Weaver95: well, from the perspective of the British - yes, it probably WAS an act of 'terrorism'.
Mikey1969: Sorry, you're reaching.
ToxicMunkee: See? One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.
Relatively Obscure: What would people call it if a gang of Muslims ransacked an American ship in port and destroyed all of the cargo?
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.
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 viewHow 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
jaylectricity: but since the Boston Tea Party was against a government from another land the analogy doesn't quite hold true.
Meet Us at the Stick: 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.
SilentStrider: You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of viewCan't believe I'm the first to say that.
jigger: 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.
Guidette Frankentits: Better add The Boston Tea Party to the List Of People Conspiring Against The G.O.P. And Therefore America. (LOPCATGOPATA)
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.
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."
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.
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.)
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.
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.
log_jammin: Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
powhound: Darth Macho: Check out the 1776 version of Bill O'Reilly.LinkI won't listen to derp in English, why should I attempt to read derp in Old English, while heavily buzzed?/it was probably written by Bill O's great-great-grandaddy
dickfreckle: One thing I've noticed lately is that the "regular media" is now reporting using blogs as their source.
log_jammin: Since our original posting of this story, TheBlaze has received a flood of emails from educators and parents in Texas providing more information that will be included in our follow-up story next week. One teacher claimed that our report about the "Boston Tea Party being taught as terrorism" was incorrect and that the lesson is currently not on the CSCOPE website.
Somacandra: Meet Us at the Stick: 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.And that was cost a farkton of money for the British Empire. Primarily because it was actually a worldwide conflict with one of the theaters being in North America. Supply chain management especially along colonial boarders was dammed expensive. And Parliament had long claimed the right to represent all members of colonial Britain as well as metropolitan Britain.
Lansydyr: I think the dividing line between "FREEDOM FIGHTER" and "TERRORIST" is about 2 million dollars.The Boston Tea Party cost an estimated 1.7 million dollars in today's money. These brave patriots were clearly doing their civic duty to protest against unfair taxation.This RADICAL ECO-TERRORIST cost car dealerships a whole 2 million dollars in damage, at least. He's clearly evil and should be locked away for life.
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.
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.
Nat Turner laughs at your fauxrage shenanigans, "The Blaze."
Frederick: That terrorism is a matter of perspective is obvious to some -the others are neo-conservatives.
Dead for Tax Reasons: Aulus:John Brown was a terrorist.John browns body lies a-mouldering in the grave
Aulus: John Brown was a terrorist.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Aug 17 2017 16:32:46
Runtime: 0.466 sec (466 ms)