Boston Tea Party Movement Analysis

The civil rights era highlighted unacceptable conditions of inequality, economic distress, and obsolete government laws. These societal woes formed an outcry for change that propelled and forged leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and the Black Panther Party’s Fred Hampton. Although these unique individuals had different visions on how to eradicate these conditions, they all had a belief in the power in numbers or the masses. Hence, today organizers tend to be more obscured. Instead of one emerging leader or a face of a movement(s), today’s protest movements have more collective or shared leadership. Unlike the protesting or boycotting of yesteryear, today’s movements will reach a higher volume of people. The rationale behind it, not because of lack of engagement, but due to technology. As we have delved into the purpose, process and historical accounting of the Poor Peoples Campaign and Resurrection City, we also must also focus on how we will protest today.

One evening in December 1773 was the first documented protest within the colonies, later would evolve in the United States (US) known as the Boston Tea party. From the beginning of the U.S conception, protesting is indoctrinated in our history, speaking out against government and unfair

labor practices. As our history goes when the cries of the people are not heard, we protest. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the United States Congress from enacting legislation that would abridge the right of the people to assemble peaceably. Citizens’ from the young to the old, know these words, regardless what part of the country you are from. However, the operative word is ‘peaceful’. The reason for using the word peaceful, is a reflection on the less than peaceful protest of the “Boston Tea Party”. Justified by extremist to refute British rule, but newly established colonies did not want to subject Americans’ to unjust that they have endured under the umbrella of British monarchy.

The term freedom of assembly and freedom of association may be used to distinguish between the freedom to assemble in public places and the freedom to join an association. Freedom of assembly is often used in the context of the right to protest, while freedom of association is used in the context of labor rights and in the Constitution of the United States is interpreted to mean both the freedom to assemble and the freedom to join an association. It was based on the premise that this would calm the masses and provide stability to an evolving country. However, the right to assembly was not initially to be as important as freedom of speech. It wasn’t until the United States Supreme Court acknowledges its importance in rulings, indicating that the First Amendment protect the right of freedom of assembly. “The right to assemble is not, however, absolute. Government officials cannot simply prohibit a public assembly, but the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, if constitutional safeguards are met. Time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible so long as they are “justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, . . . are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information”. Overall, the Right to Assemble is important to U.S. society as it gives all citizens the freedom to have a voice and freely associate with one another in public under a common cause or shared value.

The government of a democratic society, especially America, strongly has pressure from the majority voice of consensus by citizens since, in a democratic society, citizens have sovereignty, and the government is represented by citizens, which brings up the government's responsibility for the voice of its citizens. Also, protest marches are usually considered more successful if more people participate, since the more people participate, the more they can attract the attention of society. The mid 1960’s was a hotbed for protesting with so many injustices, in example, sexism, racial biases, economics and elected officials being completely out of touch by ignoring the affliction of their constituents. Out of frustration, outrage and anguish new strategic philosophy began to emerge and one by one party’s and organizations began their conception.
Protesting in the 60’s was a revolution with organizations such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) established 1966 in District of Columbia (D.C.) by 28 women, including Shirley Chisholm, Muriel Fox, Pauli Murray, Betty Freidan. Whom main motivation women’s and civil rights. The women so inspired by their cause of the described the purpose of NOW as "To act to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men." The six core issues that NOW addresses are abortion and reproductive health services access, violence against women, constitutional equality, promoting diversity/ending racism, lesbian rights, and economic justice, with these issues having various sub-issues. The organization goes about creating these changes through laborious lobbying, rallies, marches, and conferences. NOW focuses on a variety of issues deploying multiple strategies, causing it to be an organization in which a comprehensive goal is envisaged and performed.
Berkeley Free Speech Movement began under the leadership of Mario Savio 1964-1965 at the University of California, Berkeley. With the participation of thousands of students, the Free Speech Movement was the first mass act of civil disobedience on an American college campus in the 1960s that eventually morphed to the Free Speech Movement (FSM) in 1964. Students were so fed-up with the ban of on- campus political activities, lieu of the Vietnam War. In defiance of the ban on on-campus political activities, graduate student Jack Weinberg set up a table with political information and was arrested. But a group of approximately 3,000 students surrounded the police car in which he was held, preventing it from moving for 36 hours. Although, Free Speech Movement a subsidiary of the New Left Political movement that were left-wing activist that arose in Europe and North America in the late 1950’s and early 60’s. In theoretical terms, ‘the New Left’s major contribution was in a process of revision and diversification within Marxism and related doctrines, especially with regard to concepts of class, agency, ideology, and culture’.
Out of all the groups the most infamous and controversial was the Black Panther Party to mention the name is not without contention, debate, and speculation. This revolutionary party was created by defense minister Huey P. Newton, and the national chairman, Bobby Seale. Seale and Newton, who both attended Merritt College in California met at a protest in 1961. The rally occurred because the exclusion of African Americans or Negroes in the history during a “pioneer celebration” on campus. Later the two formed a History Fact Group that demanded teachings of black history classes. In 1966 after the killing of Matthew Johnson, an unarmed teen and assassination Malcolm X in 1965, Seale and Newton had enough and formed Black Panther Party for Self- Defense or Black Panther Party. The premise of the party was to give back the black pride, community control and unification for civil rights. The Panthers practiced militant self-defense of minority communities against the U.S. government, police brutality while believing in international working-class unity across the spectrum of color and gender, and thus united with various minority and white revolutionary groups. Also the party’s goal was to increase membership by recruiting every man, woman, and child by addressing housing, welfare and police brutality.

Not inept to violent encounters with the local police with gun battles, Black Panther’s gain such notoriety by appealing to the media and journalist.

This leverage with images and interviews legitimatizes their efforts. It led to a statement, FBI direct, J. Edgar Hoover that the Panthers are the "greatest threat to the internal security of the country." As Hoover depicted the leaders of the party and founder as public enemy’s number one, the movement managed to reach out to local gangs to stop committing crimes, creating free medical clinics and free lunch programs. Eventually, Hoover would succeed with his diligence of mistrust, drug addiction, internal hated provoked by falsified letters to

members.

“While the Black Panthers were often portrayed as a gang, their leadership saw the organization as a political party whose goal was getting more African Americans elected to political office. They were unsuccessful on this front. By the early 1970s, FBI counterintelligence efforts, criminal activities and an internal rift between group members weakened the party as a political force.”
As we look back throughout the years of movements, protest, and government, what has changed? In comparison, of today, not much.

The issues that we had 50 years ago are still relevant, today. Protesting in the 1960’s by baby boomers who were synonymous with rejection or redefinition of traditional values of past generation. Fast-forward the me generation are now parents. Thus, the generation that commanded the attention of authority figures past the torch to their offspring, millennials. The entitlement generation is all about the gadgets and technology. Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and the list goes on. Introduction into the virtual world have change how we date, listen to music, and we protest and rally is no exception. This evolution allows us to reach a greater number of people with a keystroke. It allows us to be voyeur or actively engage with the worlds injustice, too.