News Boston Tea Party Activists Were Terrorists

[russ_watters]

I was quoting from Wikipedia, which itself did not include the entire statement. Here is the Wiki quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism#United_States_Code_.28U.S.C..29

"The US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism 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)."

It turns out that Wiki's reference to Section 0.85 is erroneous. Section 0.85 has nothing to do with terrorism.

As to my "overinterpretation", I fear that you must be more specific.

You originally said this: "the unlawful use of force and violence . . .to intimidate or coerce a government . . . in furtherance of political or social objectives."

The missing pieces speak to who the definition applies to. In other words, it's against the government or people or their property. It does not apply to military-on-military fighting, so such military actions don't qualify as terrorism. That disqualifies the Libyan rebels and George Washington from being terrorists for such actions.

Caveat: There may well be some Libyan rebels engaging in terrorism (I haven't heard of any, but it is possible), but by and large, they appear to be a fairly basic rebel force.

 

[russ_watters]

So, also using the definition for terrorism - doesn't that make union worker protests terrorism? Not working and destroying goods - both cost a company/government money and depending on who's striking, it could cost lives because of safety concerns if someone isn't doing their job in a critical position (air controller strike if the 80s?). What's the difference?

A basic strike/protest, no. There isn't necessarily a violent component to it. But I think you are probably aware that while there doesn't have to be, there often is. If a union protest becomes about physical intimidation, then it starts to inch toward the definition of terrorism.

Safety concerns...? Nothing resembling that in the definition of terrorism.

 

[mheslep]

Late to the game: where was the violence in the Boston Tea Party? They tossed some cargo. They did not blow themselves or others up, shoot up kids, etc.

 

[klimatos]

Late to the game: where was the violence in the Boston Tea Party? They tossed some cargo. They did not blow themselves or others up, shoot up kids, etc.

It is my understanding that they roughed up the ship's crew when the crew tried to stop them. In legal terms, however, violence does not necessarily involve hurting people.

 

[WhoWee]

It is my understanding that they roughed up the ship's crew when the crew tried to stop them. In legal terms, however, violence does not necessarily involve hurting people.

Do you believe "roughing up" could ever be the standard for "terrorist"?

 

[klimatos]

Do you believe "roughing up" could ever be the standard for "terrorist"?

No, I don't. But then, I didn't write the law. If you don't like our founding fathers being defined as "terrorists" under US law, then take it up with the inept legislators that came up with that legal language. To me the wording verges on legislative incompetence.

However, when I see what our legislators are doing today on the debt issue, incompetence seems too mild a word!

 

[mheslep]

I'm not concerned with the legal definition, but with the English definition. In today's context of violence used against states - 7/7, 9/11, Ft Hood, etc, the original Boston Tea Party members may have been criminals but not even remotely were they terrorists.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you believe "roughing up" could ever be the standard for "terrorist"?

Violence against people is not required by the accpeted definitions of terrorism. That's kinda the whole point of the thread...

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not concerned with the legal definition, but with the English definition.

Could you give us the definition you are using then? Mine says this:
"The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. " (dictionary.com)

I think their use of the word "and" is a little gramatically cumbersome, though - I think it should be "or" (as it is in the legal definition). Regardless, it requires either, but not necessarily both. So if terrorism requires only the threat of violence, then it doesn't require violence.[edit] further clarification: "violence" doesn't have to be against people either. Violence against property is still violence. Sabbotage and arson are violent acts.

M-W has a more generic definition, which implies the same thing: " the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

In today's context of violence used against states - 7/7, 9/11, Ft Hood, etc, the original Boston Tea Party members may have been criminals but not even remotely were they terrorists.

Who's context? According to the media, our President, and some of the liberals in this forum, Ft Hood wasn't terrorism either. I don't think it is useful to allow people who abuse definitions to corrupt the definitions we use.

The entire point of terrorism is terror. That's what distinguishes it from just being murder in the examples you gave. Obiously, it tends to be more effective if there is some murder associated with it (it makes the threats more tangeable), but it is not required. That's why eco-terrorism, which is mostly sabbotage, fits both the legal and dictionary definitions of terrorism. That's why cross burning is terrorism: http://calcoastnews.com/2011/07/cross-burning-suspects-plead-not-guilty/

 

[mheslep]

Could you give us the definition you are using then? Mine says this:
"The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. " (dictionary.com)
...

I don't think the tea dumping in Boston in anyway threatened, intimidated, or coerced the 18th century British crown even in part. Nor was it even intended to have such an effect by the actors. Nor was the slight violence to the crew coupled to the political act. The Boston Tea Party was an act of rebellion, a political symbolism of non-compliance. To my mind the event is thus entirely different from the terrorism we see today which does indeed meet the dictionary definition.

The entire point of terrorism is terror.

Agreed. No terror, no terrorism. And so ...

That's what distinguishes it from just being murder in the examples you gave. Obiously, it tends to be more effective if there is some murder associated with it (it makes the threats more tangeable), but it is not required. That's why eco-terrorism, which is mostly sabbotage, fits both the legal and dictionary definitions of terrorism. That's why cross burning is terrorism: http://calcoastnews.com/2011/07/cross-burning-suspects-plead-not-guilty/

Good disparate cases to help define the point. I agree that murder is not required, but the threat of murder or grievous harm is, else there's no terror. Cross burning is terrorism because it terrorizes by specifically threatening murder, and in a flagrant matter that implies the threat is beyond a law enforcement remedy. Eco terrorism to my mind is only terrorism when it resorts to tree spiking and the like that randomly threatens the lives of labor. The other criminal acts of breaking and entering here and there, destroying property and such 'terrorizes' nobody, and I would say is merely criminal.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think the tea dumping in Boston in anyway threatened, intimidated, or coerced the 18th century British crown even in part. Nor was it even intended to have such an effect by the actors. Nor was the slight violence to the crew coupled to the political act.

I'm completely confused - all of that sounds exactly opposite of what I think are the facts of the incident and its legacy. The British responded by clamping down with both physical and political force. Additional, similar unrest eventually coerced the British into reversing course. And it should be trivially obvious that the intent of the "tea party" was to coerce the British into repealing the "tea act" -- which they did.

These sorts of things seem to me to be exactly what the definitions of "terrorism" intend as a motive and [political] effect.

The Boston Tea Party was an act of rebellion, a political symbolism of non-compliance. To my mind the event is thus entirely different from the terrorism we see today which does indeed meet the dictionary definition.

I guess what you said above is intended to be an explanation of how it differs, but it sounds to me like you were describing similarities. I'm just not seeing the differences you see.

Agreed. No terror, no terrorism. And so ...

You don't think British government officials were terrified by the developments leading up to the Revolution, including the Tea Party? Really? How 'bout the governor, who'se house was ransacked during follow-on protests?

Good disparate cases to help define the point. I agree that murder is not required, but the threat of murder or grievous harm is, else there's no terror. Cross burning is terrorism because it terrorizes by specifically threatening murder, and in a flagrant matter that implies the threat is beyond a law enforcement remedy. Eco terrorism to my mind is only terrorism when it resorts to tree spiking and the like that randomly threatens the lives of labor. The other criminal acts of breaking and entering here and there, destroying property and such 'terrorizes' nobody, and I would say is merely criminal.

Well, that's where you and the definition differ...and me, frankly. If someone ransacked my property (purposely, my property) - much less, burned it down, I'm reasonably certain I'd be fearing for my life.

 

[mheslep]

I grant that there are all kinds of extenuating circumstances on behalf of both the actor and the victim that could change the definition, so I won't claim my interpretation is the One True Definition of Terror. That said,

I'm completely confused - all of that sounds exactly opposite of what I think are the facts of the incident and its legacy. The British responded by clamping down with both physical and political force.

Response to the act doesn't change my definition. The British did as any oppressor might. If I blatantly run a red light in front of Cop he's going to 'clamp down' on me, but it doesn't make my crime terrorism. Extenuating circumstance: I run the light nearly clipping a minivan w/ soccer mom and kids. Both the mom and the cop might accuse me or terrorizing ...

Additional, similar unrest eventually coerced the British into reversing course. And it should be trivially obvious that the intent of the "tea party" was to coerce the British into repealing the "tea act" -- which they did.

I'd say the British mindset was indignant and condescending in crafting a response, not coerced, given statements from Parliament and British newspaper opinion. I reserve the term 'coerced' for something else, say an imaginary American armada appearing on the Thames.

These sorts of things seem to me to be exactly what the definitions of "terrorism" intend as a motive and [political] effect. I guess what you said above is intended to be an explanation of how it differs, but it sounds to me like you were describing similarities. I'm just not seeing the differences you see.
You don't think British government officials were terrified by the developments leading up to the Revolution, including the Tea Party? Really?

Well for the developments taken together see my opening sentence. As to the Tea Party act itself, no.

How 'bout the governor, who'se house was ransacked during follow-on protests?

Different case, a personalized attack intended like a cross burning specifically to create fear via "we know where you live, we are not beyond making this personal, and we can act at will." And, if the ransacking was truly random, uncoordinated mob violence then intent becomes murky.

Well, that's where you and the definition differ...and me, frankly. If someone ransacked my property (purposely, my property) - much less, burned it down, I'm reasonably certain I'd be fearing for my life.

Well me too perhaps. But ransacking my office after hours, which has been the circumstance I think in some eco cases? Not so much. I'd be irate, not terrorized.

As for the British officials in the Americas at the time, no doubt the circumstances of many events taken collectively caused fear, or terror if you like, just as it would have for the loyalist colonists. Of course it would, because they were at threat of being caught behind enemy lines should war come, as it did. Is the threat of war to those who may be included in it also terrorism?