Ferguson is not Boston

  I am always surprised at pathetic errors in basic historical knowledge, or at least errors in relating historical events to modern ones. Take the linked article for example: http://time.com/3605606/ferguson-in-defense-of-rioting/

  The author actually tries to morally compare the Boston Tea Party to the burning and looting of  Ferguson rioters: "However, even the Tea Party gets its name from a riot, The Boston Tea Party [...] What separates a heralded victory in history from an attempt at societal change, a cry for help from the country’s trampled, today? The fact that we won." 

  I can't believe this must be said, but the riots in Ferguson are nothing like the Boston Tea Party. For starters, the destroyed tea was actually at the *center* of the problem. The importation of the tea itself was part of the abuse by the British over American colonists' rights. In addition to protesting the taxes on imports, resisting the tea meant fighting future attempts by the British government to enforce monopolies on trade with the colonies. Compare this to the innocent property owners who have nothing to do with the Ferguson Police Department having their property burned and looted. For them, the closest argument for their involvement is they may happen to be white. Yes, the destruction of the tea was destruction of property, but it was not random looting and burning just because you're upset. The Boston Tea Party was a deliberate and relevant act with a specific aim; the looting and arson in Ferguson is random, irrelevant to the claimed issue, and has no aim other than the mindless destruction or theft of property owned by innocent bystanders.