Sanders Won Last Night’s Debate
- Still Friends at the End
- Quote of the Day
- Trump Still Leads as Clinton Slips
- Clinton Can’t Shake Image as Wall Street’s Friend
- Maddow Doesn’t See Sanders Winning
- Why Does the Media Still Shield Chelsea Clinton?
- Bush Jokes His Mother May Have Abused Him
- Rubio Closes the Gap in New Hampshire
- Tourism spot for Colonial Williamsburg shocks some New Yorkers during Super Bowl 50 for use of 9/11 attack footage
- We asked 6 political scientists if Bernie Sanders would have a shot in a general election
- The price of oil has plummeted and with it Russia’s finances
- Legal scholars at Harvard debate Cruz’s eligibility to serve as president
- Has one of Sally Hemings’s siblings been neglected by history unfairly?
- Retired historian George Dennison remains on the payroll at the U. of Montana while faculty are cut
- The Atlantic profiles exciting ways to teach history
- LDS Church has gone from 0 to 4 historians specializing in women’s history
- American Historical Association protests Turkey’s crackdown on historians and other academics who signed a a petition critical of the Turkish government
- Israeli historian Yair Auron lays out details of a massacre in 1948