Dansker: 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.

Call me a cynic, but I just don't see many legal definitions of words being used in the balderdash that passes for today's political rhetoric.

/depends on what the definition of "Is" is. 

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.

And the American Revolution was treason.

duh

It's only terrorism if you lose.

Also, for goddamned sake, the Boston Tea Party was not about taxation, it was solely about representation in British Parliament. The damn colonials wanted to actually have the ability to block tariff reductions on East India Tea CO which were removed against their wishes, and started flooding Colonial ports. THAT's why they threw the stuff into the hahbah'

Yup. American was founded on protectionism, against free trade, and on wanting proper representation. Taxes? Not so much.

Sorry, didn't mean to speak so boldly.

Didn't read through the comments, so I don't know if this has been posted or not yet; I'm guessing not.

What should we call "The Tea Party?" How about the "American Taliban?" (That's the short version. The long version is here, for those interested.)

I guess watching "Liberty's Kids" will take on a whole new meaning now. It's no longer a show about our founding fathers, it's about a terrorists training cell.

They were sent by the Coffee Mafia.

vinniethepoo: 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 recall reading that the American colonists were taxed at a higher rate than people in England, supposedly because the war most directly benefitted them. Also, no colony was allowed to trade with any other colony, only with English merchants (who jacked up their prices while offering less than the free-market value for American goods.)

The worst thing was, the colonists had no representation in Parliament at all, so they had no legal means of protesting these policies. They were treated as second-class citizens with all of the responsibilities of British subjects but none of the rights.

Basically, the mother country was milking the colonies for as much as they could get and not giving a whole lot in return. (They did help defend the colonists from the French, so there is that.) These policies were set by King George himself (who, it was later discovered, was certifiably insane.)

If the response from England to colonial petitions in 1775 had been "Send two MPs per recognized colony" instead of STFU and GBTW we'd be in a very different world.

Relatively Obscure: What would people call it if a gang of Muslims ransacked an American ship in port and destroyed all of the cargo?

Burning of the Gaspee? It's still celebrated in Rhode Island.

/Suck it, Boston tea party. Try burning an actual warship.

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.

And the American Revolution was treason.

duh

What the goal of the BTP to create fear (terror) or to destroy merchandise? If the sole purpose was to destroy merchandise then it was sabotage, not terrorism.

But yes, the War of American Secession was treason, of course.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Kittypie070: There will be a United States, and Texas will be part of it when the Sun burns out.

Ewwwww. No. Please.

I signed the Texas secession petition and offered every possible assistance. We need to shed the neo-confederates and join the 1st World.

Meet Us at the Stick: Made the colonies sound like a bunch of spoiled ingrates.

Made the colonies sound like a bunch of red-state secessionists.

Wow, not even Texas is immune from hippie teachers.

There is so much one could write about this, but I will just leave it with this:

Are we SURE this isn't an Onion article?

TyrantII: 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.

And the American Revolution was treason.

duh

It's only terrorism if you lose.

Also, for goddamned sake, the Boston Tea Party was not about taxation, it was solely about representation in British Parliament. The damn colonials wanted to actually have the ability to block tariff reductions on East India Tea CO which were removed against their wishes, and started flooding Colonial ports. THAT's why they threw the stuff into the hahbah'

Yup. American was founded on protectionism, against free trade, and on wanting proper representation. Taxes? Not so much.

Yeah, taxes were the original dispute between the motherland and the colonies, but by the time the war rolled around, the only external tax in force was the one on tea, which was like the equivalent of ten cents.

The war was really about a power struggle between the local Colonial Assemblies and Parliament, with the assemblies claiming that the English Bill of Right required that Englishmen be governed by their representatives in Parliament, and since the colonies weren't represented in Parliament, Parliament had no authority over their internal laws and they were answerable to the king only. Parliament's argument was that entire cities and areas in Britain itself had no direct representation, and that Parliament "virtually represented" all British subjects, and was guaranteed by the English Constitution to be legislatively supreme to all other imperial assemblies.

Who was correct in this particular legal dispute is probably not something that can be objectively answered.

You could also probably point to the diverging economic interests of the American colonies and Great Britain as the fuel for that power-struggle, as the colonies thought they were burdened under mercantilist laws, such as their export trade being restricted to Great Britain, which both created an economic incentive for the colonies to split with Great Britain, and for the British Parliament to declare that if the colonies were allowed to gain a quasi-independence where they were connected only to the crown, they would quickly overthrow the trade laws and theoretically throw the British economy into chaos.

Also, the British prime minister at the time didn't necessarily intend at first to plunge headfirst into war with the colonies, he believed that actions like the Boston Tea Party were done by a small number of malcontents, and thought if Parliament got aggressive and showed it wasn't going to back down, those malcontents would give up. Instead, his Coercive Acts threw all 13 colonies into rebellion.

\likes history

Need_MindBleach: You could also probably point to the diverging economic interests of the American colonies and Great Britain

Are their figures for the the importance of the colonies to Great Britain as a percentage of GDP or some vital portion of the economy?

Did they really NEED us? Or was it a matter the need to impose authority.

\ Also likes history

mrshowrules: 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:\

Way, way too much time on your hands. Way, way too much mental effort given to this subject. get a life guys.

jaytkay: Need_MindBleach: You could also probably point to the diverging economic interests of the American colonies and Great Britain

Are their figures for the the importance of the colonies to Great Britain as a percentage of GDP or some vital portion of the economy?

Did they really NEED us? Or was it a matter the need to impose authority.

\ Also likes history

Actually, the sugar-producing Caribbean colonies were by far the most valuable colonies in the Americas, but their trade was looped through the 13 Colonies. The Caribbean colonies traded the really valuable cash crops back to Britain, the 13 colonies supplied the Caribbean colonies, and Britain exported manufactured goods to the populous North American colonies. (And of course, in the 1700s, there was also an additional link of trading forts in Africa supplying slaves to the Caribbean and Southern mainland.)

Something like 40% of Britain's trade was through their colonies at the time (I can't remember if the 40% figure was for the New World colonial trade or for all colonies, but I know India didn't overtake the sugar colonies in importance until later), so yes, overall, it was a big deal. Moreover, the British were worried about the Americans actually seizing their sugar colonies if they became independent.

Mercantilist economic theory also held that trade in areas not actually controlled by your country would either dry up, or put the country at an import/export disadvantage. Export to other countries=good, Import from other countries=bad. It's all very complicated.

Actually, technically the American Revolution was a civil war. There might have been treasonous acts, but the war itself was countrymen vs countrymen with the French lending aid because Britain was still their enemy. You could say revolution itself is treason, but every now and again, an unjust government which does not listen to its people's needs and wants deserves a revolution. It's only called treason by the loyalists who want to keep the government together.

Also, BTP was not an act of terrorism in their day (that was more like pirates and corsairs, and the indigenous tribes who sided with the patriots, the French, and the loyalists)) even though it might be called that today. Like another Farker said, history and context. Blanketing the acts of revolution as terrorist acts dismisses the very real complaints the colonists had that they were not represented in British Parliament (never mind that only landed white men counted >.> ). Different time, different context. Stop applying today's standards to historical events (which were as grey then as they are now; neither side was without some fault) or you end up looking quite ignorant.

history as defined by the current ruler.
history 101, Egypt and the rewriting of history, when the pharaoh dies...

When the French created the word "terrorist", they intended it to be a complement. "Those heroic terrorists, fighting against the monarchy", and what not. But this isn't terrorism, this is just a protest.

Relatively Obscure: What would people call it if a gang of Muslims ransacked an American ship in port and destroyed all of the cargo?

I think we can call them ( *drum roll ) The Barbary Pirates.

The main purpose of their attacks was to capture Christian slaves for the Islamic market in North Africa and the Middle East.[2]

Link

ignacio: When the French created the word "terrorist", they intended it to be a complement. "Those heroic terrorists, fighting against the monarchy", and what not. But this isn't terrorism, this is just a protest.

That is some alternative etymology right there.
Robespiere claimed that terror was necessary for the revolutionary government, but the words "terrorism" and "terrorist" were first used after the Dictateur Sanguine had been arrested and beheaded without trial as a traitor to describe his methods. It was not meant as a compliment.

JerkyMeat: I would like to create a ride similar to "It's a small world". It will show every language in the world, saying:

Fark Texas

Anthony Bourdain made a comment about how close minded he was to different segments of the U.S., while he's more than happy to accept differences in cultures from various countries. Something to think about.