4 ms·
You can read the full transcript https://public.simonsays.ai/AXqKjRV1Kken/revisionist-history-s04-e0311/2kp07kG10ZRr https://public.simonsays.ai/AXqKjRV1Kken/re
by fooster 6y ago
You can read the full transcript https://public.simonsays.ai/AXqKjRV1Kken/revisionist-history-s04-e0311/2kp07kG10ZRr https://public.simonsays.ai/AXqKjRV1Kken/revisionist-history....
But this paragraph summarizes things pretty well:
"Let me spell it out for you: underneath the lofty rhetoric of the patriots of New England was a criminal enterprise. A vast smuggling operation, illicitly supplying the residents of the New World with their drug of choice, bohea, that deliciously addictive tea varietal with a dark liquor and a deep, leathery taste. The foundational myth of the American Republic is not righteous, freedom-loving citizens rising up against oppression. No, it's drug dealers defending their turf."
- leetcrew 6y agothanks for linking the transcript. if true, that certainly changes the narrative, but I don't think it weakens my main point: dumping the tea in the harbor made sense given their objective, both symbolically and practically. and to the extent that it weakens the narrative of noble freedom fighters, it makes the comparison even weirder.
- iso947 6y agoOk, same people same city. Smuggler John Hancock has his boat confiscated, starts a riot
- leetcrew 6y agoyeah, that would be a fair comparison. or if you really want to stick with the boston tea party, you might liken it to the police station that got burned down in minneapolis (a symbolically and practically meaningful target). in general I don't think this is a good rhetorical pattern though. comparing controversial current event A to mythologized account of historical event B seems like an attempt to avoid having to defend A on its own merit. as we've seen here in this thread, it may also rely on an incorrect/embellished understanding of B that introduces some weird implications.