For the record, while I understand the anger and frustration which sometimes erupt into rioting, I don't believe it's the most productive response to injustices.
That being said... My wife has conservative relatives. They sometimes post items from the right-wing propaganda mills on Facebook or such. One recent posting expressed indignation at the reports of rioting and looting in Ferguson. (I might add that the right-wing propaganda seemed to attribute the alleged physical struggle in the Trayvon Martin case to Michael Brown as justification for the shooting.) The propaganda had a person saying something like, "Oh, I don't like such-and-such. Why don't I go steal from stores and damage property? Oh, wait. We don't act like that in civilized societies."
There's an incredibly big heap of irony here. While these propaganda mills may have origins elsewhere, in the US if the media or many other people want to put a label on strong conservative views or actions you'll probably hear the phrase "Tea Party." And conservatives often refer to themselves as belonging to the Tea Party. Is this because it's being suggested their views are as silly as the conversation at the Mad Hatter's tea party Alice attended? Is it a reference to people who chat about the weather over cups of tea? Of course not. It refers to history's "Boston Tea Party" in the period leading up to the American War of Independence.
So, why's it called a Boston Tea Party and what happened there? Well, the British had started putting a tax on tea sold in the 13 colonies, and the colonists didn't like that. Let's be clear, nobody LIKES paying taxes. But tea isn't what you'd call a necessity of life. It's not as if an adviser told Marie Antoinette, "The poor can barely afford to buy bread." And Marie replied, "Let's put a tax on bread!"
The colonists - or at least those who were affluent enough to spend money on tea - were upset about a new tax on what back then was a minor luxury. Did they respond in a legal and polite manner? Did they paint anti-tax graffiti on the tax collector's office? Did they throw rotten eggs at the home of the British government's local representative? Not quite. They disguised themselves as Native Americans, sneaked onto a merchant ship which had a cargo of tea, and committed crimes of vandalism and property destruction.
Those are the acts which conservatives feel are so honorable and glorious that they name their political community after it.
On the other hand, in places such as Ferguson, we're not talking about a serious injustice like an increase in the price of a hot beverage. Nothing more serious occurred there than the killing of an unarmed man. The Killing in Ferguson was done by a police officer - someone authorized to use force when he believes it's necessary. The tea tax was enacted by the existing government, which as we all know has no business passing laws or collecting revenue. (You'll have to ask the Tea Party whether rioting would be more acceptable if they dressed as Native Americans.) Obviously, there's just no comparison. With no reason to be angry or morally outraged, the only possible explanation why some Ferguson residents violated a law is that they are inherently criminals who would have done the same thing regardless of events. Right?
Are you SURE that's tea you're drinking?
- - - - - - -
Next time you're explaining to conservative relatives they should disassociate themselves from pro-hoodlum Tea Party people, there are other things you might point out.
There's nothing wrong with rebelling against a government that's better than most other governments. That's exactly what Washington and Jefferson did. England had a constitutional monarchy with a parliament, which was better than most countries. The English court system was also better than what most nations had. The 13 colonies were privileged as colonies of the time. Each of the 13 colonies had their own statehouse legislature. The powers of those state legislatures may have been limited compared to today, but for colonists to have any kind of self-governance back then was generous. You could also point out that England changed into a modern democracy without a bloody revolution - so if Washington and Jefferson had been willing to wait a century the 13 colonies could have been part of England's modern democracy.
Meanwhile, what did Americans get in exchange for a bloody revolution rather than waiting? The improved democracy in post-revolutionary America had slavery. Voting was denied to women and slaves. For a number of decades, various states maintained laws restricting the right to vote based on property ownership and religious affiliation (see Wikipedia ). It wasn't until the 1960's that federal law ended poll taxes - and the Constitution still doesn't forbid poll taxes. (By the way Tea Party, it wasn't conservatives who campaigned against poll taxes.)
Don't get me wrong. I'm NOT arguing against the War of Independence. But an objective view shows us that English rule wasn't so bad by 1700's standards and the early US government wasn't so democratic by today's standards. The gap between current reality and political goals doesn't have to be so vast to justify rebellion. You don't have to be starting from the worst possible government and you don't have to set up the best possible government which will never have room for improvement. And you don't have to sit around waiting for a century for bad things to go away by themselves.
Perhaps, conservatives would be justified in complaining that if Ferguson residents felt that injustices were so bad that it justified violence and destruction, those residents should be using those methods to create a more just government, rather than letting off steam in other ways. I doubt you'll find that advise in a Tea Party statement.