Educators in Texas Teach Children Boston Tea Party was an Act of Terrorism

[donnay]

Educators in Texas Teach Children Boston Tea Party was an Act of Terrorism

Infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com/educators-in-texas-teach-children-boston-tea-party-was-an-act-of-terrorism/)
November 24, 2012

Believe it or not, the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative is teaching impressionable minds that the Boston Tea Party was an 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,” the curriculum states. “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.”

[PursuePeace]

It sounds like it was just a lesson on propaganda.

[Vanilluxe]

Technically it is terrorism, but Americans say otherwise.

[Smart3]

It was by definition Terrorism.

[MelissaWV]

Yeah I don't see the issue, actually. Hopefully it makes at least one of them think about the fact that terrorism is often rewritten as heroism by the winners. I actually find more problem with the idea that England was an "occupying nation" at the time.

[Occam's Banana]

I shall tell you of the Boston Tea Party. Government schools will say I am a liar, but history is written by those who have hanged heroes ...

[John F Kennedy III]

Looks like they wrote it to make it appear as real quotes from the day it happened.

[donnay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oP1Ke70Mi8

[RockEnds]

Terrorism is an overused term.

[MelissaWV]

Terrorism is an overused term.

Yet it does actually have a definition.

[AuH20]

error

[AuH20]

Austin and Houston are quickly becoming hotbeds for this junk.

[RockEnds]

Yet it does actually have a definition.

It has many definitions and through the years, it has had even more. They intended no physical harm upon anyone, and the tea was dumped in the harbor quietly at night. Criminal trespass? Okay. Terrorism? Not a chance.

[MelissaWV]

It has many definitions and through the years, it has had even more. They intended no physical harm upon anyone, and the tea was dumped in the harbor quietly at night. Criminal trespass? Okay. Terrorism? Not a chance.

You don't need to actually cause or intend physical harm to hang the threat of harm (economic or otherwise) over someone's head. The OP was written in the form of a "press release" at the time, though even that would be inaccurate in several respects. I would think that, at the time, there was fear of a repeat performance. I do think that the people doing it felt they were sending a threat and a signal (in fact, the threats were made before the actual dumping of the tea).

I suppose it does depend on who you ask. There were actually people/groups at the time denouncing tea partiers as traitors and much more colorful things. I think it's actually important to learn that. Time has changed all of that, of course.

[Kodaddy]

It was more like vandalism, with a side of hooliganism and a dash of shenanigans...

[RockEnds]

You don't need to actually cause or intend physical harm to hang the threat of harm (economic or otherwise) over someone's head. The OP was written in the form of a "press release" at the time, though even that would be inaccurate in several respects. I would think that, at the time, there was fear of a repeat performance. I do think that the people doing it felt they were sending a threat and a signal (in fact, the threats were made before the actual dumping of the tea).

I suppose it does depend on who you ask. There were actually people/groups at the time denouncing tea partiers as traitors and much more colorful things. I think it's actually important to learn that. Time has changed all of that, of course.

Sorry, but I think we'll have to disagree on the definition of terrorism. It's my opinion that today the word has been twisted to suit the government, and this is an example of that very thing. It is my understanding that during colonial times, terrorism was a word generally applied the actions of tyrannical governments. This was not written as a press release in colonial times. This was written as a press release of an event in colonial times using the language currently in place in America today.

[RockEnds]

Oops. Apparently the word wasn't invented yet in colonial times:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=terrorism

[MelissaWV]

Sorry, but I think we'll have to disagree on the definition of terrorism. It's my opinion that today the word has been twisted to suit the government, and this is an example of that very thing. It is my understanding that during colonial times, terrorism was a word generally applied the actions of tyrannical governments. This was not written as a press release in colonial times. This was written as a press release of an event in colonial times using the language currently in place in America today.

You might want to go back and read the posters of the time condemning the action.

[MelissaWV]

Oops. Apparently the word wasn't invented yet in colonial times:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=terrorism

And the letter "S" wasn't invented. Your point? lol

[RockEnds]

You might want to go back and read the posters of the time condemning the action.

I'm not trying to say that everyone was in favor of the action. I'm simply saying that the press in colonial times did not write in the manner used by the curriculum. Their style was generally far more eloquent.

[RockEnds]

And the letter "S" wasn't invented. Your point? lol

So what did they call the States?

[MelissaWV]

North justified the harsh measure by asserting that Boston was "the ringleader in every riot, and set always the example which others followed." He believed severe punishment of this rebellious town would strike terror throughout the colonies, and so bring the Americans into subjection to the crown. Many of his supporters in the House used very violent language, calling the Bostonians "mobocrats," and "vile incendiaries;" men who were "never actuated by reason, but chose tarring and feathering as an argument."

Sorry. Perhaps the history lesson should have used "mobocrats."

[MelissaWV]

I'm not trying to say that everyone was in favor of the action. I'm simply saying that the press in colonial times did not write in the manner used by the curriculum. Their style was generally far more eloquent.

The Bible is translated a thousand times over as well. I've already stated I wish they'd just made use of the posters and information available from that time period, but given that a lot of school-aged children have problems with basic reading these days, I think they would have trouble with:
http://www.freedomdogs.com/images/fd/ChiefGraphics/bostonteapartyjoycenotice.jpg
Brethren, and fellow citizens!

You may depend, that those odious Miscreats and detestable Tools to Ministry and Governnor, the Tea Consignees (those Traitors to their Country, Butchers, who have done, and are doing every Thing to Murder and destroy all that shall stand in the Way of their private Interest,) are determined to come and reside again in the Town of Boston.

I therefore give you this early Notice, that you may hold yourselves in Readiness, of the shortest Notice, to give them such a Reception, as such vile Ingrates deserve.

-Chairmain of the Committee for Tarring and Feathering.

[donnay]

According to the 1913 definition of terrorist, I would say the IRS, BATFE, TSA and much of the police around the country are terrorists.

Webster's 1913 Dictionary

Ter´ror`ist
n. 1. One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; specifically, an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
2. One who commits terrorism{2}.

Webster's 1913 Dictionary

Ter´ror`ism
n. 1. The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation.
2. The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals.

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Terrorist

[RockEnds]

Sorry. Perhaps the history lesson should have used "mobocrats."

Yeah, that sounds about right. And who was out to strike terror there?

[MelissaWV]

Yeah, that sounds about right. And who was out to strike terror there?

Terror to counter terror, of course. It's not new that actions amplify until the leadership finds a new way to entertain itself :( Honestly, there are a few good lessons there, but I doubt they're being taught.

[RockEnds]

Terror to counter terror, of course. It's not new that actions amplify until the leadership finds a new way to entertain itself :( Honestly, there are a few good lessons there, but I doubt they're being taught.

And that's part of the problem. The other part of the problem is that the textbook company is using modern language to turn the foundation of our nation into an act of "terrorism" against which we are at war. It's not a term that would have been used then. It's a term that is in use now, and we are actively engaged in a "War on Terror".

I've no problem whatsoever with studying the Revolution for what it was. I do have a problem with the spin.

[Victor Grey]

To me all a terrorist is, is simply someone with less guns than the government they're fighting against.
The argument that terrorism is a unique form of coercion is weak. You cannot conflate what is the same thing.

To say government isn't coercive is childish. Coercion and fear, is what sustains any government's existence. That is the point of why they exercise the use of power. That is the point of why any entity exercises use of power.

Modern governments may try to mask that, with creating more accurate bombs to sate enough hearts, or by making out terrorists as being worst alternatives, or even by rotating an insignificantly smaller group of rulers through the "democratic process" to give it more validity.

It doesn't change anything. The tactics of a terrorist and a government are the same. The use of force.

Force and intimidation is what sustains government, terrorism, and even freedom itself.

Ultimately, when things oppose each other, somebody's getting intimidated. There's no escaping it.

[thoughtomator]

Yet it does actually have a definition.

"Terrorism" has no definition that can be both usefully and objectively applied to the real world, which is why it can be used to label the Boston Tea Party, or any military age male in a strike zone, or Julian Assange, with equal ease.

What the word "terrorism" means more than anything is that the person using it (for any purpose other than explaining why it is pointlessly vague) is not rational.

[brushfire]

Meh... war is peace... freedom is slavery... I'll close down GITMO my first day in office. yadda yadda


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnawcRZQN_Q

[nobody's_hero]

It sounds like it was just a lesson on propaganda.

Yeah. It's more like satire.

But, what age group are they teaching this to? I don't think 'kids' are going to get it.

[tod evans]

If you or I seized control of a few million rounds of DHS ammo and dumped them in the harbor you can bet your ass we'd be labeled and tried as "terrorists"...

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

So, We must ask ourselves, What is the dictionary definition of "Terrorism"?
The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.


But what is terror?

According to the dictionary I hold in my hand, Terror, is violent or destructive acts
Such as bombing committed by groups in order to intimidate a population,
Or government into granting their demands

So what's a terrorist?

[Hook:]
They're calling me a terrorist
Like they don't know who the terror is
When they put it on me, I tell them this
I'm all about peace and love
They calling me a terrorist
Like they don't know who the terror is
Insulting my intelligence
Oh how these people judge...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmBnvajSfWU#t=0m16s

[Athan]

Looks like they wrote it to make it appear as real quotes from the day it happened.
I agree. Like compare history with how it would sound in today's paper. We need more information.

[Lucille]

I saw that yesterday on ZH (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-26/guest-post-texas-schools-teaching-boston-tea-party-terrorist-act). I guess the stopped it in '10, but it was up on the website long after.


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.
[...]
The controversial TESCCC lesson is a product of CSCOPE, a well known non-profit whose media centers that help teach the curriculum received $25 million in funding last year, according to TheBlaze. Supporters of the program indicate that the lesson hadn’t been taught in Texas schools since August 2010, but the lesson plan remained on CSCOPE’s website until at least January of this year.

The news of the curriculum in some Texas schools comes about a month shy of the 239th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

Commenter (http://houston.cbslocal.com/2012/11/23/texas-schools-teaching-boston-tea-party-as-terrorist-act/): Avaritia • 2 days ago −
LOL! That's a good one. However, that also means that they're now designating the Teabaggers as a terrorist group. And that's progress by any standard.

The leftists will be positively giddy when the times comes to load Constitutionalists on the trains.