Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd
Upload
15 views

Visual Analysis Example 2

The graphic accurately represents a minor colonial response to British authority but was limited as it ignored more significant responses like revolutionary leadership, propaganda, and military defense. It also fails to account for the views of historians like Beer, Morrison, and Bailyn who emphasized revolutionary ideas and leaders over minor acts of resistance.

Uploaded by

Doan Chan Phong
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
15 views

Visual Analysis Example 2

The graphic accurately represents a minor colonial response to British authority but was limited as it ignored more significant responses like revolutionary leadership, propaganda, and military defense. It also fails to account for the views of historians like Beer, Morrison, and Bailyn who emphasized revolutionary ideas and leaders over minor acts of resistance.

Uploaded by

Doan Chan Phong
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

D.

Evaluate to what extent this drawing is useful in assessing the responses of the colonists to British
authority in America from 1763 to 1776. In your response refer to parts of the drawing and to different
views of the period.

The graphic accurately represents a colonial response to British authority but it is only a minor response
in comparison to Revolutionary leadership, propaganda and Military defence, making it limited in its
usefulness. The graphic is also inaccurate in ignoring Beer’s views along with Morrison and Bailyn’s
emphasis on revolutionary ideas and leaders.

Tarring and feathering was only a minor part of colonial opposition to Britian, as it was only used as a
tool to intimidate merchants or British officers, while Trade Boycotts, revolutionary literature and
provactive events (like the Boston Massacre, the Gaspee and The Boston Tea Party) had a much more
significant effect.
Morrison would criticise the graphic for its lack of emphasis on the ‘orchestra leaders of the Revolution’,
who according to Bailyn, used revolutionary ideas of Locke’s Natural Rights and Rousseau’s Social
Contract in pamphlets and cartoons to initiate revolution ‘in the minds of the people’ (John Adams).

Although the tea pot in the graphic explicitly represents the objection to tea taxes, it does not asses its
importance because it ignores the Lockean Natural Right of property that the tax on tea violated.
Furthermore, Beer would correctly criticise the graphic because, according to him, Britain was well within
its rights to tax America to pay for the ongoing cost of providing (7500) troops (after the 1763 Royal
Proclamation Act) for America’s security.

The graphic is correct in its intention to make Britain swallow its own taxes in the form of the Boston Tea
Party but this response is insignificant when compared to the formation of Militias and a Continental
Army, ‘Choosing between unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers or resistance by
force’ (Declaration for the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms 6th July 1775). Therefore the graphic
is highly limited in its assessment of the ideas, people and significance of Colonial (Whig) opposition to
British authority.

You might also like