Read on Twitter
This is the new talking point, y'all. It's actually amusing because of just how recently they were problematizing the Boston Tea Party on a variety of counts, and now they're valorizing it because it's all they have left to defend their garbage attempted revolution.
The really funny part is that historically, the Boston Tea Party wasn't exactly something like what we often imagine. We can thank them for the critical scholarship! It was, in fact, a revolt by the well-to-do and corrupt traders trying to defend crony capitalism, IIRC.
Wokeness is, more or less by definition, an exceptional attempt at bourgeois crony capitalism where the books are permanently cooked in the Intersectional Hierarchy's (and its Party's) favor. Doesn't surprise me that they'd manipulate this argument both ways, then. Corruption.
The view of the Woke today is that America has effectively colonized itself, and so Hannah-Jones is sort of appealing to the need for a decolonial revolution of the current US from... itself. This is, of course, nonsense and mere pretext for the anti-liberal revolution they want.
The Woke believe that the United States is colonized (by itself) by systems of power that are oppressive and unjust that are rooted in "whiteness" and so on. What that really means is Enlightenment rationality and liberalism, which are hated by the modified neo-Marxists of CRT.
Not to shill, but if you want to understand the change that led to the modification of neo-Marxism to its present nonsense form where reality barely matters, you should read our recent book, http://cynicaltheories.com , which we wrote to explain it.
Under the auspices of this modification of neo-Marxism, which is its adoption of (or corruption of) postmodernism, truth is irrelevant, so someone like NHJ can trash the Tea Party as crony capitalism one day and hold it up for her cause the next. Truth is what suits their case.
Basically, people like NHJ are frauds because they rely upon a fraudulent theory that allows them to take an ad hoc interpretation of history (hello, 1619 Project) to make whatever case suits them at the time. Truth is utterly irrelevant to the agenda.
The entire premise of her argument is that the Tea Party, which can be cast as a protest against an unjust power leading to a just revolution, sought to install liberalism over monarchy. Her revolution seeks ethno-Marxism over liberalism. They're not equivalent.
It's easy to get blinded by the simple comparison and lose sight that we're talking about the difference between establishing a nation free of monarchical coercion and destroying a free nation with ethno-Marxist coercion. NHJ probably knows this, which says nothing good about her
One thing that is a real parallel between the American Revolution and this attempted nonsense revolution, however, is that it was the bourgie aristocrats whipping up the base in both cases. That doesn't mean the two revolutions are morally or sensibly equivalent, though.
