25% of Tea Pottiers think it is okay to commit violence against the government--CBS Poll.
Tea Pottiers...I like it.
So, I guess this DOES prove ONE thing for sure. Tea Partiers are more familiar with the HISTORY of our country than the general public....
Kent: Valid question Rob but that was not the point or why I posted it. It was a headline (and question) designed to make a point that the Tea Party crowd are stupid and violent--neither of which is true. You asked a question of a bunch of people that are focused on the founding fathers and a return to fundamental government honesty so of course they would reflect back mentally to defending liberty.
I think the Tea Party ideology is both stupid and violent, but that doesn't mean all of its followers are. Many have legitimate grievances, but their anger and resentment is being misdirected by extremists and Republican front groups.
Kent: I think the intention of the question/survey is more aimed at armed insurrection instead of Terrorist style violence. When seen from that perspective, I think they were justified in their actions; they were entitled to the same protections as ALL Americans.
No examples since Revolutionary War?
I acknowledged that violent action against a government is justified when it doesn't represent the people under a duly ratified constitution. As in the case of the Revolutionary War.
But neither of you could come up with a single example of a violent action justified against the US government since then? Thanks for proving my point, people.
My counter-question is valid since Kent made the dubious claim that Tea Pottiers know US history better than other people. Actually, we're all familiar with the Revolutionary War, Kent. We learned about it in kindergarten.
Until you come up with another example, your claim is false. There's zero evidence that the typical Tea Pottier knows US history better than a typical kindergartner.
In short, now that you've explained why you ducked my question, go ahead and answer it. To repeat: When was the last time Americans were justified in taking violent action against their government?
"Fighting against government repression" is suitably vague. Government repression could mean the North enforcing its slave-free way of life on the South, or the National Guard integrating Southern schools at gunpoint. Or it could mean disagreeing with a black man who was elected president with 53% of the vote.
One person's "armed insurrection" is another person's "terrorist-style violence." Which is why I asked for specific incidents in US history where violence against the government was justified. List the incidents first and then we'll discuss whether they're armed insurrections or terrorist-style violence.
Kent claimed the Tea Pottiers know US history better than the rest of us. Again, list some specific events in US history that the Tea Pottiers know better. Not general types of events, specific events.
You said: When was the last time Americans were justified in taking violent action against their government, Kent?
Are you trying to imply that I would say something positive about a RW fringe group? Is that what you were fishing for because my views are to the right of yours? A bit insulting don't you think?
At any rate, your question/statement has NOTHING to do with the discussion.
I was never trying to point out an example of justifiable violence--you asked a hypothetical re Native Americans and I answered.
The point of the Rev war was just that--when people legitimately believe that their government is not doing it's job AS DEFINED in the governing documents and all other avenues are exhausted then ANY people of ANY country MUST reserve the right to seek redress.
The founding documents were written to prevent the "Tyranny of the Mob" and add checks and balances to protect us FROM the government, no matter how well intentioned.
Tea Pottiers thinking of slave revolts?
It would be interesting to do some follow-up questioning for the Tea Pottiers who approve violence against the government. For instance:
"Black slaves sometimes killed the white government overseers who kept them enslaved. Some of these overseers were your ancestors. Even though slavery was legal in the South, were these slaves justified in killing your ancestors?"
I'd answer yes, but I'm guessing the typical Tea Pottier would answer no. In other words, I'm guessing that's not the type of anti-government violence the Tea Pottiers are thinking of. Which again proves my point.
Apparently you're not going to answer the question I asked. I'll take that as an implicit admission that you were wrong.
"Tea Partiers are more familiar with the HISTORY of our country than the general public"...false. As I've demonstrated with my questions and your lack of answers.
The actions of slaves are not relevant to the discussion--those are crimes.
Which means the Tea Pottiers don't know our history any better than a typical kindergartner. Indeed, I suspect the typical kindergartner would do better on my slavery follow-up question than the typical Tea Pottier.
I haven't tried to come up with a case in more recent history (I mentioned workers, and was thinking of early-20th century miner repression and the like), though I could. What about violently resisting county or even state police departments in the US South 50 years ago, police departments that were often party to lynch mobs? That's not the federal government, but it's still government. Or AIM's resistance of federal occupation of Native land in the Dakotas, that was only back in the '70s. Even some of the more radical leftist groups blowing up military recruiting centers in the early '70s. I don't think most of those campaigns worked, but were they justified? The US government was waging a genocidal war in Southeast Asia at the time; I think the case can be made that such violence was justified, yes. It's easy to go on. What makes you think either the government or violence have changed so much in the past 150 years?
Rob tries one more time
For the third time: When was the last time Americans were justified in taking violent action against their government, Kent? Name the most recent event in US history where you think Americans were justified in taking violent action against their government.
I agree with your examples, Graeme. But I strongly doubt the typical Tea Pottier a) knows these historical incidents and b) was thinking of them when he claimed violence against the government is sometimes justified.
Again, this goes to the issue Kent raised: that Tea Pottiers know US history better than the rest of us. No, they don't.
When I see the first Tea Pottier take an anti-war, pro-minority, or pro-union stance, then I'll reconsider my position. Until then, I'd say they're as ignorant as kindergartners.
For more on justified killings by Indians, see Justified Killings at Richland Creek and Was Jamestown Massacre Justified? For more on gun-wielding Tea Pottiers, see Imagine a Black Tea Party and Klansmen, Militias, and Teabaggers.