As the windows are shattered on police cars, and product looted from Walmarts, and fires set here and there in Minneapolis, and the protesters are decried for the destruction and violence, consider this, and I quote from Charles M. Blow, columnist for The New York Times:
"It is estimated that the Boston Tea Party, the riot that gave birth to this country, resulted in $1.7 million dollars (in today's dollars) in property damage (tea). I'm just going to leave this right here for whoever needs to read it."
So, the question becomes, If all the looting and arson are Minneapolis are wrong, if we decry those protesters for destroying property, then was it not just as wrong for our founding fathers to be destroying property? I mean, $1.7 million worth of tea just poured into the sea amounts to a lot of money.
The Constitution (in the First Amendment) is clear on "the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Yes, it should be noted that it says, "peaceably," and looting and burning don't amount to that.
One still wonders, though, why it should be okay for the founding fathers to express their grievances with the destruction of property while those in Minneapolis are derided for doing the same. For my part, I am still thinking it out. I'm leaning towards the thought that even though the founding fathers did it, it is wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment