Texas Schools Teaching Boston Tea Party As Terrorist Act

Apparently a lesson on terrorism in Texas schools has labeled the Boston Tea Party as a terrorist act !!

And when some parents attempted to see the lessons being taught, they were denied.

This whole thing was approved somehow.

two sources...

HOUSTON (CBS Houston) – The most historical instance of protesting against taxation without representation is now being taught in Texas schools as a terrorist act.

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........................

Texas Schools Teaching Boston Tea Party As Terrorist Act

In less than a month (December 16th), we will mark the 239th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. This well-known protest against “taxation without representation” is almost universally recognized as the moment that sparked the American Revolution.

In many Texas public schools, the Boston Tea Party is now being taught as an example of an act of terrorism.

Here’s an excerpt from a Texas school system’s World History / Social Studies lesson plan. It purports to be helping teachers become more efficient, but many people are upset with the content of the lesson and the lack of parental review. In this specific instance, teachers are instructed to read the story to their classes as if it were a news report that had just happened within the past hour:

News report: New Act of Terrorism

A local militia, believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens today at our nation’s busiest port. Although no one was injured in the attack, a large quantity of merchandise, considered to be valuable to its owners and loathsome to the perpetrators, was destroyed. The terrorists, dressed in disguise and apparently intoxicated, were able to escape into the night with the help of local citizens who harbor these fugitives and conceal their identities from the authorities. 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.

Later in the curriculum, teachers are instructed to reveal to students that the event described above the historic Boston Tea Party.


Was The Boston Tea Party Terrorism? Texas Schools Are Teaching Just That (And More)

Re-Writing History ?

Who Benefits this time?

:shk:

If it helps the kids get a different perspective on terrorism than, 'those bad people.' I don't see a problem with it.

I'm sure had 'terrorism' been a moniker in that time it's exactly what the monarchy would have labelled us. Do you disagree?

reply to post by xuenchen


Well, technically it was. What's the big deal?

I like this.

The kids who share the same "leave me alone" attitude as the founders will no doubt have conflicts with being lumped into the "terrorist" camp.

So they'll learn that spending trillions to have robots bomb families on the other side of the globe is questionable.

They'll learn what adults, teachers and the US government really think of their beliefs.

Whatever the reason for acting if the other side is calling you a terrorist it means you're doing something right.

A key event in the over-throw of a government? How can it not be an act of terrorism from the perspective of the government and the mainstream media of the time. Which is what the aim of this lesson plan was meant to portray.

Laughable.

If the Occupy movement did something similar to America's busiest ports now, the same people decrying what's happened here with this lesson plan would be calling the Occupy movement terrorists and telling them 'America: love it or leave it'.

Ok, Background (11 headbutts Craig) I'm conservative, very conservative,

Now, Details (11 headbutts Craig again)

The Boston Tea Party was a covert, asymmetric, revolutionary action. But it was economic warfare, and didn't involve killing. So is it terroism? No, it wasn't conceived to induce terror.

Could an action that was covert, asymmetric and revolutionary be construed as terror that involved no casualties? Framed properly, a good salesman could do it.

Originally posted by xuenchen
Re-Writing History ?

I'm sorry but under the established government at the time to which those men who staged that seditious event were a part of...it WAS an act of terrorism.

People don't understand that terrorism is all about perspective. Terrorists by and large consider themselves freedom fighters to a specific cause not the villain in the school play. There isn't some guy in a cave wringing his curled mustache and snickering at his acts of pure evil because he loves doing bad things.

That's cartoonist nonsense. That's why a war against terrorism is a never ending one. There isn't some set number of 'bad guys' to kill, because anyone anywhere at any point in time who decides to fight any established government or nation through small scale attacks for whatever reason is considered a terrorist.

History is written by the winners.

Had the Boston Tea Party and the events afterwards that lead to the formation of this country been ineffective, we'd be reading about the founding fathers in an entirely different light.

They would be the Guy Fawkes' of American History.

- Lee

Originally posted by Snoil
Ok, Background (11 headbutts Craig) I'm conservative, very conservative,

Now, Details (11 headbutts Craig again)

The Boston Tea Party was a covert, asymmetric, revolutionary action. But it was economic warfare, and didn't involve killing. So is it terroism? No, it wasn't conceived to induce terror.

To be fair, the people who claimed to be Al Qaeda thought the best way to bring America to its knees was through economics and bankrupting America. Inside jobs aside, there's a reason the World Trade Centre was a target.

Similarly in siege mentalities and embargos &c can do as much damage in terms of morale, terror and so on as any amount of carpet-bombing or ground assault.

What I love about the Boston Tea Party story
is how brave and patriotic those men were.
Dressing up as Native Americans in case they were spotted.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by Snoil
Ok, Background (11 headbutts Craig) I'm conservative, very conservative,

Now, Details (11 headbutts Craig again)

The Boston Tea Party was a covert, asymmetric, revolutionary action. But it was economic warfare, and didn't involve killing. So is it terroism? No, it wasn't conceived to induce terror.

To be fair, the people who claimed to be Al Qaeda thought the best way to bring America to its knees was through economics and bankrupting America. Inside jobs aside, there's a reason the World Trade Centre was a target.

Similarly in siege mentalities and embargos &c can do as much damage in terms of morale, terror and so on as any amount of carpet-bombing or ground assault.

edit on 27-11-2012 by Merriman Weir because: .

WTC took 3k dead, 10 k injured, ergo terror, prime mission, induce fear in your enemy. I'm not sure the Tea Party qualifies and my reasons are: No attempt at inflicting any harm to even a single being. Disruptive but not injurious.

Terror means more than a protest that involves minimal property crime. Can actions that are terroristic not include economic warfare as well? More than a few incidents there methinks. I do understand where you're coming from but the Boston Tea Party falls under a different domain. No intent to harm anyone, and no harm to anyone done doesn't seem to me to be terroism. Obviously that changed shortly thereafter.

Originally posted by Snoil
The Boston Tea Party was a covert, asymmetric, revolutionary action. But it was economic warfare, and didn't involve killing. So is it terroism? No, it wasn't conceived to induce terror.

It was a revolutionary act to those involved and those that benefited from it.
It was an act of terror to the established government and under the very definition.

I think that is the complicated point the school is trying to make. It's trying to remove the students from a subjective point of view and force them to see certain issues in a more complex way.

It's a very difficult lesson to even try to get across to anyone.

Check this out:

"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.” -FBI.gov

You don't have to kill someone, or plan to kill someone, in order to commit a terrorist act.

It is all a matter of perspective, and just about any revolutionary act can be considered a terrorist one because they all fall under the definition. Certainly by the government they fought against.

Whether we like it or not this is true.

Now that isn't to say that some of those acts weren't done with nobler intentions, but any of those acts regardless of the reasons behind them, can fall under the definition of terrorism.

What the school is doing, and I am surprised that it is to be honest, is playing on the concept of terrorism as being subjective in order to challenge the students who like most people already have a preconceived notion/idea cemented in their minds regarding what a terrorist looks like and what their goals are.

Let's take Republican Peter King for example.
Here is a man that is a serious counter-terrorism advocate...but supports the IRA.

How is this possible?
He doesn't consider them terrorists.

Peter King, IRA supporter and enthusiastic counter-terrorism advocate

"The British government is a murder machine," King said. He described the IRA, which mastered the car bomb as an instrument of urban terror, as a "legitimate force." And he compared Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, the IRA's political wing, to George Washington.

But King sees no parallel between the IRA and violent Islamist extremism, which he describes as a foreign enemy or a foreign-directed enemy. His preferred comparison for the IRA is with the African National Congress led by Nelson Mandela; the IRA, no less than the ANC's military wing, was fighting for community rights and freedom, he says.

WashPost

These days terrorism is synonymous with some Muslim fundamentalist group from the middle-east blowing up civilian targets simply because they hate freedom.

The category is much more broad however.

Those men involved in the Boston Tea Party would say themselves that they were declaring their independence from tyrannical rule in order to establish a better way of life or fighting against a villainous force out to make all men slaves to a certain system, but guess what?

So do all the other terrorists.

- Lee

Originally posted by Snoil

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by Snoil
Ok, Background (11 headbutts Craig) I'm conservative, very conservative,

Now, Details (11 headbutts Craig again)

The Boston Tea Party was a covert, asymmetric, revolutionary action. But it was economic warfare, and didn't involve killing. So is it terroism? No, it wasn't conceived to induce terror.

To be fair, the people who claimed to be Al Qaeda thought the best way to bring America to its knees was through economics and bankrupting America. Inside jobs aside, there's a reason the World Trade Centre was a target.

Similarly in siege mentalities and embargos &c can do as much damage in terms of morale, terror and so on as any amount of carpet-bombing or ground assault.

edit on 27-11-2012 by Merriman Weir because: .

WTC took 3k dead, 10 k injured, ergo terror, prime mission, induce fear in your enemy. I'm not sure the Tea Party qualifies and my reasons are: No attempt at inflicting any harm to even a single being. Disruptive but not injurious.

Terror means more than a protest that involves minimal property crime. Can actions that are terroristic not include economic warfre as well? More than a few incidents there methinks. I do understand where you're coming from but the Boston Tea Party falls under a different domain. No intent to harm anyone, and no harm to anyone done doesn't seem to me to be terroism. Obviously that changed shortly thereafter.

edit on 27-11-2012 by Snoil because: typo

Eh? You were the one that started by saying the aim of the Tea Party was "economic warfare". I was pointing out the economic aims of Al Qaeda.

Originally posted by lee anoma

Originally posted by Snoil
The Boston Tea Party was a covert, asymmetric, revolutionary action. But it was economic warfare, and didn't involve killing. So is it terroism? No, it wasn't conceived to induce terror.

It was a revolutionary act to those involved and those that benefited from it.
It was an act of terror to the established government and under the very definition.

I think that is the complicated point the school is trying to make. It's trying to remove the students from a subjective point of view and force them to see certain issues in a more complex way.

It's a very difficult lesson to even try to get across to anyone.

Check this out:

"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.” -FBI.gov

You don't have to kill someone, or plan to kill someone, in order to commit a terrorist act.

It is all a matter of perspective, and just about any revolutionary act can be considered a terrorist one because they all fall under the definition. Certainly by the government they fought against.

Whether we like it or not this is true.

Now that isn't to say that some of those acts weren't done with nobler intentions, but any of those acts regardless of the reasons behind them, can fall under the definition of terrorism.

What the school is doing, and I am surprised that it is to be honest, is playing on the concept of terrorism as being subjective in order to challenge the students who like most people already have a preconceived notion/idea cemented in their minds regarding what a terrorist looks like and what their goals are.

Let's take Republican Peter King for example.
Here is a man that is a serious counter-terrorism advocate...but supports the IRA.

How is this possible?
He doesn't consider them terrorists.

Peter King, IRA supporter and enthusiastic counter-terrorism advocate

"The British government is a murder machine," King said. He described the IRA, which mastered the car bomb as an instrument of urban terror, as a "legitimate force." And he compared Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, the IRA's political wing, to George Washington.

But King sees no parallel between the IRA and violent Islamist extremism, which he describes as a foreign enemy or a foreign-directed enemy. His preferred comparison for the IRA is with the African National Congress led by Nelson Mandela; the IRA, no less than the ANC's military wing, was fighting for community rights and freedom, he says.

WashPost

These days terrorism is synonymous with some Muslim fundamentalist group from the middle-east blowing up civilian targets simply because they hate freedom.

The category is much more broad however.

Those men involved in the Boston Tea Party would say themselves that they were declaring their independence from tyrannical rule in order to establish a better way of life or fighting against a villainous force out to make all men slaves to a certain system, but guess what?

So do all the other terrorists.

- Lee

Your own words 'It's a matter of perspective'. I don't think I said anything to imply the Tea Party could not be seen that way - what I did was give reasons why I didn't.

If one wants to denote all asymmetric warfare as terroism, I can disagree and still understand the other side of the coin.

Originally posted by Snoil

Your own words 'It's a matter of perspective'. I don't think I said anything to imply the Tea Party could not be seen that way - what I did was give reasons why I didn't.

Oh yes absolutely.

I wasn't trying to attack your position I was just expanding upon mine in relationship to what you said about no one being killed.

Terrorism can be subjective, but if certain acts fall under the definition of terrorism they can be placed within it.

The Boston Tea Party falls under the definition of terrorism but you are of course free to consider it something else entirely.

- Lee

Terrorism is defined as: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
Terror is defined as: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.

To stretch the acts of the Boston Tea Party, I suppose we can conclude that it was aimed at intimidating the government of the time. The issue I have here is the broadening of the term terrorism. By redefining its scope, this lesson plan creates a wide berth of understanding that terrorism is any act that is perpetrated.

By the lesson taught here, it readies the populace to be willing to place the terrorism title around any group's neck when they commit violence of any sort.

This isn't to say that we should have a sugar coated lesson about the events leading up to the American Revolution, but we are viewing them from our nationalistic viewpoint. The same about events such as the Boston Massacre, an event that many American's probably see as an act of aggression by British troops; though hardly the case and even our staunch John Adams stood up and defended the British in court to prove it otherwise.

In the end, the act was definitely a crime, organized even, but terror? I suppose if they burned the ships and then sent out pamphlets demanding the British drop the various taxes imposed, I would see it as a terrorist act.

Rewriting history is a bad idea. Unfortunately this story is nothing compared to a huge part of our history that has been rewritten or omitted from our education system. Everyone deserves to know the truth so it can be learned from. In no way should The Boston Tea party be deemed terrorism whether it fits the technical definition or not. This is yet another case of indoctrination instead of education and will send America down the road to slavery.

it's really simple folks, anyone who apposes someone else point of view, is a terrorist. at least we're all in this together for a change.

So let's get this straight:

Dumping tea in the Boston harbor is the same thing as someone strapping a suicide vest on or driving a truck in to buildings,flying planes in to buildings, and using women and children as human sheilds.


Well Gosh damn glad they set me straight can't believe how wrong I have been,

Here is a question though. The path that the States wanted to take was a complete one-eighty from the thought that governments were ordained by God and Kings are without reproach the chosen leaders of Men. To shake those shackles, drastic measures were taken of course, to institute a nation where Government was solely the construct of the People.

So to commit an act, such as those done during the Tea Party, do we consider them an act of terrorism? What if the area in which it were committed never saw it as much other than an act of defiance?

The point the OP brings up is valid to discuss, but to have it as a lesson plan, I think the school board is jumping the gun here and sounds more what a professor hidden away in the depths of academia would derive.

Its the transcript of a newspaper article about the event. How does the saying go, one mans freedom fighter...

It depends on your point of view, from the point of view of the crown they were terrorists and all of America are traitors to the crown. Just like whoever wins gets to hold trials against war criminals.