Saturday, January 25, 2014

Why were boycotts an effective method of protest during the revolution?Why were boycotts an effective method of protest during the American...

Refusing to trade may hurt you, but if you've got nothing to lose, it may convince the other party to change their ways if they're suddenly losing lots of money. Charles Boycott (1832-1897) was an Irish landlord whose rent practices caused tenants to refuse to work on his farms.  The workers went further, destroying his property and equipment, burning him in effigy, and socially isolating ("shunning") him and all that might to business with him.  "To boycott" now means to apply these actions towards a given business or individual.  Although the term did not exist at the time of the American Revolution, these were the same practices colonists exercised to convey their displeasure over Parliament's governance.  In 1765, the Royal Lieutenant Governor in Boston, Thomas Hutchinson (descended from Anne Hutchinson) along with other tax agents had their homes ransacked, were beaten, and burned in effigy.  In 1767, after the passage of the Townsend Acts, which taxed a variety of British manufactured goods, merchants along the Atlantic coast organized a boycott of all British goods.  In addition to hurting British merchants, it stimulated manufacturing within the colonies. The boycott caused huge losses to British merchants; the duties imposed by the Townsend Acts, if they could even be collected, wouldn't have offset the deficit.  Parliament, pressured by the merchants, was forced to alter course and repealed the Acts, excepting the tax on tea, which lead to the "boycotting" of that item in Boston on December 16, 1773.

No comments:

Post a Comment

What is the main function of the fool in "King Lear"? What is the secondly function?

The fool as a character is confusing, but part of this is the difference between the 1600s and today, as well as the difference in place. If...