If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Houston)   Texas schools now teaching Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. Subby scared to find out what they're calling the Tea Party Tea Party   (houston.cbslocal.com) divider line 181
    More: Interesting, tea party, Texas, Texas schools, for-profit schools  
•       •       •

4014 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Nov 2012 at 3:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



181 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-25 07:36:06 AM

starsrift: 'xactly. Revenge ain't coercion.


Ok. since 9/11 was revenge for the US being in "the holy land" I guess it was just a protest. and since Timothy McVeigh set off his bomb as revenge for Waco and Ruby Ridge he's just a protester too. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2012-11-25 07:37:24 AM

Mikey1969: "Violence against property"?


its not what the violence is against. it's the motivation. I gave you two definitions and this is th best you got?

screw it. I'm out.
 
2012-11-25 07:37:30 AM
I'm sure I'm late to the party, but I have a few things to say about this article.

1. The "reporter" (who has not earned the term) doesn't do his or her own research. Instead, our intrepid writer uses information from THE BLAZE. I don't think I need to continue.

2. The information quoted is clearly from a lesson designed to have the student look at the event through the eyes of the British.

"It is believed that the terrorist attack was a response to the policies enacted by the occupying country's government. Even stronger policies are anticipated by the local citizens."

Does that sound like a factual recount of a historical event? Or does it sound like something supposed to be written at the time. By the British.

You can argue if the Tea Party was terrorism, and I would bet money that's the discussion that the lesson was meant to provoke. But that's a far cry from what the article claims.
 
2012-11-25 07:45:09 AM

log_jammin: starsrift: 'xactly. Revenge ain't coercion.

Ok. since 9/11 was revenge for the US being in "the holy land" I guess it was just a protest. and since Timothy McVeigh set off his bomb as revenge for Waco and Ruby Ridge he's just a protester too. Thanks for clearing that up.


According to your broad definition, any property damage sustained in a political riot is terrorism, as is political graffiti.
It takes more than violence and politics to make terrorism... Terrorism is about fear. You seemed to have missed that.
 
2012-11-25 07:50:50 AM

starsrift: log_jammin: starsrift: 'xactly. Revenge ain't coercion.

Ok. since 9/11 was revenge for the US being in "the holy land" I guess it was just a protest. and since Timothy McVeigh set off his bomb as revenge for Waco and Ruby Ridge he's just a protester too. Thanks for clearing that up.

According to your broad definition, any property damage sustained in a political riot is terrorism, as is political graffiti.
It takes more than violence and politics to make terrorism... Terrorism is about fear. You seemed to have missed that.


If you read my other posts you'll see that I specifically say it is about fear.

Not liking the definition doesn't change what it is.
 
2012-11-25 07:56:32 AM

Dr.Zom: Happy Hours: Also, a local CBS affiliate is reporting that this is what TheBlaze claims.

I'll wait for a more reliable source on this.

Glenn Beck. I'm assuming the opposite of everything in this story is the truth.


I saw this on Facebook too. So I'm skeptical.

These are the same folks who wrote this are the ones rewriting the Texas school curriculum because they believe the current one is too liberal.
 
2012-11-25 07:58:26 AM

Jim_Callahan: Um... no, vandalism and terrorism aren't the same thing. You have to actually threaten violence against civilians unless political demands are met to be a terrorist, getting drunk and trashing someone's property is just a riot.


... which brings up the little-known fact that according to consumption figures, the Colonials were serious alcoholics by today's standards -- drinking beer for breakfast and getting hammered on spirits at taverns where they hammered out the founding documents of our nation.
 
2012-11-25 07:59:24 AM

Dafodude: The word 'terrorism' gets used lately for a lot of things that have nothing to with 'terror'. Who exactly was 'terrorized' by the Boston Tea Party?



That's kind of my thoughts on this. A lot of buzz terms usually reserved in the past to describe serious events or issues are now blanket statements for ambiguous references. No doubt it is an effort to demonize anything outside of what those in power want you to think. A political protest of that era gets called a terrorist act, those in the current day tea party are almost in the same bucket with a lot less physical action taken on their part in a lot of people's eyes.
 
2012-11-25 08:06:02 AM

log_jammin: Mikey1969: "Violence against property"?

its not what the violence is against. it's the motivation. I gave you two definitions and this is th best you got?

screw it. I'm out.


No, you just didn't read my post. Either that or you couldn't rebut the rest.

Here it is in a nutshell: Your interpretation of the definition of "terrorism" is so ridiculously broad that if it were applied to the real world, it would include any and all military actions carried forth by the United States ever, and forever.

There is violence(and the threat of violence) against property and people with the intention of bringing about social or political change. It's also "illegal" from the view of whomever the US is "terrorizing". This fits your idea of what the definition means.

Yeah I know, I kinda put you over a barrel on that one. You probably shouldn't have replied, it makes you look like a sore loser, especially when you go on to announce that you're taking your ball and going home.
 
2012-11-25 08:07:11 AM
The Boston Tea Party was actually a frat prank that went awry. See, they were going to smuggle a dead horse into George III's office, but Flounder couldn't get enough marbles. So they did the tea party thing instead, and all things American flowed naturally from that.

(It explains a lot, seriously.)
 
2012-11-25 08:12:54 AM

Mikey1969: log_jammin: Mikey1969: "Violence against property"?

its not what the violence is against. it's the motivation. I gave you two definitions and this is th best you got?

screw it. I'm out.

No, you just didn't read my post. Either that or you couldn't rebut the rest.

Here it is in a nutshell: Your interpretation of the definition of "terrorism" is so ridiculously broad that if it were applied to the real world, it would include any and all military actions carried forth by the United States ever, and forever.

There is violence(and the threat of violence) against property and people with the intention of bringing about social or political change. It's also "illegal" from the view of whomever the US is "terrorizing". This fits your idea of what the definition means.

Yeah I know, I kinda put you over a barrel on that one. You probably shouldn't have replied, it makes you look like a sore loser, especially when you go on to announce that you're taking your ball and going home.


Nah. I'm just trying to remind myself that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

See ya.
 
2012-11-25 08:23:33 AM
It is sort of ironic that the current TEA Party acts to further corporate interest, while the original was an act against collusion between the state and corporate interests...
 
2012-11-25 08:23:34 AM
Here's a little hint for you...

The Boston Tea Party was almost universally condemned after it happened. In their day and time, the people who did it were not highly thought of by any measure after it happened.
 
2012-11-25 08:24:23 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com 

24.media.tumblr.com 

suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com
 
2012-11-25 08:25:24 AM
I always thought the baggers were advocating the British tea company's side of the Boston Tea Party. They dress like colonial British, and worship the power of corporations over the rights of citizens. This is the logical extension of that philosophy. On a related note, raising children in Texas should be considered an act of child abuse.
 
2012-11-25 08:33:16 AM

Kibbler: The Boston Tea Party was actually a frat prank that went awry. See, they were going to smuggle a dead horse into George III's office, but Flounder couldn't get enough marbles. So they did the tea party thing instead, and all things American flowed naturally from that.

(It explains a lot, seriously.)


You also forgot to mention that they went on Double Secret Probation after this as well.
 
2012-11-25 08:33:42 AM
They just don't want eager young minds getting the bright idea that they should attack the financial interests of the 1%.
 
2012-11-25 08:40:01 AM

Lionel Mandrake: RedPhoenix122: Relatively Obscure: I do, but I'm guessing more than a few people would not follow your first example. It is just a guess though.

That's only because anything a Muslim does in this country is considered terrorism by some.

A guy in a turban cut in front of me at Baskin Robbins today and took the last scoop of Rocky Road...it was like 9/11 all over again


Yeah - I saw that biatch, eating ice cream like he owned the place.
 
2012-11-25 08:44:46 AM

Great_Milenko: They just don't want eager young minds getting the bright idea that they should attack the financial interests of the 1%.


That would be worse than terrorism - that would be Class Warfare. Any attempt to establish any form of economic justice is socialism, which is class warfare, which is terrorism.

This, by contrast, is NOT class warfare, or terrorism:

i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-25 08:49:21 AM
WHY DID IT TAKE OBAMA 230 YEARS TO CALL THIS AN ACT OF TERROR WHAT IS HE HIDING FIRST BENGHAZI NOW THIS
 
2012-11-25 08:55:54 AM

Lionel Mandrake: I guess we'd all have to come to an agreement on the definition of "terrorism," but I think that under most reasonable definitions, it was terrorism.


Remind me, were any people harmed by the Sons of Liberty during the Boston Tea Party? (I'm too lazy to research it myself.) If they managed to neatly limit it to property damage, then I think we need a different term. The word "vandalism" nowadays implies pointless juvenile destruction of property; did it once apply to more purposeful action by an organized movement? I always associate "sabotage" with equipment of some sort rather than a consumable commodity like tea.

And the American Revolution was treason.

It's only treason if you lose. Remember, winners get to write the history books.
 
2012-11-25 08:57:23 AM

GAT_00: It technically was terrorism. It was an act of a select few against an existing power structure for solely personal gain at the expense of the majority that has been utterly blown out of proportion by history. The entire American Revolution is a perfect example of the phrase 'One man's terrorist is another's Freedom Fighter."


Which is probably the whole point of the lesson.

And considering the kind of people on charge of the education curriculum in Texas, I don't think these Yahoos need to worry about anything that interesting actually being used in a classroom.
 
2012-11-25 09:19:48 AM

Kibbler: starsrift: Terrorism is the use(or threat) of force to create a state of fear for political purposes. You don't have to be a guerilla or insurgent to be a terrorist; national armies or dictators can do it just fine. It can be as intimate and personal as a suicide bomber or as cold and calculating as a foreign drone patrolling your sky.

While the British were, and still are, quite attached to tea, I don't think they were that attached to it.

No? You might want to read about the Opium Wars. China refused to take British manufactured goods as payment for tea. Thus all the silver drained out of England. They were crazy for tea.

Their solution was to use military force to expand the opium trade in China. The silver flowed back, once they'd created several million addicts. Then they portrayed the Chinese as degenerate rat-eating junkies incapable of governing themselves.

Queen Victoria: the world's biggest drug dealer.

(For tea.)


To be fair, they were trading drugs for drugs at that point
 
2012-11-25 09:25:12 AM

Meet Us at the Stick: Weaver95: well, from the perspective of the British - yes, it probably WAS an act of 'terrorism'.

Reminds me of a US History class I took as an undergrad where the prof explained things from the British point of view

How the British fronted most of the cost of the French and Indian War. Where there Brits were paying more in taxes to pay for that war than the Americans. And how the British Parliament felt that the Americans should start to pay for their fair share since they were the primary beneficiaries from said war.

Made the colonies sound like a bunch of spoiled ingrates.

Food for thought


i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-25 09:27:42 AM
Of course it was "terrorism". But it was OUR terrorism.

Somewhere between the "America is the Great Satan" and "America can do no wrong" crowd there lies reality...and not just because of some middle-ground assumption. It's context and perspective.

That said, WHARGARBLE.
 
2012-11-25 09:41:18 AM
I'm fine with it, so long as they start teaching that Davy Crockett and his comrades died at the Alamo in an attempt to continue being slaveholders.
 
2012-11-25 09:43:13 AM

lordjupiter: Of course it was "terrorism". But it was OUR terrorism.

Somewhere between the "America is the Great Satan" and "America can do no wrong" crowd there lies reality...and not just because of some middle-ground assumption. It's context and perspective.

That said, WHARGARBLE.


Sweet farking God this X 1000!

Most reasonable thing I've heard about this stupid story all day.
 
2012-11-25 09:45:21 AM
Funny, I was taught it was an act of terrorism over twenty years ago. In public school. In America. During Reagan.
 
2012-11-25 09:51:42 AM

Snapper Carr:

If an action by Earth First or Greenpeace cost a company that much money, politicians throughout the west would be decrying the act as terrorism


Doesn't mean they would be correct, however. 

/non-confrontational observation
 
2012-11-25 09:52:08 AM
From a British perspective it WAS
 
2012-11-25 09:55:09 AM

Happy Hours: Also, a local CBS affiliate is reporting that this is what TheBlaze claims.

I'll wait for a more reliable source on this.


thanks for reminding us. i'll wait too.
 
2012-11-25 09:55:31 AM
I dislike Texas as much as the next guy, but this seems like a perfectly legitimate lesson to be given within the context of a history lesson about the Revolution. Of course Loyalists and the British would view the Tea Party in terms of which we would now call terrorism (although pretty tame by our standards, like if the Gazans were launching cream pies into Israel). Save your outrage for something more disturbing. God knows Texas will give you plenty of opportunity to use it.
 
2012-11-25 09:57:13 AM

Meet Us at the Stick: Weaver95: well, from the perspective of the British - yes, it probably WAS an act of 'terrorism'.

Reminds me of a US History class I took as an undergrad where the prof explained things from the British point of view

How the British fronted most of the cost of the French and Indian War. Where there Brits were paying more in taxes to pay for that war than the Americans. And how the British Parliament felt that the Americans should start to pay for their fair share since they were the primary beneficiaries from said war.

Made the colonies sound like a bunch of spoiled ingrates.

Food for thought


America won the war (with help from the enemy of the last war). Therefore, America won the right to write the history of said war.
 
2012-11-25 09:58:44 AM
Applying the modern definition of terrorism to the Boston Tea Party is about as smart as applying today's definition of liberal to the founders' political views.

/context and history matter.
 
2012-11-25 09:58:53 AM

clambam: I dislike Texas as much as the next guy, but this seems like a perfectly legitimate lesson to be given within the context of a history lesson about the Revolution. Of course Loyalists and the British would view the Tea Party in terms of which we would now call terrorism (although pretty tame by our standards, like if the Gazans were launching cream pies into Israel). Save your outrage for something more disturbing. God knows Texas will give you plenty of opportunity to use it.


One of my friends on Facebook posted this with a message "I've made up my mind, I'm homeschooling my kids". (She doesn't have any kids yet btw).

I mean she's a real sweet girl but she's also one of those RON PAUL worshipers and sometimes says the craziest things such as what I posted above.
 
2012-11-25 10:01:56 AM

Guidette Frankentits: Better add The Boston Tea Party to the List Of People Conspiring Against The G.O.P. And Therefore America. (LOPCATGOPATA)


Thanks to some diligent Farkers we now have it with linky goodness:

List of People Conspiring Against the GOP, and therefore, America (LOPCATGOPATA for short):

Liberals Link
Democrats Link
Socialists Link
Community Organizers Link
Geologists Link
Biologists Link
Meteorologists Link
Climatologists Link
Atheists Link
Muslims Link
Jews
Satan
ABC
NBC
CNN
CBS
PBS
All of cable news except FNC
The New York Times
The LA Times
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
Reuters
BBC
The Guardian
Black People
Mexicans
Human Rights Activists
SCOTUS
Europe
Movie Industry
Television Industry
Environmentalists
ACLU
The United Nations
Labor Unions Link
Colleges
Teachers (including kindergarten teachers) Link
Professors
ACORN Link
Planned Parenthood Link
National Endowment for the Arts Link
Fashion Industry Link
Gays
Judges Link
NPR Link
Paleontologists
Astrophysicists
Museums (*except Creationism Museum)
WHO
WTO
Inflated tires Link
The Honolulu Advertiser Link
The Star Bulletin Link
Teletubbies Link
Sponge Bob and Patrick Link
Nobel Prize Committee Link
US Census Bureau Link
NOAA
Sesame Street Link
Comic Books Link
Little Green Footballs Link
Video Games Link
The Bible Link
CBO Link
Bruce Springsteen Link
Pennies
The Theory of Relativity Link
Comedy Central Link
Young People
whatever the hell a Justin Beiber is Link
Small Business Owners Link
Math Link
CPAC Link
Navy SEALs Link
The Economist
The Muppets Link
Iowa Republicans
Low-Flow Toilets Link
Breast Cancer Screenings Link
Chrysler Link
Clint Eastwood. Link
Robert Deniro Link
Tom Hanks Link
Glenn Frey Link
Norman Rockwell Link
James Cameron Link
Dr. Seus
Nuns Link
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Link
Jonathan Krohn at age 17 Link
Fact Checkers Link
Australia Link
Mitt Romney
Rasmussen
Fox News
Lockheed Martin Link
Bureau of Labor Statistics Link
Paul Ryan Link
Debate moderators Link
Ben Stein Link
Soup kitchens Link
Chris Christie Link
Nate Silver (FiveThirtyEight.com) Link
Fox Polling
US Postal Service
Associated Press
Hurricanes Link
Susan Collins Link
Lisa Murkowski Link
Dean Heller Link
Mark Kirk Link
Lindsey Graham Link
Governor Bobby Jindal Link
General Petreaus Link
Saxby Chambliss Link
God Link
Girl Scouts Link
Boston Tea Party Link
 
2012-11-25 10:07:17 AM

Mikey1969: log_jammin: Mikey1969: "Violence against property"?

its not what the violence is against. it's the motivation. I gave you two definitions and this is th best you got?

screw it. I'm out.

No, you just didn't read my post. Either that or you couldn't rebut the rest.

Here it is in a nutshell: Your interpretation of the definition of "terrorism" is so ridiculously broad


It's not log_jammin's interpretation or definition, it's simply the modern legal definition.

that if it were applied to the real world, it would include any and all military actions carried forth by the United States ever, and forever.

It is applied in the real world, people are convicted of terrorism in criminal courts around the world based on that kind of definition. And you must have missed the word "unlawful". Military action taken in defense against an aggressor is not ilegal, and neither are actions authorized by a UN Security Council resolution invoking Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

There is violence(and the threat of violence) against property and people with the intention of bringing about social or political change. It's also "illegal" from the view of whomever the US is "terrorizing". This fits your idea of what the definition means.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq sort of fits the description, but more importantly it fits the definition of a Crime against Peace by international law. The Korean war, the Gulf War and the invasion of Afghanistan were not illegal.
 
2012-11-25 10:11:15 AM

Richard Saunders: Snapper Carr:

If an action by Earth First or Greenpeace cost a company that much money, politicians throughout the west would be decrying the act as terrorism

Doesn't mean they would be correct, however. 

/non-confrontational observation


By most legal definitions they would be absolutely right.
 
2012-11-25 10:11:52 AM
Get with the program, Texas. it's only terrorism when someone does it to us. Actually Texas- you don't even have a dog in this race as you were an indian nation at the time. Unless that was your tea we had been tossing into the drink.

Hmm.
 
2012-11-25 10:15:09 AM
It was an illegal act of major property destruction with the expressed intent of making a political point.

Not terribly different from bombing an abortion clinic or setting fire to a draft board office.
 
2012-11-25 10:16:35 AM
By the laws and standards of the era: Not terrorism.

By today's laws and standards: Terrorism.

But then, by today's laws and standards you'd have to say that any Native American tribe that fought against the Union was a terrorist cell, and you'd have to say that, because the Union considered them a non-legitimate organization, the Confederacy would also be a terrorist organization.

So Texas might want to pull back the reigns on this whole line of thinking.
 
2012-11-25 10:20:33 AM

mrshowrules: List of People Conspiring Against the GOP, and therefore, America (LOPCATGOPATA for short):


Vegetables Link
 
2012-11-25 10:29:51 AM

ZeroCorpse: By the laws and standards of the era: Not terrorism.

By today's laws and standards: Terrorism.

But then, by today's laws and standards you'd have to say that any Native American tribe that fought against the Union was a terrorist cell, and you'd have to say that, because the Union considered them a non-legitimate organization, the Confederacy would also be a terrorist organization.

So Texas might want to pull back the reigns on this whole line of thinking.


Ummmm.... no, you'd have to first figure out how the Union came by "ownership" of the territory in question. The better description is ethnic cleansing or genocide.

The Confederacy *could* be considered a terrorist movement.
 
2012-11-25 10:32:16 AM
TheBlaze reports...

I stopped reading after that.
 
2012-11-25 10:37:53 AM
142 comments in and nobody has read TFA.....
TFA
As recently as January of this year, the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative included a lesson plan that depicted the Boston Tea Party, an event that helped ignite the American Revolution, as an act of terrorism. TheBlaze reports that in a lesson promoted on the TESCCC site as recently as January, a world history/social studies class plan depicted the Boston Tea Party as being anything but patriotic, causing many people to become upset with the lack of transparency and review for lessons.

Some red flags here. This is not the TEA, Texas Education Agency. TEA is the group which lists the TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) which all public schools are required to teach. TESCCC is a group which attempts to provide support to Texas schools. Their lesson plans are unofficial, and the article provided no evidence that the LPs are actually being used by anyone.

If anyone wants it, I live in Texas and can write a lesson plan centered around Glenn Beck and TheBlaze being lying sacks of shiat who murdered and raped a girl in 1990. That doesn't mean that anyone will use it or that it is a lesson in line with the TEKS.
 
2012-11-25 10:39:41 AM
Doesn't somebody have to be terrified for it to be terrorism?
I don't think it was terrorism. But I do think, as a lesson plan, this has merits. The students will look at the event from a different perspective and they will look at the concept of terrorism differently as a result.
I don't have any problem with this lesson plan.
The term "terrorism" is overused and misused.
 
2012-11-25 10:42:20 AM
Just for fun, this is what the TEA says about the boston tea party: 5th Grade Social Studies TEKS
 
2012-11-25 10:44:25 AM

pciszek:
It's only treason if you lose. Remember, winners get to write the history books.


Actually, nowadays everybody gets to write history, including spectators, observers, bystanders and of course enemies and losers.
 
2012-11-25 10:45:14 AM

Great_Milenko: They just don't want eager young minds getting the bright idea that they should attack the financial interests of the 1%.


Tin-foil hat conclusion: Your government is preparing our childrens' minds for the concept that any thought or act of protest and/or dissension is punishable under the "Patriot Act" and will be enforced by administrative rule, not legislative law. 

/to derp or not to derp? 
 
2012-11-25 10:46:46 AM

red5ish: Doesn't somebody have to be terrified for it to be terrorism?


No, it's a question of intent.

I don't think it was terrorism. But I do think, as a lesson plan, this has merits. The students will look at the event from a different perspective and they will look at the concept of terrorism differently as a result.
I don't have any problem with this lesson plan.
The term "terrorism" is overused and misused.


And here ends todays lesson. Class dimissed!
 
Displayed 50 of 181 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report