In our social study class on Wednesday, we did a seminar on the Boston Tea Party. We discussed about how the colonists boycott the British tea. At the end of the seminar we were asked about our opinion on the colonist, if they were patriots or terrorists. In my opinion, I believe that the colonists that disguised themselves as Indians in order to throw the British’s tea overboard were not terrorism. They were just expressing their feeling that they doesn’t need the British help, they just want their liberty back and their voice can be heard. The colonists were unhappy about the stamp act and the laws that said that they have to pay taxes on almost everything they buy. If we would connect this event to the current event one example would be on the event between the red shirts and the yellow shirts. The red shirt start the protest because of the fact that they want their voice to be heard and they feel unsupported where as the yellow shirt supported the law and prime minister himself. These two difference perspective then lead to a conflict between the two group just like a conflict between the colonists and the British parliament .
Hi Panwa, I like how your post specifically mentions reasons why the colonists were boycotting the British. To your knowledge, have the red or yellow shirts used boycotts to make a point? What other methods or motivations may be the same between the colonists and red/yellow shirts? Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteI am american and I finaly found you who agrees with it is not terrorism and we just wanted to be free from the british
ReplyDeleteps me and no one else are terrorists in my country