"TYRANNY IS TYRANNY" Blog

14/8/2012

See the page on US Independence & Constitution for more "Main Points" in Zinn...

Two of Howard Zinn's assertions in the chapter "Tyranny is Tyranny" are summarized below. Do you agree with Zinn? Disagree? Why? To what extent do you believe these assertions about the American Revolution and causes for revolt?

In a 250 word MINIMUM blog post, please share your opinion on Zinn's claims below about the American Revolution using SFI and evidence from the Zinn text or the Choices unit to support your opinion. Post your blog as a COMMENT!

1. Tyranny and oppression were tools used by both the colonial and British elite against the ordinary American colonists.

2. By 1776, upper class colonial politicians realized that they could mobilize the lower class energy that had previously been directed against them and redirect such anger at the British Crown.

14 Comments

Luana

16/8/2012 01:48:38 am

I agree with Zinn's assertions about the American Revolution on "Tyranny is Tyranny" when he declares that oppression was a tool used by the elites in general against ordinary American citizens because we see that in examples such as Britain's response to the Boston Tea Party when the British closed Boston's port, sent in troops and broke out the colonial government. Besides, the amount of taxes that Great Britain was imposing on its colonies to pay for the French and Indian War (Stamp Act) was outrageous when it's their job to protect them from foreign enemies. The American colonists started violent protests against it by breaking in Thomas Hutchinson's (ruled in Britiain's name in the colonies) since they had suffered from the war and it wasn't fair to pay for it. (Taxation without Representation). We can also see that during that time, the class disparities between the rich and the poor was huge and the elites got richer while unemployment rate was rising and people weren't being educated- Homeless, poor conditions, etc. Also, during the Boston Massacre when British soldiers shot at ordinary american citizens, member of the elite defended Britain in court calling the people "a motley rabble" and said other offensive terms towards the common people in the colonies present at the Massacre.Before the elites even found a powerful way to turn the colonists' anger against Britain and Britain only, white farmers from NC formed a "Regulator Movement" against the government, but also against the elite such as lawyers for taking poor people to court over accumulated debt. In addition, I agree when Zinn says that the local elite's gaol was to turn the citizen's anger towards the British Government only instead of blaming the eliter (themselves) by taking a step to Independence and stiring things up like Thomas Paine's Common Sense which mobalized people to seek independence from Britain because they were not gaining anything by being Britain's shadow and that they needed to look for their best interesf. Another example on the text could be when "a group of Boston merchants, shipowners, and master craftsmen formed a political group called the Loyal Nine. They set up a march to protest the Stamp Act. The Loyal Nine belonged to the upper and middle classes, but they encouraged lower-class people such as shipworkers, apprentices, and craftsmen to join their protest."

Arda Kanberoglu

20/8/2012 09:59:08 am

I agree with Howard Zinn and his ideology on American Revolution in "Tyranny is Tyranny". The British were using oppression against the American colonists and would walk around on their land thinking that they were more superior to them. Due to “no taxation without representation” the colonists decided it was time make a stand against the British which led into The Boston Tea Party. A group of drunken men decided to dress as Indians and invade a British harbor with boats full of tea. One by one the men would pick up the tea crates and throw them over the boat yet getting its name The Boston Tea Party. The British response was sending troops and abolishing the colonial government. The British would also imply outrageous taxes to the colonists. In order to pay for the French and Indian War the British implied taxes such as the Stamp Act this is hypocrisy since it’s their job to protect them from foreign enemies but at the same time hurting the financial income for the colonists. The American colonists started to protest against the British with violence and hatred to the government. During this time there were also disparities between the rich and the poor. The elite colonists would get richer while the poor uneducated would suffer more and more. The Boston Massacre was a turning point in American history; British soldiers shot at protesting colonists for no reason and were responsible for hundreds of deaths. The elite defended the British in court calling the people "a motley rabble" against their own people. The colonists decided that enough was enough and on July 4th 1776 America gained its independence and were now called people of the United States of America.

Tonton Pessoa

4/9/2012 12:15:33 pm

I agree with both of the ideas to a large extent. First, by 1776 colonial politicians of the upper class realized that they could mobilize the lower class energy that had been directed against them and transmit such anger at the British Crown because there was an evident social tension between rich and poor. I agree with this idea because like Zinn himself says in the book, there are examples that demonstrate how angry the lower class Americans were at the members of higher social classes. An example could be the crowd action after the Stamp Act of 1765, in which the poor crowds from Boston destroyed the house of a rich Boston merchant named Andrew Oliver and also Thomas Hutchinson. Therefore, these types of rebellions made people think that the poor Americans could instead turn against the British who exploited them so much instead of the rich Americans who also benefited over the poor, but were still less powerful than the British. I believe they came with this idea in 1776 because it was also the time in which Tom Paine’s Common Sense was first published, which started making Americans think about independence. Common sense demonstrates how Americans planned to turn the poor against the British instead of against the wealthy Americans. Paine, for example, “appealed to the memory of all wars in which England had involved them, wars costly in lives and money” (Zinn 69). This type of evidence makes me agree that Zinn is right when he talks about the 1776 discovery of the American elite. I also agree with the idea that tyranny and oppression were tools used by both the colonial and British elite against the American colonists because if they didn’t exist, than the poor masses would not have rebelled as they did to both of them. As I said before, the poor Americans were so full of the rich population’s repression that they destroyed their homes and burned them in form of protest. What caused this repression was the difference of benefits between rich and poor, which also was responsible for causing repression against the poor population. “A report by colony officials to England said that this was part of a larger scheme in which the houses of fifteen rich people were to be destroyed, as part of ‘a War of Plunder’ (Zinn 61). Also, because they were oppressed by the British through taxes and cruelties after they rebelled to taxation, such as in the Boston Tea Party, we can agree that the mistreatment of poor Americans by the British did exist. This oppression led to class conflicts by the poor not only with the nationalist elite but also with the British.

Jacqueline Amorim link

19/9/2012 11:35:57 am

I completely agree with both arguments cited above and discussed in the “Tyranny is Tyranny” chapter, by Howard Zinn. During the colonial period of rule from the British over the colonies in North America, the government controlled almost every aspect of the country along with the colonists. It was a complete tyranny. Great Britain had recently ended a war with France, therefore, they needed to pay their war debts. Think a little and imagine who payed it? Of course it was the north americans, who were highly taxed and were obligated to trade with the British, so that they could have a great profit. While they were enriching by the taxes and by the trade, the majority of the population was suffering without money and begging throughout the streets. Instead of helping them and creating solutions to resolve this problem, the colonists used the military force against these people, when they went to court to see if the taxes could be kept from being collected. After this occurred, some colonists from Boston decided to unite themselves with the poor and fight with them for equality and independence. Perceiving this situation, the British insisted even more with the tyranny and decided to pass the Stamp Act. This was an act, in which obligated all the colonists to pay for the Seven Year’s War. Happily, this did not caused the colonialists to stop protesting. They continued their alliance with the poor, and created the Loyal Nine, a movement of protest. A new era of the end of all the tyranny was ending. From now on, with the pamphlet of Thomas Paine about common sense, created in 1776, the Americans would never give up on their independence and would not let the British control and impose the various restrictions in their country. Therefore, this is why I am completely in favor and why I agree with Zinn’s interpretation and assertions about the British rule over America.

Gabriel Araújo

22/9/2012 06:13:49 am

I do agree with Howard Zinn in his assertions in “Tyranny Is Tiranny”, stating that tyranny and oppression were tools used by both the colonial and British elite against the ordinary American colonists and, that by 1776, upper class colonial politicians realized that they could mobilize the lower class energy that had previously been directed against them and redirect such anger to the British Crown. One example that confirms the assertion that tyranny and oppression were tools used by the colonial and British elite against the ordinary American colonists was the “taxation without representation”. The British elite simply imposed absurd taxes on the ordinary colonists just because of their power against them. Britain had to pay their debts after their war with French and Indian War (1754-1763) and they got the money from the poor ordinary American colonists, imposing taxes such as the Stamp Act (1965). Another example of complete tyranny against the American colonists was the Boston Tea Party. After the Sons of Liberty’s protest in Boston, Massachusetts against the tax policy implemented by the British government and the East India Company that controlled the tea that was imported to the colonies (the Tea Act), Britain closed Boston’s port and sent troops to the city to end the colonial government. These are two examples that clearly show how Britain oppressed the ordinary American colonists with their tyranny. After years being oppressed, the upper class colonial politicians realized that they could mobilize the lower class, which was suffering and being oppressed by the British tyranny and redirected their anger to the British crown, leading to America’s independence from Britain in 1776.

Pedro Oliveira

23/9/2012 03:57:23 am

I completely agree with Howard Zinn when he says that tyranny and oppression were tools used by both the colonial and British elite against the ordinary American colonists and that by 1776, upper class colonial politicians realized that they could mobilize the lower class energy that had previously been directed against them and redirect such anger at the British Crown. As a matter of fact, this was proven throughout the history of colonies in North America and their struggle for independence. In the early colonial period, British empire had total control of their north American colonies. They stipulated the taxes, trading partners and laws of the country, always taking advantage of the true Americans and residents of the colonies. Especially when Great Britain started a war with France, colonies suffered the most since taxes rose up and a generalized lack of goods spread through the countries. During this period, the majority of the population didn’t have enough supplies or money, leading many to even starve to death. Soon, colonists realized that this way of ruling wasn’t right and started to take some actions. The English crown observed this and, as a rebottle, created the stamp act. The stamp act increased even more the taxes and made trading and exclusive benefit only to Great Britain. Instead of submitting themselves to the British Empire, however, the colonists created a new alliance in response to the stamp act; it was called the loyal 9. In 1776, colonist politicians were finally able to convince the population of the colonies, entirely, that things had to be changed. After a lot of struggle and perseverance; on 4th of July, the colonies earned their so deserved independence, leading to the creation of what is now, the United States of America.

Renata Biglia

1/10/2012 12:52:55 am

I agree with Howard Zinn’s point of view in the history if the United States, especially during the American Revolution in the chapter “Tyranny is Tyranny”. By the year of 1776, the British Colonies created a nation and a symbol. That way, they could take over land, wealth, and political power from other people. They created a system of national control which worked well for more than two decades. The British Crown started imposing laws in the colony and people were revolted. Tyranny was leading the nations. The French and Indian War was the first problem for the continents. Britain needed to collect high taxes to help pay for the war, but they called this the Stamp Act of 1976. The American Colonies started taking immediate actions, since paying for a war that made them suffered was not fair (Taxation without Representation). The disparities between the rich and poor were becoming noticeable. While the richer was getting richer, the poor were becoming poorer. While people were suffering in the streets, begging for money, the government only put soldiers against them and did not help. Finally, in 1776, the Common Sense was released. Thomas Paine, the author of the pamphlet, showed how the colonies should be independent and free from the British Control. Being with the English Colony would only create problems, with all that happened, including the Boston Massacre which soldiers fired their guns in crowds of demonstrators, killing many people; and the Boston Tea Party, which was a protest on tax on tea. These are some reasons why I agree with Howard Zinn and his points of view on how “Tyranny is Tyranny”.

Ana Vitoria Pessoa

1/10/2012 08:04:51 am

I agree with Zinn`s claim that repression and exploitation were used by the British government to manipulate the common citizens because we saw a variety of examples of that oppression on "Tyranny is Tyranny" such as the absurd taxes the British were asking from the American citizens to pay for the French-Indian War when was their duty to protect the colony(That was called Taxation without representation), the closing of the Boston port and its violent response by sending in troops, etc.
It is also noticeable the gap between classes -The rich got richer while the poor got poorer. When the elite found a way to achieve independence by tricking the colonists into thinking Britain was the only one to blame that's how things started to stir up and move faster towards a free nation away from Britain's claws and limitations. Thomas Paine's book "Common Sense" also made the people seek freedom and realize they weren't getting anything out of the "relationship" they had with Great Britain. Besides, when the Stamp Act was forced upon the common citizens, a group of merchants and middle-upper class named The loyal nine decided to go into the streets to protest against that imposition and invited the lower class to fight for their rights.

Maria Julia

2/10/2012 12:20:38 am

In “Tyranny is Tyranny”, the fourth chapter of his book “A People’s History of the United States”, Howard Zinn discusses the Declaration of Independence and how it “drew certain groups of Americans into action while it ignored others” (Zinn 65), such as Indians, enslaved blacks, or women, “which had no political rights and no claim to equality” (Zinn 65). Howard Zinn also claims that the Founding Fathers instigated conflicts to draw away the people’s attention from economic difficulties and to prevent popular movements against the government, so that the people redirected their rebellious energy towards Britain and its officials. I agree with Zinn’s insights on the American Revolution since it did, indeed, impose restrictive and exploitive policies amongst the American people, which went from being ruled and taxed by people who did not respect or have interest in their well to being ruled by people who pretended to recognize their interests but actually only favored a minority of white male individuals. The Founding Fathers “found that by creating a nation and symbol called the United States, they could take over land, wealth, and political power from other people who had been ruling the colonies for Great Britain” (Zinn 53), and, with that, redirect the power that belonged to the colonizers to themselves. In conclusion, the American Independence used documents such as the Declaration of Independence as a pretext to change the centralization of power from the British to the Caucasian elites and keep the minorities oppressed.

Rodrigo Pereira

3/10/2012 10:40:16 am

I agree with Zinn’s assertions of the American Revolution in the chapter “Tyranny is Tyranny” from the book A Young People’s History of the United States. The British, after the French and Indian War, decided to tighten up their control with the colonies by oppressing with absurd taxes and waves of armed forces. The “taxation with no representation” angered many of the colonists which decided to demonstrate their dissatisfaction and turn the poorer classes against Britain. In 1765, when the British government passed the Stamp Act to pay the debts of the war, James Otis and Samuel Adams recognized the poorer classes and gathered them to protest in the streets of Boston. The crowds destroyed many houses that belonged to the rich colonists that supported the British government, but this alarmed Otis because this wasn’t the kind of demonstration he wanted, he was afraid that the revolts passed the limits and that the poorer started attacking all of the rich colonists. The British government knowing that the poor classes could outbreak and seek independence, decided to send thousands of soldiers to Boston to control the revolts, but made it even worse. In March 5, 1770, during a demonstration the soldiers broke into a tumult with the local workers and killed many of them. This was called the Boston Massacre. However, colonists liked John Adams defended this soldiers and insulted the workers making the poorer classes even angrier. The anger only got worth with all that oppression and taxes on the people and as a response in 1773 the Boston Tea Party happened. It was some colonists that to fight the taxes and show their anger decided to stop paying taxes and invade one of the tea cargo ships and then through all the tea in the Boston Harbor. This caused the British government to close the Boston Port, break the colonist government and send more troops there. The oppression wasn’t able to support the force and energy of the new ideals such as Otis and Paine that controlled the poor classes and the colonies burst into independence. It was a failed attempt to control such a strong group that was fruitage of their own country.

Renata Borges link

3/10/2012 01:00:20 pm

By reading and understanding the “Tyranny is Tyranny” chapter written by Howard Zinn I am completely in favor of his two opinions in which he states that “tyranny and oppression were tools used by both the colonial and British elite against the ordinary American colonists” and that “by 1776, the upper class could mobilize the lower class energy that had previously been directed against them and redirect such anger at the British Crown”. An evidencial fact that comproves this statement is the situation in which the local elite along with the British imposed a series of taxes on the poor american citizens, in order to pay their own debts of war and of other aspects that only benefitted the wealthy ones. Recently, during the 18th century, Great Britain had gone into a war with the French, and unfortunately, so that Britain could not waste their precious money, they taxed high the americans. Another evidencial fact is when the colonists obligated the poor people, with no economic conditions, to pay all their debts, threatning of “throwing” them into court if they did not payed, and this is what occurred. So then, after this sad and tyranical fact, the colonists saw that they were being explored by the British and decided to unite themselves with the poor. They protested a lot and after a certain period of time and several other high taxes and acts, the Americans fought with the British and were able to gain their territory and control themselves with no interventions.

Bia Lomanto link

3/10/2012 01:27:14 pm

I completely agree with both of the author’s claims in which he affirms that the colonial and British elite used tyranny and oppression as tools against the ordinay Americans and that after a certain period of tyranical rule, the upper class got along with the lower class to redirect the anger to the British Crown. Some examples that can prove the first affirmation are the facts that the british imposed many taxes on the poor, expecting them to pay for all the debts Great Britain had with the wars. Some of these taxes were imposed after the Seven Year’s War against the French, in which the British government highered the colony’s taxes and forced them to trade the goods with the mother country, since it would bring large profits. Another example was taking the poor people into court, so that they could pay all their debst and if they didn’t, the government would use military force against them. An evidence that can prove the second claim made by the author is the fact that after the court action, the local elite, represented by James Otis, Samuel Adams, within others, made a powerful speech against the British, calling the attention of the poor, and creating a political group named Loyal Nine. This group was composed by both the upper and lower class, and its purpose was to protest and demonstrate against the terrible acts of the British, such as the Stamp Act. Viewing this situation and completely in favor of it, in 1776, Thomas Paine created a pamphlet in which encouraged people to fight for Independence. Therefore, as it is shown above, I am completely in agreement and in favor of Zinn’s claims.

Steven Upton

26/8/2014 07:03:32 pm

Oh my gosh, does everyone on this website agree with everything this author Howard Zinn says? Before I get into this, I should give some background as to how I discovered this particular book. My 12-year-old son was given a homework assignment for tonight where he had to write in a content based question pertaining to each paragraph presented in Chapter 4 (pg 53-66). As I tried to assist him and check his work, I found it difficult not to scrawl my own questions down on the pages. From the very first sentence I found this analysis on the motivational forces at work behind the War for Independence to be rife with raw opinion and sweeping generalities that ends up sounding like a cross between a modern class warfare political stump speech and a liberal ACLU lawyer's prosecutorial case notes on the founding fathers and the Declaration of Independence!

Chapter 4 starts out: "They (some important people in the colonies) found (or actually discovered) that by creating a nation and a symbol called the United States, they could take over land, wealth, and political power from other people who had been ruling the colonies for Great Britain.
When we look at the American Revolution this way it was a work of genius..."
I asked honestly: is there any part of this Chapter opening paragraph statement that is not an opinion? I am 50 years old, but why should I feel so ancient simply because I can remember that my middle school history books contained a lot more verifiable pure facts than we have today --as evident by this offering by Mr Zinn?

Here's my question for the first two paragraphs: Does the author want the readers to believe that our "important people" (IE, founding fathers) are smart simply because they found a way to attain power?

Here's another question-begging statement on page 54: "These local elites were disturbed by the rising disorder. They feared that if the social order of the colonies were overturned, their own property and importance could be harmed." My question: If these men were all so power hungry then why did they risk certain death by signing the Declaration which advocated for empowerment of the individual and for the exercise of power to yield to the consent of the governed? Also, since the "social order" of that time could be characterized as that which was defined by (or ensured by) the English colonial government --then if they truly feared the collapse of the government along with that 'order' then why on earth would so many of them try to hasten that collapse by fomenting revolution?

Here's one of the class warfare talking points: Pg 55 (2nd para) "But unemployment and poverty were rising..." "At the same time, the richest colonists controlled fortunes worth millions in today's dollars. There were many very poor people but only a few very rich people". Question: Who were the richest? Was it possibly the British loyalist ruling class that owned more land and resources or were the Americans without direct ties to Britain that were more advantaged?

Here's another related class struggle/sweeping generalization
presented as fact: Pg 65 (4th para): "The reality behind the Declaration of Independence was that a rising class of important people in the colonies needed enough support to defeat England. At the same time, they didn't want to disturb too much of the settled order of wealth and power. In fact, the makers of independence were part of that settled order." My question: Did anyone in those
13 colonies ever desire or have any reason to defeat the British --I mean other than just those elite lawyers, writers, and otherwise educated" (IE, the founders)? (ref: pg 54, 2nd para)

Here's one of the Declaration bashing, race-card, ACLU type comments: Pg 64, (2nd para): "But the Declaration did not include Indians, enslaved blacks, or women". Reallly? Question: Did not most or all of the Indians in North America in the 18th century claim to be independent nations unto themselves? So then why would it occur to Jefferson that he should "Declare" their independence from a country they never swore allegiance or subservience to in the first place? As for the part about slaves or woman...Question: Could it be that when Thomas Jefferson penned the phrase "All men are created equal" he was identifying a great and defining idealic principle meant to be cherished and striven toward by a new nation? If the full fruition of equality in all its important facets could not be attained immediately, then at least shouldn't we rejoice that the goal was aggressively established and ratified? Also, could not the term "all men" be intended by the writer to carry the sort of biblical connotation of an all-encompassing term for the entire human race in general? I believe so.

Last --but far from least, I refer to pg 65 for the following alarming comment: "We study it (the Declaration) so we can see how the Declaration drew certain groups of Americans into action while it ignored othe

Steven Upton

26/8/2014 08:00:43 pm

Continuation of previous blog:
Why study the Declaration of Independence? The comment by Mr Zinn on pg 65 regarding his reason for studying it: just so he can see how it so obviously plays favorites. This is the most myopic and politically cynical comment in this whole chapter. I do not want my son to look at the Declaration of Independence through Zinn's filter lens of class warfare, race bating, and devisiveness. He apparently looked at this document-- unique and historically ground breaking as it is--and sadly still assigned all this stuff to it. As for my son and I ...We will study it to see the soul of America as revealed through its courageous acknowledgment of the truth of our creator's intention, and our responsibility to ensure the triumph of individual liberty

US HISTORY BLOG

"TYRANNY IS TYRANNY" Blog

Leave a Reply.

Ms. Garrett

Archives

Categories