Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
It wasn't even that they wanted to pay higher taxes. The Stamp and Tea Acts actually LOWERED the taxes. But it was incredibly easy to get around paying the taxes previously. So what Parliament did was say, "guys, you have to actually start paying the taxes, but we'll make them lower as a compromise."
That's why the American elites revolted.
The US has never had free trade, look at the patent system they force other countries to abide by, whose length and terms are dictated by the US.
This is just a continuation of the same. Apple even had a patent on rounded corners on rectangles.
I reworded my response to this four times, but settled on this.
I guess this insane turn to fascism and cutting off all economic ties to the world might seem like a “normal progression” but I wouldn’t call swerving into oncoming traffic a normal progression. (He’s here we are I guess)
China produces the bulk of rare earths the US uses for things like military production, which puts the US as dependent on China as Canada is dependent on the US. The reality is absurd no matter which way things go.
Europe is doing carbon border adjustments to attempt to do something similar if I'm not mistaken, though its still early stages.
Americans didn't, the American elites did. Americans just died in yet another war started by the aristocracy.
Except that's not 100% correct.
Sure the American Elite joined in, well, some of them did. Mostly it was revolution driven by the middle class. Maybe the upper middle class, but the stamp and tea taxes were incredibly unpopular.
I'd imagine the sentiment among the poorer people was something along the lines of "better to be lorded over by a local asshole, than one half the world away".
Also, the quartering bullshit. That was just as unpopular, so much so that we have an entire amendment banning it specifically.
Middle class as in bourgeoisie?
Tradesmen and Merchants.
The layer under the actual elite of the time.
America then: No taxation without representation
America now: Puerto rico gets taxed. No representation.
Same with the residents of DC
Same with consumers since 2025.
I hope that some people come out of this realizing that the US wasn't founded on deep idealistic principles, but mostly on greed.
What led to the Tea Party:
The whole "no taxation without representation" bit was a less important concern than the government messing with their profits. In fact, I read somewhere (can't find the reference now) that the government tried to negotiate with the smuggler rebels, but the rebels weren't willing to meet because the "no taxation without representation" was more of a pretext than an actual reason.
The other important bit here is the reason the government needed to raise money. It had just been involved in a major war, which it had won. This is the 7-years war, a.k.a. the French and Indian wars. In those wars, they beat France, and as a result, took over most of France's territory in North America.
Look at the pink in this colonial map of the Americas. That's all territory gained by the British in that war.
As a result of that war, the British settlement in the Americas was going to be able to expand from 13 colonies hugging the coast to an entire new area including the entire great lakes region, what's now Florida, the Gulf coast, the Saint Lawrence river, etc. All that was required was that Britain follow the terms of the Treaty of Paris / Royal Proclamation of 1763. In part, that war was fought on behalf of the colonists to remove the threat from the French and expand the territory of the colonies, so it makes sense that the beneficiaries of that war (the colonists) would help pay for it. But, some of the British colonists didn't want to pay for it. So, they rebelled and took the territory for themselves, ignoring the terms of the Treaty of Paris which gave some rights to the French and Indians who were in that newly acquired territory.
TL;DR: British colonists in the Americas who rebelled were greedy, not idealistic.
I don't interpret the history like that, and really, it's not that long ago. I think it's a relatable situation to empathize with. The way you've presented things assumes that everyone there was British and there was an outlying cast of "rebels and smugglers".
My interpretation is that this was a group of people forming their own society on a new land away from Britain. We're talking from Jamestown in 1607, through the British separatist colonizing the rest of the American East Coast to 1732 (Georgia, last of the 13 British separatist colonies). That's over a 100 years of people forming a new society, on new land, literally fighting the environments day in and day out to survive.
During this time, we have The British Military setting up bases, trying to further their Nations expanse westward. In the mix we have one of the first Corporations, being used by the British Military - The East India Trading Company, to facilitate trade between the British Militants and what I'll call Locals. The British Military gets priority on Imports, and the Locals either barter with the British Military installations or The East India Trading Company. Local Communities integrating trade as an alternative short The British Militia which results in the Townsend Acts of 1767. This allows British Militia involvement for what they see as "smugglers" and results in confiscation of goods, to support British Militia.
The Boston Tea Party (1773, 166 years after the first long-term colony") sets in motion a society's separation from British Occupants leading to The Revolutionary War of 1775 resulting in separation from The British Empire. I think it was an inevitable thing to happen as it's happened throughout history to The British Empire. As one would expect, this was literal Independence allowing the growing society to facilitate their own means, government, trade, and communities. Coincidentally, they inherited a similar civil governing structure as the base sauce was the same.
TL;DR: I don't see this as greed but growth, separation, and annexation of The British Empire (Authoritarian) + East India Trading Company (Trade Monopoly Corporation).
What formed at the end of the day is Capitalism. For me, that leads me to believe that either International Trade or the Governing Body eventually leads to Capitalism. For me, I think it's the latter. This is the same Governing body inherited from The British Empire and adapted in it's own unique ways over a large geographical area. This Governing body mixed with the International Trade and humans susceptibility to greed has lead to U.S. Capitalism. I'm not necessarily sold on Capitalism being a bad concept, but the Governing Body has to be a check for the people and the Nation. What the U.S. has grown into is unchecked Capitalism, which could flip to full Authoritarianism if the inequality gap gets too big.
The way you've presented things assumes that everyone there was British
Everyone was British, including the rebels and smugglers.
That's over a 100 years of people forming a new society, on new land, literally fighting the environments day in and day out to survive.
That's what the propaganda sells, but it's not true. Boston was as big a town as Liverpool in the 1700s. New York was roughly the same size as Manchester. Nobody was "literally fighting the environment to survive". People had city-type jobs. Benjamin Franklin was printing newspapers. John Hancock was a smuggler. Sure, there were a lot of farmers working hard on their farms, but that was true everywhere.
I think it was an inevitable thing to happen as it's happened throughout history to The British Empire.
Leaving the British empire has happened a lot. Fighting a war to leave definitely hasn't. Which other countries have fought wars to leave the British Empire?
That’s what the propaganda sells, but it’s not true. Boston was as big a town as Liverpool in the 1700s. New York was roughly the same size as Manchester. Nobody was “literally fighting the environment to survive”. People had city-type jobs. Benjamin Franklin was printing newspapers. John Hancock was a smuggler. Sure, there were a lot of farmers working hard on their farms, but that was true everywhere.
How do you think all this happened? The cities just got shipped in from across the Atlantic? That's the whole point of Britians expansion with the Thirteen Colonies across the East Coast of Americas - multiple attempts at forming and sustaining a base of operations to further expansions. It starts in the early 1600s, continues into the 1700s as ships continue to drop off both British Separists - those wanting to seek life in a new land - and British Militia. All of which had to build these cities to handle the import of goods needed for the British Empires expansion. It's not some Game of Thrones shit where a fleet of British ships just completely encompass the East Coast and supply it with everything it needs. Ain't no next day shipping in these days. Both Populace and Supplies would continue to come in through the century. These people had to explore, farm, forage, hunt, build shelter all in new land. Port cities would have been the first places to see the most improvement simply due to location and imports - again over 100 years, ~166 years from first landing a East Coast Colony to The Boston Tea Party.
John Handcock was born on Americans soil (not a British Separatist Import) and arguably had more right to the land and representation there of than the British Militia. He wasn't some off-shore Chinese smuggler trying to undercut The East India Trading Corporation. The propaganda is framing local trade is "smuggling" when in reality, the locals who grew up in The Americas, building the city, not fighting The British Empires war, got fed up having to deal with trading through The British and the upcharges from The East India Trading Corporation - who were relatively loyal to The British Militia.
The annexation of the British Empire has happened in more places than just the Americas - history shows that it was inevitable. A century and a half (over 150 years) is a long time for a society to grow apart from The British Empire across The Atlantic Ocean.
How do you think all this happened?
How do you think it happened in Liverpool and Manchester? People moved there and built up a town.
These people had to explore, farm, forage, hunt, build shelter all in new land
Their grandparents did, sure. By the time they were born these were established colonies and it wasn't too different from Europe.
John Handcock was born on Americans soil (not a British Separatist Import) and arguably had more right to the land and representation there of than the British Militia.
I don't know who "Handcock" was, but Hancock was a Briton born in the colonies, sure. But, who do you think the British Militia consisted of? Militia members were locals. Even British army officers were locals in many cases. Before he became President, George Washington was a (terrible) Colonel in the British army.
The propaganda is framing local trade is "smuggling" when in reality, the locals who grew up in The Americas, building the city, not fighting The British Empires war,
You do realize that the colonists were fighting in the wars, and many of the wars were fought on behalf of the colonists, to protect them from the hostile French and "Indian" forces to their west, right?
got fed up having to deal with trading through The British
Yeah, just like the idiotic sovereign citizens today who don't want to acknowledge that they're part of a society and that they have to live by the rules of that society like everyone else. They didn't like the government's rules so they smuggled.
and the upcharges from The East India Trading Corporation - who were relatively loyal to The British Militia.
WTF are you talking about?
The annexation of the British Empire
What do you mean by "the annexation of the British Empire"? The British Empire was never annexed.
A century and a half (over 150 years) is a long time for a society to grow apart from The British Empire across The Atlantic Ocean.
And yet, it didn't happen, probably because there was constant contact and trade back and forth between British ports in the Americas, British ports in Asia, British ports in Europe, etc.
How do you think it happened in Liverpool and Manchester? People moved there and built up a town.
Under the British Empire, The British Crown, as a port city, where The British primarily ruled. This is a bit different than when The British Empire was across an entire Atlantic Ocean.
Their grandparents did, sure. By the time they were born these were established colonies and it wasn’t too different from Europe.
Not everything was Boston and established, flushed out colonies with paved streets and whatnot. Just because "Their grandparents" hunted, farmed, and build lodging doesn't make their children's lives much different during those times. It was still very much roughing it, especially the more lower class you get. They still had to hunt, farm, forage, build, and work.
Militia members were locals.
British Militia were stationed there like any other wartime, but they were still loyalists to the British Empire, whereas society at that time was clearly moving away from Britain's control over the communities.
You do realize that the colonists were fighting in the wars, and many of the wars were fought on behalf of the colonists, to protect them from the hostile French and “Indian” forces to their west, right?
You do realize that this wasn't some nice thing Britain was doing for the people wanting to leave Britain and had more to do with the British Empire trying to expand their reach over The World as they did in Africa and India? This is what The British did at the time, expansion and conquering through colonization.
Yeah, just like the idiotic sovereign citizens today who don’t want to acknowledge that they’re part of a society and that they have to live by the rules of that society like everyone else. They didn’t like the government’s rules so they smuggled.
A small group of smugglers didn't just start a Revolution across roughly ~1500 miles of the Americas East Coast on their own. This was a social change driven by that society's desire to be rid of British Occupation and Governance. Otherwise, this "revolution" would have fizzled without ongoing support, much like the "sovereign citizen" movement has.
and the upcharges from The East India Trading Corporation - who were relatively loyal to The British Militia. WTF are you talking about?
During this period, with the British waging war and needing supplies (along with colonies needing supplies), this was primarily handled by The East India Trading Company to handle shipments and imports - this was more or less controlled by The British Empire. This meant that the local populace would need to trade and barter with the Trading Company, who favored The British Militia, which meant less fair trade/barter.
What do you mean by “the annexation of the British Empire”? The British Empire was never annexed.
Annexation in that after the American Revolution and the British Surrender, this allowed the newly formed society to be separated entirely from the British Empire and British Militia. The colonies would no longer be under British Militia control and the society would be free to formulate it's own government and trade.
And yet, it didn’t happen, probably because there was constant contact and trade back and forth between British ports in the Americas, British ports in Asia, British ports in Europe, etc.
Now it just seems like you're suggesting that Britain never released its control and influence over America, which I can't agree with. America certainly grew up into a society different than Britain, certainly the revolt and removal of British Militia has apart in this.
I agree and here is why. From the beginning, America told a lie. It wrapped itself in the language of freedom, but the bones of the thing—its economic engine, its social order, its very definition of who counted as human—were built on slavery. The Southern plantation class didn’t just benefit from that lie; they forced it into the structure of the Revolution. And we have been living with the consequences ever since.
By the 1770s, abolitionist winds were blowing through Britain. The Somerset decision in 1772 made it clear that slavery had no legal standing in English law. That terrified Southern elites. They saw the writing on the wall and understood something the rest of us are still catching up to: liberty and slavery cannot coexist. So they made a choice.
When Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, he tried to condemn the slave trade. The Southern states shut that down. Their message was simple and brutal—no independence unless slavery is protected. The Revolution was supposed to be a break from tyranny, but what they built was just a new structure to preserve their own power. The hypocrisy was not an accident. It was the blueprint.
Writers of the period—some knowingly, some unwillingly—captured this fracture. Phillis Wheatley, writing in bondage, praised liberty in verse while living its total denial. Jefferson wrote about the natural rights of man even as he enslaved his own children. Crèvecœur celebrated the American farmer while stepping carefully around the blood in the soil.
This is not ancient history. The same corruption runs through our systems today. You can see it in voter suppression, in prison labor, in economic policies that preserve wealth for the few at the expense of the many. We keep pretending this country was founded on pure ideals, but the rot was there at the root. The Southern elite didn't just defend slavery—they rewired the American idea around it. And we still haven't torn that wiring out.
Until we do, every time we talk about freedom, there's an asterisk.
When Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, he tried to condemn the slave trade
I just love how they made a distinction between slavery and the slave trade. Jefferson might have condemned the slave trade but he had over 600 slaves throughout his life.
Capturing, buying and selling people into slavery? Bad.
Owning slaves, and having the children of those slaves be born into slavery? Fine.
It's also worth noting that we didn't buy any of the yellow from Spain though, we bought it from France, as France lost land in 1763, but gained a lot come around 1800 (Because of assisting the newly formed U.S. win their independence).
This is important and one part of many reasons why America became the superpower it is today.
America horded 80% of global gold reserves by selling weapons to allies while not engaging in WW2, benefiting from their geographic isolation from Europe and Asia.
Of course, establishing independence from colonial powers was an important first step and there is some credit to be given there (even if driven by greed).
But many Americans are told that their nation is rich because they are somehow better on a deeper, fundamental level. When the reality is, like many things in life, they were able to take advantage of an oppurtunity by being in the right place at the right time (and one can argue they should have engaged in WW2 sooner, instead of sitting on the sidelines).
This is part of the reason I find Jon Stewart to be quite knowledgeable but also at times nauseating. I have nothing against patriotism but he peddles American exceptionalism as a reason why the country should be better when it's perfectly reasonable to expect more from your country without a falsely representing its ascent.
The Post-WWII period is also responsible for a lot of the chaos today.
The US emerged from WWII with most of the worker protections from the New Deal in place. The income tax rates topped out at 90%. Unions were strong. Add to that that the US was the only major economy to come out of WWII unscathed and there was an obvious economic boom that, thanks to those New Deal policies, wasn't hoarded by the already wealthy.
That was the environment in which a (white, male) factory worker was able to own a house and support a large family with a stay-at-home wife. This is the world MAGA wants to return to. But, even if they got the labour protections that were a key element of that world (which of course the people they're electing are dead-set against) that worker's paradise isn't coming back without another disastrous world war in which the US gets to sit on the sidelines then reap the benefits when the war is over. Basically, their idea of that era is a fantasy, and it's never coming back, even if they actually voted for the side that wants to make incremental steps in that direction, rather than the one that wants to hoard even more wealth for the rich.
As someone who grew up in Canada, I'm also not going to give them any kudos for independence from the colonial powers. They did it out of greed and it gave them an opportunity to renege on deals made with the French colonists and Native American groups. I'm not going to claim that the English or French governments were good to, or fair with the natives. But, they did form alliances with them and sign treaties. Some of the treaties were even honoured, at least for a while. Rather than an outright genocide to kill them off, or march them across the continent, the approach taken by the British in what's now Canada was to try to forcibly "civilize" them. Thanks to racism, they thought that the natives were savages, and needed to be civilized, and they did all kinds of paternalistic things to destroy "savage" cultures and make the natives into fine, upstanding people who wore civilized clothing, spoke English, worshipped the correct god, had jobs, etc.
The American process was more "kill them off and take their land". If the British had remained in charge, there probably would have been no Trail of Tears etc. Basically, they split off from the colonial power because the colonial power wasn't brutal or racist enough for their tastes.
I agree that America's origin story is filled with blood lust and greed. You don't come up with a concept like manifest destiny without a fuck you, everything is mine attitude.
The reality is they're never going to see that set of circumstances ever again. You don't get to be the world's preeminent super power and sit at the sidelines of a world war.
One can wonder if that unique set of circumstances (some of it based on pure luck) will ever happen again. That is, the new deal + rapid industrializing to become the world's leading weapons manufacturer + geographical isolation from a world war without being a primary target. If it does happen, it would be for another country.
The US profited immensely off of their allies by selling weapons and that doesnt even account for the massive brain drain of intellectuals / scientists moving to the US for safety during the war.
Yep, I agree with all of that. You can't really even blame the US for most of it. Not joining the first and second world wars sooner? Makes sense. It's a war on an entirely different continent. Why not stay out as long as possible. Scientists, engineers and artists fleeing to the US for safety? Makes perfect sense. It's great that (for the most part) the US welcomed them in. Selling arms to allies? That's perfectly reasonable, I'm sure the allies appreciated it. In fact, with the Lend Lease act, a lot of the equipment was effectively donated.
What you can blame the US for is not acknowledging this as a huge stroke of luck, and having some humility about it. If the US taught kids in schools that the US was extremely lucky in both world wars, joining near the end of the first and a long way after the start of the second, that would be reasonable. Instead most people who go through the US education system come out of it thinking that WWII started in late 1941. Teaching that the US won WWII? No, the USSR won WWII, the rest of the allies did their part, but the most brutal fighting was on the eastern front, and it was the Russians who plowed their way to Berlin. The US economy after WWII was great because of ingenuity and capitalism? Sure, those were factors, but don'tcha think the whole "we're the only major country to get out of WWII undamaged" is a bigger factor?
Unfortunately, Americans have been tamed and brainwashed by their own government.
I think the internet and foreign interference also make it a bit more complicated than that.
Americans today... "Tea is for fags."
Y’all really should consider reading this.
https://newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/the-story-of-the-boston-tea-party-in-myth-and-reality/
It’s way more complicated than the reductionist 5th grade level story taught in US schools that everyone settles on being reality. Right up there with George Washington’s cherry tree story (didn’t happen) or the pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock (no, they didn’t land there).
The Boston Tea Party was about money, and about people with money being upset that other people with money were undercutting their profits, so they destroyed some really expensive goods in a way that disastrously hurt their own local business owners and not the people they claimed to be trying to hurt.
I’m sure parallels could be made between one of the US’s founding stories being about rich people manipulating the populace into war and today, where rich people are still manipulating people into fighting each other or whomever else.
I mentioned this in a more fleshed out comment, but I think it's a bit more complicated than that. This was the annexation of The British Empire from a forming society over a century and a half. During which the local populace would have to deal with British Militia and The East India Trading Corporation who were more loyal at the time to The British.
it actually does hint that perhaps the path to overthrowing Trumpism is to radicalize the merchant class (aka petit bourgeoisie) against his agendas and force direct action. it's not so far fetched. for instance, Patriotic Millionaires. <- links to a short article about their plan to reduce inequality by taxing wealth
the rich are not a monolith. they each have their own special interests. there are many outside Trump's inner circle who depends on certain aspects of the economy being stable and profitable. maybe some of those angry multi-millionaites will switch loyalties now they see how bad Elonazi is for their bottom line?
Yep, I really don't understand how the wealthy in America think that trump will ever stand by his promises. They think that he will bow to them when he has the power to do otherwise? He's learning from putin and using his techniques to take down the wealthy.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was why he's doing the tariff thing in the first place. Take down Bezos, Apple, etc., so they have to bow to him. They're in his game and don't even know it.
To be clear, he's dumb, but he knows how to hire and listen to really smart, evil people.
Yep, I really don't understand how the wealthy in America think that trump will ever stand by his promises. They think that he will bow to them when he has the power to do otherwise? He's learning from putin and using his techniques to take down the wealthy.
they didn't trust him. they (wrongly) believed that they were powerful enough on their own to control him because they thought they were smarter than him.
they're all learning what we all learned his first term. it doesn't matter how smart, how powerful, how rich you are. Donald Trump is a hurricane of chaos, hate, ignorance, depravity, and egoism. they aided him in growing terminal velocity and now he's unstoppable by standard methods.
we need to wake up and realize that because he gained control through abnormal methods that it will take abnormal methods to restore balance and control.
Unmute this meme immediately!
American Revolution 2.0? Wink wink, nudge nudge.
