How Did The Boston Tea Party Lead To The Revolutionary War
An early example of a protest at sea was the Boston Tea Party by the Sons of Liberty in Boston in 1773. An entire shipment of tea sent by the East India Company was destroyed by these American colonists in defiance of the Tea Act of 1773. The main goal of the Tea Act was to aid the financially struggling British East India Company by reducing the excess of tea held by the company. Colonists protested to the Tea Act as they believed that it violated their rights as Englishmen to “No taxation without representation.” The Sons of Liberty boarded the ships, some disguised as Native Americans and threw chests of the tea into the Boston Harbour (Labaree 1964). The British Government did not take the actions lightly and responded with a series of
…show more content…
The Intolerable Acts were viewed as a violation of constitutional rights, natural rights and colonial charters. This united many colonists throughout America and many were inspired by the Boston Tea Party, carrying out similar acts. The Boston Tea Party proved to be an extremely successful political protest at sea and proved to be one of the many events that led to the American Revolutionary War. John Adams, the second President of the United States of America wrote in his diary the night of the Boston Tea Party. He described the acts as “daring, intrepid and inflexible,” stating the consequences were important and would be “lasting.” The colonists gave up tea, which was very important to them at the time in order to help their purpose move forward. This is a sign of rebellion which challenged the British authority whilst also inspiring other colonists to rebel. Protesting at sea aided the American colonists as it led to the Boston Port Act, preventing the landing of shipping of goods into Boston Harbour. This was a good use of a sea protest as it further separated the British and …show more content…
This campaign came after the British government approved a proposal by Shell UK for the deep sea disposal of the Brent spar oil storage in the north Atlantic (Bennie 1998). This caused outrage and the Greenpeace organised a worldwide, high-profile media campaign against them which included activists occupying the Brent Spar for more than three weeks. This campaign was supported by European governments and the public, causing the widespread boycott of Shell service stations. In the face of this public and political opposition, along with pressure from their sister companies in Europe, Shell UK abandoned their plans to dispose Brent Spar at sea (Bennie 1998). Three years later, Shell announced Brent Spar would be recycled into “a series of rings which would be sunk onto the seabed to form an industrial quayside” in Norway (Bennie 1998). After the Greenpeace protest in 1995, deep sea disposal has now become “politically unacceptable” causing a meeting of European governments to debate a European wide ban on sea disposal in 1998. The tactics of the Greenpeace in this campaign were clear – their concept of “dramatic pseudo-events” along with “skilful public relations.” This protest against the large corporate business like Shell UK and the government appealed greatly to the general public. The campaign had a “David and Goliath” narrative to it, which allured the public into backing Greenpeace
The Intolerable Acts were viewed as a violation of constitutional rights, natural rights and colonial charters. This united many colonists throughout America and many were inspired by the Boston Tea Party, carrying out similar acts. The Boston Tea Party proved to be an extremely successful political protest at sea and proved to be one of the many events that led to the American Revolutionary War. John Adams, the second President of the United States of America wrote in his diary the night of the Boston Tea Party. He described the acts as “daring, intrepid and inflexible,” stating the consequences were important and would be “lasting.” The colonists gave up tea, which was very important to them at the time in order to help their purpose move forward. This is a sign of rebellion which challenged the British authority whilst also inspiring other colonists to rebel. Protesting at sea aided the American colonists as it led to the Boston Port Act, preventing the landing of shipping of goods into Boston Harbour. This was a good use of a sea protest as it further separated the British and …show more content…
This campaign came after the British government approved a proposal by Shell UK for the deep sea disposal of the Brent spar oil storage in the north Atlantic (Bennie 1998). This caused outrage and the Greenpeace organised a worldwide, high-profile media campaign against them which included activists occupying the Brent Spar for more than three weeks. This campaign was supported by European governments and the public, causing the widespread boycott of Shell service stations. In the face of this public and political opposition, along with pressure from their sister companies in Europe, Shell UK abandoned their plans to dispose Brent Spar at sea (Bennie 1998). Three years later, Shell announced Brent Spar would be recycled into “a series of rings which would be sunk onto the seabed to form an industrial quayside” in Norway (Bennie 1998). After the Greenpeace protest in 1995, deep sea disposal has now become “politically unacceptable” causing a meeting of European governments to debate a European wide ban on sea disposal in 1998. The tactics of the Greenpeace in this campaign were clear – their concept of “dramatic pseudo-events” along with “skilful public relations.” This protest against the large corporate business like Shell UK and the government appealed greatly to the general public. The campaign had a “David and Goliath” narrative to it, which allured the public into backing Greenpeace