Why+Tea?+The+Global+Story+of+the+American+Revolution

JCT -- “Why Tea?” by Marc Aronson can be broken up into two main sections. The first is the author’s declaration of subordination to AP U.S. instructors while emphasizing his credibility. Aronson goes to great lengths to talk up both himself and his concepts about the global domino effect that caused the Boston Tea Party. While the author is able to list a wide variety of his own books and others that “hinted” at what he claims to have solely discovered, his repetitive, pompous writing style makes the first half of this article completely about him, instead of the subject of the catalyst of the Boston Tea Party. The second half of the article contains information pertinent to Aronson’s topic. He goes into great detail explaining how the issues over exporting tea and other goods eventually reached America. He even goes as far as to give Alexander Fordyce, a Scottish banker, credit for starting the chain that would cause the Boston Tea Party, introducing his audience to the rocky relationship that the East India Company found itself sailing upon. While his chain will certainly strike his future audiences as a novel idea, I fear that he will fail to reach students because of his choice to talk about himself for the first half of the article, causing it to lose a lot of its potential educational value. **this is more like a critique, and a not so good one at that -- no analysis -- also last sentence incorrect in that article was not written for students in the first place. As I entioned in class, the APA articles were written for teachers.** AVG – In his article “Why Tea? The Global Story of the American Revolution,” Marc Aronson correctly argues that no aspect of history can be studied in isolation because every major event in history has complex causes. However, it is equally important not to overanalyze historical developments and completely ignore the commonly cited reasons in exchange for more complicated ones. For example, Aronson argues that the Scottish banker Alexander Fordyce is “the person most directly responsible for precipitating the Revolution” (1). Fordyce’s irresponsible behavior did lead to a financial crisis that forced the East India Tea Company to sell tea to America, but this hardly makes him “directly responsible.” Far more of the responsibility lies with those who vandalized the tea (such as Samuel Adams, who was upset because the cheap British tea would compete with his smuggled tea) and the British government (whose Intolerable Acts inflamed the colonists more than cheap tea would have). Aronson also ignores events closely connected with the Tea Party that are very informative about the situation. For example, Benjamin Franklin offered to pay for the cost of the destroyed tea, but Parliament refused his offer, demonstrating that the Tea Party dealt more with political conflicts than economic ones. Finally, this article was poorly written. Aronson writes at great length about books he wrote but fails to provide any explanation of the major figures in his article (such as Robert Clive). Other figures introduced, such as the Johnstone family, have almost no correlation with the American Revolution but are still discussed. Aronson would have done a much better job if he had provided better explanations, omitted irrelevant information, and, most importantly, incorporated both global and local causes of the Boston Tea Party instead of focusing exclusively on the former.

** solid beginning -- need to beef up the US aspects and delve a little deeper and then you will have it **
KEO- Marc Aronson argues that there is an important relationship between the events that were taking place in North America before the Revolution and the events that were taking place in England and the British East India Company around the same time. Aronson does a mediocre job of supporting his argument. The majority of the facts that he presents in his article are irrelevant to the subject of the Revolution and he does not bother to give any background information on the various people that he mentions in the article. Despite his many shortcomings, he does manage to provide an interesting take on the interrelatedness between a man named Alexander Fordyce and the Boston Tea Party. Alexander Fordyce was responsible for setting off a credit crisis by escaping to France with the Ayr Banks’s assets. This ended up putting England in a desperate financial situation. This encouraged England to send a large amount of Chinese tea to North America at a lower price than the smuggled tea so they could make enough of a profit to pay off their loan and avoid bankruptcy. If Alexander Fordyce had never caused England financial ruin, the English most likely would not have angered the Americans with their tea scheme. Looking at it in this perspective, it can be seen that in a complex way, Fordyce did end up adding to the American’s revolutionary sentiments, but he in no way was as responsible for starting the Revolution as Aronson blatantly states. By stating that Fordyce is responsible for the Revolution, Aronson suggests that the British Tea Act was the main cause of the American Revolution which is not completely true. When the British first came to America, they found themselves in a land that was previously unexplored by Europeans. They were a long way from home and they had many opportunities to colonize land. Governors of the different colonies were soon appointed and they began making their own laws. They had the freedom to determine whether or not they wanted to practice religious toleration and soon many vastly different colonies were established. Since the colonists were allowed so many new freedoms, it is clear that they would not be very enthusiastic about being controlled by the British. The colonists’ move to America fostered their independent spirits which caused them to resent the restrictions that England placed on them more strongly. These feelings, in addition to the unjust restrictions imposed by the British prior to the Tea Act, made revolution against England inevitable.

** Very good -- nice emphasis on the US aspect -- try to delve a little deeper and you will have it nailed **
CCR- In the article “Why Tea? The Global Story of the American Revolution” the author, Marc Aronson, tries to persuade the reader that the American Revolution can not be studied independently because there were too many global forces at work during its occurrence. This is an accurate enough statement. If one were to look at the influences of European enlightenment figures or Lafayette, the global influence on the Revolution would be clear. However the author dwells on only slightly related aspects of events during the same relative time span as the Revolution, or that are analogous to events of the Revolution. For instance, the author discusses the similarity between the British ambitions that were carried out through the East India Company, and the ambitions of the Ohio Company that were carried out by George Washington. This comparison is not only shaky, but it has nothing to do with the Revolution. Aronson goes on to make equally irrelevant comparisons and claims about the revolution. Also the presentation of historical characters is very confusing and does not allow for straightforward reading. As if this were not enough, Aronson also has an unorthodox presentation of his article. He begins to discuss material, breaks away from it, and then comes back to it with no noticeable transition, making the reader bewildered. Furthermore, the writer discusses in detail books that he has written and the books of his colleagues “the new book by P. J. Marshall, //The Making and Unmaking of Empires;// //Britain////,// //India////, and// //America// //c. 1750-178,” “Sir Walter Ralegh and the Quest for El Dorado,” “John Winthrop, Oliver Cromwell, and the Land of Promise,”// and //“Witch-Hunt: Mysteries of the Salem Witch Trials.”// Not one of these examples help the readers understand the global context of the revolution that the author is trying to convey. Moreover, the author discredits himself at the beginning of the article by stating “In writing for AP teachers, I am intensely conscious that I am not a teacher, either of high school or college students. I have neither your classroom experience (and the pressure of tests and scores) nor the imprimatur of an institution of higher learning. Worse yet, the books I write are aimed at teenagers, while the whole point of AP is to direct those readers toward college-level work.” After this the author fails to gives himself any credibility which results in an uninterested and disbelieving reader.

** two problems here -- first, more a critique than analysis -- second, this is APUS not AP Euro -- keep your emphasis appropriately placed **
AJN- In the article, “Why Tea? The Global Story of the American Revolution,” Marc Aronson asserts many things. He is correct that in order to completely understand the course of events throughout history it is necessary to look at it globally and couple American history along with world history. He however does a less than adequate job of portraying his evidence in an orderly way. This is because he jumps around multiple times and fails to explain the people he introduces so the reader is forced to go on outside knowledge. Also some of his assertions are baseless. Such as, how he lays the entire blame of the American Revolution on the shoulders of Alexander Fordyce. Clearly he had a part in the credit crisis that put a strain on everyone involved. However, it is a stretch to say he is solely responsible for the revolution. I believe less of a stretch would be that the reason for the Revolution was the greed of the East India Company.  I feel that while Aronson credits himself with writing for a younger audience he does a poor job of transitioning between facts and assertions and does not flesh out his evidence enough to allow his audience to understand and quite frankly leaves everyone a bit bewildered at the end.

** summary and opinion -- not analysis -- that it is short as well is discouraging **
EMB – This article does an inadequate job of conveying to its audience the correlation between the sole cause of the American Revolution and the Boston Tea Party, including the events that led up to it. Marc Aronson begins his essay with an over-the-top discourse on the books he’s read and books he’s written. This seems far more appropriately placed at the end of the essay, at which he has positioned yet more sources for the limited number of relevant facts in his essay. He also chooses to show his credibility in brief paragraphs addressed to Advanced Placement teachers that state his knack for communicating with teenagers through the language of historical context. Interesting and cute though it may seem, it proves he lacks necessary attention to the particular subject at hand. When Aronson at last begins his argument on the second page of his essay, it shows barely any connection to the Revolution until he brings u the American cities filled with anti-British sentiments. The Boston Tea Party is finally depicted in the end of his essay as a result of the East India Company attempting to rid their debts. It seems Aronson is convinced that relating the Tea Party to names of men of importance in the Company is the right way to show that this is how the Revolution began. Throughout his essay, it seems all Aronson was determined to do was to explain the inner workings of the East India Company, who was involved with it, and what went disastrously wrong. In this aspect, he succeeded; and although that much was engaging, it was irrelevant to his original assertion of a connection between the outbreak of the Revolution and a few men involved in a trading company. Aronson is ultimately incorrect in his argument because the Boston Tea Party is not solely responsible for the outbreak of the war. England and its colonies in America had had tight relations prior to the dumping of the tea into the Boston Harbor. Yes, the Boston Tea Party has high significance in the history of the American Revolution, but it was certainly not //the// moment when England-Colonial American relations fell to pieces. Tea was not the main catalyst of the American Revolution and Aronson does a poor job of defending that it was since he lacks supporting details for his original argument. Although he made interesting connections, they lacked the significance to which he claimed they deserved.

** a mix of critique, opinion and summary -- no analysis **
NDH - In “Why Tea? The global Story of the American Revolution,” Marc Aronson’s article about the events before and during the Boston tea party throughout England an India, he does a terrible job backing up his claims. In the beginning of the article Aronson throws out a lot of sources and details about writers he’s read up on and has very little fact. Paragraphs one through seven each state another novel, but he fails to make a single claim in any of them. This means of introducing sources could have been effective if Aronson had executed right and referred back to the novels in the later part of the article, but instead he makes claim after claim without backing anything at all. When he makes his claim about the East India Company in paragraph seventeen, one would think he site P.J. Marshall’s, The Making and Unmaking of Empires; Britain, India, and America c. 1750-178, or a similar story from his list of sources at the beginning but instead he expects the reader to believe him and chooses to not back himself up at all. Had Aronson used the sources he set up for himself, his argument would have been more sound, and because he didn't, his article loses nearly all of it's credibility and becomes a silly thing to read.

** in that you do the same as what you are accusing the author of - well -- figure it out -- short to boot **
VB - The greatest influence on the impending American Revolution is attributed to the Boston Tea Party. Throughout history the Tea Party of 1773 has been acknowledged as an independent event solely executed by the rebels hoping to affect the future of their emerging nation. This misconception is unfortunate because careful analysis of the global influences resulting in the Boston Tea Party renders a much greater importance on this event. The source of the tea is also the source of the greed. The East India Company had a direct connection to the British government through shares, thus aligning the two entities. The East India Company looked to America as an arena for profit and since they historically, placed profits before humane treatment, the colonists became a target for manipulation. Aronson believes that the actions of Scottish banker, Alexander Fordyce and his association with the East India Company indirectly contributed to the American Revolution. His mishandling of investments resulted in a credit crisis in England, creating tension between the British and the colonists. The ideology of the Boston Tea Party can be traced back to the writings of John Wilkes. Aronson highlights Wilkes controversial criticism of the British monarchy, as a weapon that the colonists adopted. The patriots would use Wilkes arguments against the British government to defend their own actions. The colonist support for Wilkes was also a disparity for England. The British did not want to be insulted by Wilkes twice, once in their own country and again in their colony. Aronson presents an interesting perspective on the events leading to the Boston Tea Party. The shift in the paradigm transitions our ideology from a simple minded attitude to a more sophisticated understanding.

** this is a nice AP Euro summary -- no where near an APUS analysis **

 * week 2xx**

AJJ- In his article “Why Tea? The Global Story of the American Revolution,” Marc Aronson makes valid contentions that no event in history can be looked at by itself because everything is the cause of something and therefore ties back to an earlier time. This article is lengthy spending long periods of time explaining his credentials and referencing the books the author has written. Despite going slightly overboard on length, Aronson proves his point that historical events do not occur as isolated events without previous events leading up to them by backing his claims by solid evidence. One intriguing example is his claim that Alexander Fordyce and the Ayr Bank had a significant effect on the tea party. This is an interesting viewpoint because he proves the point that it did cause massive financial crisis in America which lead to the tea party. If one looks at the BostonTea Party in history books nowadays, it would never mention Alexander Fordyce at all as a factor in the Tea Party instead citing Samuel Adams and The Sons of Liberty as the biggest factors. Overall, this is a great article and it should be appreciated that this article delves into a more deep view of events in history and examines all of their causes as opposed to a more narrow view that is used in history books today.

a critique is not analysis -- also way too short
SFH – In Marc Aronson’s article ‘Why Tea? The Global story of the American Revolution’ I find that Aronson focuses on the fact that no event in history can be studied in isolation because the causes and effects resonates throughout the world. However Aronson fails to fully delve into understanding and analyzing the figures and other events that directly and indirectly effects the events he discusses, and contradicts himself on many principal claims. Also Aronson’s use of self-promotion not only makes one question his true credibility, but lead to a failure in providing explanations of the major characters in his article. How and why an event happens can only be understood through the analyzing of events around the world and the background of the major figures participating directly or indirectly in the event. Pre-American Revolution, Alexander Fordyce was indirectly/directly responsible (depending on how one looks at it) for instigating the third credit crisis of the century; ruining banks in Scotland, sending bankruptcy to the American colonies (especially Virginia planters), and the Bank of England. Yet Aronson’s accusation that Fordyce is to blame for starting the American Revolution falsely suggests that British's Tea Embargo’s were the only reason America was dissatisfied with British rule. Salutary neglect, 'taxation without representation', and laws that did not understand or consider the actual workings of America are more accurately to blame for the American Revolution. This plainly contradicts Aronson’s idea that we must study the entire picture to fully understand history because we cannot blame one man for a revolution. Had the circumstances surrounding Fordyce’s actions been explicated in greater detail and Aronson’s gloating of self-accomplishment in order to establish credibility been omitted, the article would be able to teach history through understanding global events.

=
so far you are winning the prize for most useless mistakes-- above and beyond the weak argument -- there is no excuse for the witing errors -- you cannot analyze using sweeping generalizations =====

ADB - In Marc Aronson’s “Why Tea? A Global Story of the American Revolution”, the author’s primary point is that events in American history should not be examined solely by themselves, but also within global context. However, it is also important to have //relevancy// with the information brought in outside of the primary context. Unfortunately, Aronson stumbles in this regard. One example of this is the Scottish Johnstone clan, which is mentioned throughout the article but whose significance is never fully explained or validated. Their link to the American Revolution is only the obscure connection of being stockholders in the East India Trading Company and that members of the clan prevented Robert Clive, the Lord who had established military supremacy in Bengal and Southern India for England, from reining them in (John Johnstone had used unscrupulous means to amass a fortune for the Company, while Clive was seeking to bring honor back to it). Mentioning this clan reveals nothing of real importance, and wastes the readers’ time. Aronson would have been better suited to go into further detail regarding Clive’s deal with the Mughal emperor, which in effect gave the Company control over Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, as well as all their resources. This acquisition drove Company stocks higher, almost tripling the value by 1766. Instead, he makes obscure associations, as well as spending a good fourth of the article talking about his credentials and the books he’s written on such topics. It would have been interesting to see what specific information could be drawn from such books to bolster his argument; however, Aronson disappoints again, only providing general summaries of the information from his books relevant to the article. There is also Aronson’s assertion that the Scottish banker Alexander Fordyce was “the person most directly responsible for precipitating the Revolution”. Though he forced the East India Trading Company to sell tea to the American colonies in order to pay off the huge debt he left behind when Fordyce fled to France, it seems hardly accurate to give him the honor of “directly responsible”. The Company needed to sell tea cheaply to both pay off their debt and beat the smugglers at their own game, but this was not the action that truly caused the Revolution. More so would be Britain (whose Coercive Acts would enflame American revolutionaries more than cheaply-priced tea ever could), or Samuel Adams, the leader of the Boston Tea Party (who believed that buying //cheaper// British tea would be equivalent with accepting British unrepresented taxation). Aronson’s argument could be bolstered if it included both local and international context to the article. Exploring how colonial America reacted to and developed alongside these international occurrences Aronson provides would add more depth to his goal of a “global story”. Rather than expounding upon his credentials, the author could have been including prudent local context to the “global story”, and his argument would be strengthened, not to mention the American audience would have more connection to the historical area of the article with which they are most familiar.

=
good info and nicely written -- too bad it is more AP Euro than APUS -- had the entire entry been based on the 2nd paragraph you might have made it =====

J.R.C.- In the article “Why Tea? The Global Story of the American Revolution”, Marc Aronson establishes an idea that history is in fact three-dimensional, and to view a specific event in time such as the American Revolution in isolation, one would be limiting their perspective to only one theoretic dimension. He uses this idea to essentially solidify the thought that one event has a long trail of interconnected events that support the question of why something as astounding as the American Revolution occurred. By referring to the fact that Aronson has written other books about historic events, a sense of credibility was formed, making his viewpoints much more convincing. All historic books based on the East India Company, prior to the studies of Aronson, gave a European perspective on the events that led to the Revolution, so in establishing said credibility, one not only gets a unique, unbiased American perspective on these events, but also feels secure in the fact that Aronson’s arguments are viable and true. For example, Aronson begins his argument by portraying the idea that a Scottish banker, Alexander Fordyce, is entirely responsible for initiating the Revolution. Author A.V.G. above disagrees with this statement, but in my opinion, the responsibility lies within Europe, rather than in America. Though America is at fault for vandalizing and terrorizing the British tea ships, irresponsible European decisions were the underlying reasons and ultimately the only reasons for this event occurring. Aronson associates the events that led to the American Revolution to a world contextual view, and in doing so, refines his argument in stating that European powers were in fact the ones who “fueled the fires” in American’s hearts to formulate a revolution. He does this to inspire the thought that the events leading to the Revolution were not only based on British and American relationships, but rather also founded upon many other world events. In imbuing this notion, he goes further to bring up the idea that the one man who singlehandedly provoked the revolution is forgotten in modern day. summarized not analyzed

SW -- Marc Aronson, the author of the article, argues that events going on at earlier times are tied to causes of events that happen in the future. In this case the American Revolution was caused by events that had happened in the past and in the same time period it was tied to events happening in different countries around the world. England, the East India Company, and America are key players during the time of the Boston Tea Party, not just America which is commonly thought. Aronson does a poor job supporting his statement. He fills the article with irrelevant information and mentions figures that he does not thoroughly explain their role. But he does explain that the American Revolution is due to one figure, whose name is Alexander Fordyce. He embezzled England’s money and ran off to another country. This caused England to be short on cash. England wanted to make some quick money off of tea so that they would not go bankrupt. They sent tea to America at a cheaper price than smuggled tea so that the Americans would buy it. When the tea was docked in America and then thrown overboard England was particularly angry because it did not have a lot of money to spare. In this way Aronson tires to put the fault of the American Revolution on Fordyce. But in truth, even if Fordyce had caused England to be short on money, he still was not directly responsible for the American Revolution. There were people in America that still supported England and some that wanted to be independent. The owner of the boat called Beaver was an American that still supported his mother country. He allowed Britain to use his boat in order to be able to dock at an American harbor. Otherwise the Boston dock would not have allowed an English boat to dock at their harbor. The Americans that did not want to follow their mother country were the main reason for the revolution. Before the end of salutary neglect colonists came to America and they found land and religious freedom. They were free to do whatever they wanted to because England was too far a way to know anything that was going on. The cause of the American Revolution was when Britain decided to demand more of the colonists and the colonists did not want to follow England. Although Aronson makes a point an event can be caused by global history in the past, he fails to support his idea that the Boston Tea Party was the cause of the revolution and that one man caused it. <span style="color: #ff6100; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">summarized not analyzed -- had you centered on the sentence in red and fully explored this idea you might have made it

CJD-- In an attempt to relate American history to world history, Marc Aronson describes parallel events that occurred in both the sprouting United States and other areas of the globe. Starting with a connection between the Seven Years’ War and British exploits in India, the author gives interesting, albeit somewhat irrelevant comparisons that could come from any time period, not just the Revolutionary Era.

Britain, around the time that the American colonies were beginning to feel mistreated, was having other troubles with the East India Trading Company, specifically with a group called the Johnstone clan. These men caused disputes within the Company, and had far reaching control in Florida. Marc Aronson tries to explain how this means that America had an impact on global history, but as an example it is far too narrow to truly show how the United States runs parallel to the world.

London and Boston also shared connecting events at the dawn of the Revolution. Riots occurred in Boston because of John Wilkes, a writer in England. Changing economies in Europe are what allowed the Boston Tea Party to occur, specifically a rise in stock following the success of the East India Trading Company. This has to be viewed, according to the author, as relative to the colonies, because it caused tea to be sent to North America. The connection that the author of this article is attempting to make can be seen, but it is very hazy and hard to swallow. Stating that the actions of a few men in England and India prompted the revolutionaries in Boston could have been interesting, but Aronson ties it together poorly. His thesis that American history affects the history of the world is not baseless, but it was not argued properly. <span style="color: #ff6100; font-family: 'Arial Black',Gadget,sans-serif;">summarized not analyzed -- making matters worse, does not center on APUS