Topic: why revolutions and movements fail at their desired outcome (Read 410 times)

...

you were talking about the reaction to the boston tea party(342 boxes of tea thrown in the sea)
britain did send more tea and stil demanded more taxes. which even you noted as the intolerant acts

thats where your first  story ended

thats where your first  story ended

your grammatical knitpick would have been more noted if you tried to distance yourself from the 'we' by saying you didnt mean yourself you meant US/humans in general

but you decided to embarrass yourself by trying to change your sentence to make it sound like your saying 'we got the vaccine' instead of 'we got vaccinated'
however even if you were to say 'we got the vaccine' the implication/meaning still ends up being the same thing
because when i say i 'got the vaccine'. i dont mean they handed me a vial i store in my fridge. i mean i was vaccinated

you got covid and the vaxx

so you got vaccinated after all... well thanks for that admission.
now you can get on with your life and stop pretending your an anti vaxxer

^^^ We got Covid and the vaxx from Fauci through some roundabout method like this.

it is a lil funny how your version of events stopped at the tealeaf soaking and intolerable acts part... and you refrained from including any of the things about congress petitions to monarchy and other things.

but hey if you think throwing 3 ships load of tea boxes into the sea was the only and sole cause of a civil war. maybe your missing a few pieces of critical info in the middle

also funny how you feel the teaparty event of soaking tealeaves in the ocean caused positive change of laws.. whilst admitting that it was the opposite and ignored and caused a war instead.. which just sounds like flipfloping to me..

so. REAL history is
citizens and Whigs threw boxes in the sea. britain sent more boxes and demanded more taxes..
^summary of where your post ends
then
13 colonies got together and formed the first session of congress and petitioned the monarchy
then parliament backtracked

The Boston Port Act

(March 31, 1774)

AN ACT to discontinue, in such manner, and for or such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town, and within the harbour, of Boston, in the province of Massachuset's Bay, in North America.

WHEREAS dangerous commotions and insurrections have been fomented and raised in the town of Boston, in the province of Massachuset's Bay, in New England, by divers ill affected persons, to the subversion of his Majesty's government, and to the utter destruction of the publick peace, and good order of the said town; in which commotions and insurrections certain valuable cargoes of teas, being the property of the East India Company, and on board certain' vessels Iying within the bay or harbour of Boston, were seized and destroyed: And whereas, in the present condition of the said town and harbour, the commerce of his Majesty's subjects cannot be safely carried on there, nor the customs payable to his Majesty duly collected; and it is therefore expedient that the officers of his Majesty's customs should be forthwith removed from the said town: ... be it enacted ..., That from and after June 1, 1774, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons whatsoever to lade, put, or cause to procure to be laden or put, off or from any quay, wharf, or other place, within the said town of Boston, or in or upon any part of the shore of the bay, commonly called The Harbour of Boston, between a certain headland or point called Nahant Point, on the eastern side of the entrance into the said bay, and a certain other headland or point called Alderton Point, on the western side of the entrance into the said bay, or in or upon any island, creek, landing place, bank, or other place, within the said bay or headlands, into any ship, vessel, lighter, boat, or bottom, any goods, wares, or merchandise whatsoever, to be transported or carried into any other country, province, or place whatsoever, or into any other part of the said province of the Massachuset's Bay, in New England; or to take up, discharge, or lay on land, ... within the said town, or in or upon any of the places aforesaid, out of any boat, ... any goods, wares, or merchandise whatsoever, to be brought from any other country, province, or place, or any other part of the said province of the Massachuset's Bay in New England, upon pain of the forfeiture of the said goods, ... merchandise, and of the said boat, ... and of the guns, ammunition, tackle, furniture, and stores, in or belonging to the same: And if any such goods, ... shall, within the said town, or in any the places aforesaid, be laden or taken in from the shore into any barge, ... to be carried on board any ship or vessel outward bound to any other country or province, ... or to be laden into such barge, ... from or out of any ship or vessel coming in ... from any other country, such barge, ... shall be forfeited and lost....

 

X. Provided also, and it is hereby declared and enacted, That nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed, to enable his Majesty to appoint such port, harbour, creeks, quays, wharfs, places, or officers, in the said town of Boston, or in the said bay or islands, until it shall sufficiently appear to his Majesty that full satisfaction hath been made by or on behalf of the inhabitants of the said town of Boston to the united company of merchants of England trading to the East Indies, for the damage sustained by the said company by the destruction of their goods sent to the said town of Boston, on board certain ships or vessels as aforesaid; and until it shall be certified to his Majesty, in council, by the governor, or lieutenant governor, of the said province, that reasonable satisfaction hath been made to the officers of his Majesty's revenue, and others, who suffered by the riots and insurrections above mentioned, in the months of November and December, in the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy three, and in the month of January, in the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy four.

What you're saying directly contradicts the consensus among historians.

There was no listening to the Colonists by the British.  Instead they passed a bunch of oppressive laws in hopes to force them into submitting known as The Intolerable Acts:

the boston tea party events. were not where britain responded to the citizens of placard waving protests.. but instead the US government sending the british monarchy a petition (protest/resolution)

this is the legal method that got the British government to listen to the American government

The Intolerable Acts (passed/Royal assent March 31 – 22 June 1774) were punitive laws passed by the British Parliament in 1774 after the Boston Tea Party. The laws were meant to punish the Massachusetts colonists for their defiance in the Tea Party protest in reaction to changes in taxation by the British Government. In Great Britain, these laws were referred to as the Coercive Acts.

The acts took away self-governance and rights that Massachusetts had enjoyed since its founding, triggering outrage and indignation in the Thirteen Colonies. They were key developments in the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War in April 1775.

civilian protests/riots were not the cause.. it was legal paperwork such as petitions, resolutions, contracts, acts and lawsuits..
the civilian protests were just social/media drama to layer on as as an 'after-fact' if it was 'power of the people'
much like when hurricanes happen. some people then say 'it was an act of god'
nope it was an atmospheric event

boston tea party
well history fades and media stories grow.
if you think that the american revolution was caused simply by spilling a few boxes of indian tea off the side of a boat.. then i should laugh.
things that led to the american revolution were far far deeper
such as ... the legal stuff. first congress.. petitioning british monarch
this led to war to sever ties with britain
so in short.. congress petitions war.. not civilians tipping tea boxes into the sea

stamp act riots
well what a coincidence.. the term of a stamp 'being franked' dawning from Ben franklin. .. well in 2012 i was interested in this subject and how US was trying to tax bitcoin.. thus inventively i chose franky1 as my username.. due to the stamp act stuff of franklin in the 1700's..
bitcoin has no representation. so taxation without representation is a big no no
oops i digressed
anyways back on subject
this was not 'riots'.. it was setting up committee's and strengthening US congress
the 13 colonies sent a petition (virginia resolves). which is not the same as protest (placards and picnics)
other things like in england lobbying began to repeal the stamp act due to the negative economic consequences the stamp act was causing.
.. i could go on. but alot of legal things occured. the citizen riots was just social drama

womans sufferage
well media history plays out of placards and picnics. but again lots of things were happening within government buildings.
for instance some women(with businesses) did get to vote and other women lobbied their local government representative to vote on their hehalf (advocate)

.. in short none of the items of question you asked changed due to placards and picnics

Lol you want to petition to ICC or which international body where a country you are in has her own sovereignty? Nobody is going to listen to such petition but to not interfere in a matter not in there jurisdiction.

What are your thoughts on the Boston Tea party, the Stamp Act Riots or the American Revolution in general?
How about the Womens Suffrage Parade, Stonewall Riots, the 1963 March on Washington?

but if you wanna do more then just disrupt fellow citizens day getting to work. try the route he elitists use (the petition, legal,lobbying systems)

No , hardly will government in third world countries listen to placards or your own perception of change as you observe it in your environment. Depending on the kind of change you talk about but change of a structure where political phychopaths feed from is hardly relinquished by mere paper work.

so many people wonder why, when they gather and protest. while they scream 'lets start a revolution', 'lets start a movement'.. the end result is nothing changes

the secret is not a secret. its literally explained in the names
a 'revolution' is a circular orbit. yes you might see seasonal changes. but given enough time it circles back to where it started

a 'movement' is just that. stand still and just bend an elbow.. that is a movement.

    But even so, protests are not to be underestimated because if people really do unite, governments can fall. A good example of this is the edsa people power in the Philippines which has overthrown the abusive president at that time along all the other people under him that did all his bidding. But yes, the best way would be the things you suggested.

local placards and peaceful protest are the 'relax and wait for' strategy
because placards and peaceful protests are not actually binding politicians to any agreement.

no signature no pledge no commitments occur due to placards/peaceful protests.

but actually being smarter and more organised(strategic plan) work better then organised(membership of community coffee morning group)

Your original post was about getting change locally by paper aggrement but such kind of change isn't given on paper but struggle. All society that have been divided didn't do that solely without struggle. At most the struggle can lead into aggrement but to relax and wait for paper agreement, change won't be achieved.

I'm believing you are writing on majorly in a sane society. Maybe in a more democratic system and of course not in Africa. A little brief of the African continent would tell you that change doesn't just come by mere contract in a paper. Even in South Africa that seem a more democratic system, change didn't come by mere paper work. Mandela fought for the structural revolution until it came, he stayed in prison for 27 years which was not a little struggle not given in papers.

thats what media is saying.
but do you know that africa suffers from (if you read a real brief) things involving contracts.
international investors buying up land from government without the local landowners consent.
yep the land owner just finds out one day their land has been purchased and they have to vacate the land
this has caused 2 things. alot of displacement and battles of farmers remaining trying to hold onto land thats no longer legally theirs.

i thought i made it obvious by now.
telling people to wear maga hats and rainbow shirts doesnt make physical change movement. it makes a buzzword that sounds like its doing something. but reality is the only movement is arm waving.

selling shirts and hats and bumper stickers is just profit making. and alot of suckers think that handing their money over change things. .. reality is it just makes the buzzword founder richer..

Franky1,
it kinda sounds like you want people to make change "the proper way"----quite establishmentarian of you  

I'm believing you are writing on majorly in a sane society. Maybe in a more democratic system and of course not in Africa. A little brief of the African continent would tell you that change doesn't just come by mere contract in a paper. Even in South Africa that seem a more democratic system, change didn't come by mere paper work. Mandela fought for the structural revolution until it came, he stayed in prison for 27 years which was not a little struggle not given in papers.

then if you want to protest to make sure the message gets across loudly but peacefully. go protest. but dont just rely on a protest without any paper demands

people fear doing the legal route because 'money'
yet being smart about it has never been tried.

take bitcoin. lots of (normally) high paid devs volunteering their time for free. and boom bitcoin came about.

so take a page from that. im sure there are many attorneys/solicitor and lawyers that want change. and instead of charging a client $500 and hour they could decentrally pro-bono some time to form legal papers for some community class action.

it just requires organisation. and i dont mean branded community 'organisation' i mean pen to paper idea listing and forming plan organisation.
most protest groups are not organising plans. they are an organisation selling placards wristbands and t-shirts
even things like the BLM founder is now rich from it. with multiple large houses. yet they go on TV saying they struggle to get donations to bail out non-violent people.

for those actually wanting things to get better for the racial issues. there are other ways than just wearing a supportive t-shirt. as that t-shirt will not change laws.

I'm in the UK, and I'd agree that certainly the American Civil War was a completely different thing.
As for the founding of the US, I generally refer to it as the American War of Independence, rather than the Revolutionary War... I don't know if that's standard terminology over here, or just me. But it definitely was revolutionary, yes. Whilst the US is obviously not the world's first democracy, it's arguably the first modern democracy... and it's no coincidence that the French Revolution occurred only a few years later

I don't think this works, though. If you need a majority to win an election, the problem is that the majority don't vote for the candidate who supports the people's best interests... they vote for whoever the elitist candidate is... in the UK at least. A few media scare story headlines about communists etc is enough to do it. People vote for whom they're told to vote for.

so citizens.
petition with a direct threat of
next election we will vote for the other guy

even things like 'if government does not make progress on (eg plastics waste. the government accepts delivery of all residents plastic. on politicians front yard') giving notice of 30 days

We Americans consider the founding of our country as "The Revolutionary War" ( I can see how those of you across the pond might consider it a civil war ;-)) : The Civil War was an entirely different beast

there is actually a legal and lawful process to make change happen.
but those in power want to make people waste time in the wishy washy nonsense activities that dont cause change just to keep people from making change.

so here is some idea's
dont just protest. get all the people wanting to protest to actually sign a petition. get that petition to have a target. a schedule, a deadline and a penalty if ignored. serve it to all the people in power that need to change.
basically give them notice.
dont let it just be another empty petition showing a problem. actually have it contain some substance. solutions. demands. methods of accomplishments.

America was founded on some revolutionary ideas.