so...

[rone]

Was the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism?

Comments

[flummox.livejournal.com]

Um, where was the fear felt after that revolutionary event?

[omarius.livejournal.com]

I'm sure someone, somewhere had an atrocious caffiene-withdrawal headache as a direct result. Who doesn't fear that? (Among tea drinkers, at least.)

[huaman.livejournal.com]

And everybody knows it's the British who are tea drinkers...

[mdyesowitch.livejournal.com]

I think no because it was consumable goods and no one was injured.
-m

[tronpublic.livejournal.com]

If someone bombs an oil pipeline (in a deserted, non-environmentally protected area), is it terrorism?

[mdyesowitch.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I would have called an oil pipeline consumable. If they diverted the flow of the pipeline through non-destructive means into the sea, I would say that was vandalism, and possibly environmentally hazardous, but I'm still not convinced it would be terrorism.
-m

[lots42.livejournal.com]

No, because they threw tea into the ocean, not people.

[huaman.livejournal.com]

Terrorism, as I've always understood it, does not have to injure people directly to be terrorism. What it has to do to qualify is affect the civilian population, whether by destroying infrastructure, killing people, whatever, as a means to convey your message to the authority.

Where a guerrilla action is against military targets with intent to render the mechanism of authority itself inoperative, a terrorist action is intended to cause the populace to be disrupted... to prey on authority's presumed need to protect its populace.

[wisn.livejournal.com]

If I was a tea importer or a government official in charge of import revenue, I'd be very afraid. So I vote yes.

[schwa242.livejournal.com]

No, more of a fraternity prank, only the kind that doesn't involve prisoner abuse.

-- Schwa ---

although....

[lara7.livejournal.com]

no, although they did dress like Indians, predicting that whole racial profiling thing..

Re: although....

[huaman.livejournal.com]

Heh. IIRC, the rationale there was to hide identities, because it was definitely an act of treason... not to try to make anybody actually think it was native unrest (in Boston Harbor in 1773? woulda been a neat trick!) The most salient point I remember from childhood reading about it was extensive efforts to make sure the tea was all destroyed, not stolen...

[huaman.livejournal.com]

That's a tough one in some respects. I suppose some of it depends on whether you view the East India Company as a civilian concern, or an agency of the legitimate British government. Now this is all off the top of my head so I may have remembered a few things wrong, but being of proud Boston heritage, it was a subject I learned a lot about as a kid.

Thing 1: the East India Company was having financial trouble, and to help it out, British Parliament granted them a special deal to transport some major assload of tea, 3 ships' worth, something on the order of a half-million tons of tea or something like that, like a year's supply of tea for the colonies, to the colonies duty-free. This was in late 1773 I think, after more than a decade worth of constantly increasing taxes, tarifs, and duties being imposed on trade in the colonies, on imported staples (coffee, tea, sugar), certain types of activities (printing -- whether newspapers, books, playing cards, anything that called for printing), and manufactured goods, even if manufactured in the colonies... basically, Parliament's action in granting the East India Company the tax break was going to allow them to get back on their financial feet, at the expense of colonial businesses who'd be undersold because they had to recover the costs of the duty on tea. It categorically would have put colonials out of business.

As I recall the story, the 3 ships arrived, and were initially detained while customs agents -- who worked for the governor, who reported to Britain -- said that it could not be unloaded until the whole situation with respect to the duty was worked out. The citizens of Suffolk County were vociferously telling the governor that the only way they'd stand to see it worked out was if the East India Company's ships turned around and took the tea elsewhere. The governor stalled for weeks, during which time, the Sons of Liberty started meeting to decide what should be done about it, eventually taking the action that they did, disguised as Mohawks I think it was supposed to be.

Terrorism per se wasn't a definition that existed then, really. What the act definitely was, though, was high treason. Prior to that act, as I have understood it, the "official" debate was on whether or not duty would be collected on the shipment, with only the revolutionaries -- who, remember, were not the sum total of all Bostonians, or colonials! -- arguing for the more extreme measures and saying Britain shouldn't have the right to collect those duties, tarifs, and taxes in the first place.

I'm not sure it qualifies as a terrorist act in the way that we think of such things now, because a) the East India Company was chartered by the crown of England and so not, really, a civilian interest, even though some ship operators were private enterprise under the aegis of the EIC; b) the event occurred after initial attempts to manage the situation through appropriate means, by having the citizens tell the governor, no dice, send 'em back, and c) the goal was not to mess with the populace, but specifically, to send a message to Britain that the colonies would not stand for having the government give special treatment to its favoured trading arm, at the expense of the colonial interests which were, themselves, other financially-based ventures belonging to Britain.

On the other hand, it definitely did cause civil disruption. So if it's a terrorist act to, say, sabotage a government-owned power plant... then in that light, it would count. So it also depends on how you define terrorism. All in all, my feeling about it is that the Boston Tea Party is more like a national strike type of event than a terrorist event. Instead of saying "We'll totally fuck with the civilians and infrastructure until you see things our way," the Boston Tea Party said, "We will fuck with government-sanctioned dealings we consider unfair, until that is fixed."

[huaman.livejournal.com]

To clarify maybe... general strikes in Ecuador in 1982 and 1983 (when I lived there): terrorist actions, or not? Thinking back, I honestly don't recall whether or not Hurtado classified that, and the FUT activity, as terrorism. OTOH, going nextdoor to Peru, nobody at all was arguing about whether or not Sendero Luminoso was engaging in terrorism.

Yes

[skipernicus.livejournal.com]

Yes it was.

No one said - hey, tea in the harbor! What a bunch of goofy patriots! The big idea was to upset the king. And I'm sure this action frightened many people, not the least of which - the merchants who carried that tea to America.

[whipartist.livejournal.com]

no, it was civil disobedience. the target was property rather than human life, and there was no implied threat to human life or health.

[eviltofu.livejournal.com]

Act of pollution?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_nicolai_/]

No. It induced no terror (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terror) ("Intense, overpowering fear") in people. Vandalism, theft, destruction of property, treason (perhaps), yes. Terrorism, no.

Terrorism isn't about destroying stuff. It's about scaring people. It may involve destroying stuff.

IF

[skipernicus.livejournal.com]

Terror requires fear, the GWB is a huge terrorist.

And what's your alert status today? Mine is Puice.