What are the Intolerable Acts?

“An act to allow a drawback of the duties of customs on the exportation of tea to any of his Majesty's colonies or plantations in America; to increase the deposit on bohea tea to be sold at the [East] India Company's sales, and to empower the commissioners of the treasury to grant licenses to the East India Company to export tea duty-free …”

– Long title of the “Tea Act 1773,” as passed by the Parliament of Great Britain (incidentally, this act led to the Boston Tea Party, to which the Parliament responded with the “Coercive Acts” – known in America as the “Intolerable Acts”)

Anecdote about the Boston Tea Party, and how Britain responded with the Intolerable Acts

In 1773, the British East India Company got permission from Parliament to sell some of its tea in the British colonies in North America. The trouble was that there were still some Parliamentary taxes on the tea (from the earlier Townshend Acts), and these taxes were somewhat unpopular in America. Thus, a group of Americans calling themselves the “Sons of Liberty” implemented a protest one night. Dressing up as Native Americans, they went into the British ships anchored in Boston harbor, and dumped the tea overboard into the waters of the harbor. At that time, any submission to the British taxes (to which the colonial legislatures had not consented) seemed like tacit approval of Parliamentary tyranny. To quote a popular slogan from the time, “no taxation without representation.” This is why they felt justified in preventing other colonists from buying the tea, rather than simply refusing to buy it for themselves. This protest would go down in history as the “Boston Tea Party.” As many British commentators have noted, the Boston Tea Party was a classic example of gesture politics. And it certainly angered the British Parliament. In 1774, the British responded with what they called the “Coercive Acts.” But these acts would instead become known in America as the “Intolerable Acts.” There were originally four of these acts, although a fifth one (largely unconnected) would later be added. Thus, this might be a good time to talk here about the Intolerable Acts. Many of the grievances from these acts found their way into the United States Declaration of Independence. Some of the concerns from the acts even found their way into the United States Constitution – and, more specifically, into the United States Bill of Rights.

Boston Tea Party, 1773 – which Parliament considered sufficient to warrant the Intolerable Acts

How the British Empire was replaced by the British Commonwealth

“We refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”

– Balfour Declaration of 1926, issued by the 1926 Imperial Conference of British Empire leaders in London

British nations are hit hard in the Great War, a major turning point for the British Empire

Canada lost nearly 1% of its population in World War One, and Australia and New Zealand lost more than 1% of their respective populations therein. The British Isles themselves actually lost roughly 2% of the UK population during this infamous “Great War.” Small wonder, then, that the First World War was a turning point for the British Empire. I plan to cover the lead-up to the Great War elsewhere, so I will not try to attempt such coverage here. Thus, suffice it to say here that things exploded in 1914, when these various parts of the British Empire were all sucked into the conflict. The year 1914, specifically, is thus considered to be a major turning point for the British Empire. To some degree, even India and South Africa were affected by the carnage, although their death rates were somewhat lower than those listed above. Like the United States, these various portions of the British Empire would later send some troops to fight in the Russian Civil War as well, when the broader world war had ended. But these interventions ultimately failed, and communism was nonetheless instituted in Russia. In the negotiations for the postwar peace treaty, all of these portions of the British Empire were represented in the Allied delegation therein. These included Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, and (of course) Britain itself. It was then acknowledged that groups like the Anzacs and the Canadians had fought very bravely alongside their comrades from the British Isles. Thus, it was felt that they, too, should have a place at the bargaining table there. This was an unofficial recognition of their status in the still-ongoing British Empire. During the war, the British Isles also saw the Irish rebellion of 1916. This soon led to the creation of the “Irish Free State,” which later became the “Republic of Ireland.” (More about that later.)

Australian troops at Gallipoli, circa 1915 – part of World War One

Irish soldiers at the Somme, 1916 – part of World War One

On the merits of using re-enactments in documentary films

Budgets are the bane of documentary filmmakers, as well as their biggest constraint

I’ve watched a few films by Elizabeth Deane, who has made a number of documentaries for PBS. In the special features for one of her films, she once lamented that “We have Hollywood ambitions, but we don’t have Hollywood budgets.” That sums up the primary problem with most re-enactments in the documentary world: they’re terribly low-budget. You’ve probably seen this kind of thing in your high school history class. Your teacher shows you a documentary film, and you see a couple of guys in period uniforms going across the screen in slow motion (isn’t that exciting). Even though it’s in color (and modern audiences love color), the kids are bored by the spartan quality of the re-enactments. In fairness, this is understandable for a generation that’s grown up on some expensive Hollywood re-enactments. Academy Awards have been won (and well-earned) by delivering high-quality re-enactments for a major historical movie. But the ones that we see in documentaries are seldom all that impressive – although they can sometimes still be helpful despite this.

History of Antarctica: From the earliest explorers to the 21st century

“Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only. There shall be prohibited, inter alia, any measure of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and fortifications, the carrying out of military manoeuvres, as well as the testing of any type of weapon. The present Treaty shall not prevent the use of military personnel or equipment for scientific research or for any other peaceful purpose.”

– Article I of the Antarctic Treaty (1 December 1959)

The earliest Antarctic explorers, the first sighting of Antarctica, and the first landing there

As early as antiquity itself, it was postulated that there was a vast continent (then called “Terra Australis”) in the far south of the globe. It was actually in the second century AD that Marinus of Tyre coined the term “Antarctic,” which basically means “opposite of the Arctic Circle.” As Wikipedia puts it, “The rounding of the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn in the 15th and 16th centuries proved that Terra Australis Incognita (‘Unknown Southern Land’), if it existed, was a continent in its own right. In 1773, James Cook and his crew crossed the Antarctic Circle for the first time. Although he discovered new islands, he did not sight the continent itself. It is believed that he came as close as 240 km (150 mi) from the mainland.” (Source: Their page on the “History of Antarctica”) In January 1820, there was a Russian expedition, which was led by Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen and Mikhail Lazarev. Due to the number of birds flying there, he believed that land must be close. But it was not until ten months later that the continent itself was finally sighted. On 17 November 1820, an American sealer named Nathaniel Palmer became the first to sight Antarctica. It may have been over a year later that an English-born American captain named John Davis, another sealer, set foot on the ice. It was the first landing on the continent of Antarctica.

Russian admiral Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen, who led an early expedition in the region