Was the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism?

Answer 1

The US State Department's official definition of terrorism is: "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, intended to influence an audience...

So, technically, by modern definition, the boston tea party WAS terrorism.

Answer 2

Contrary to some people's beliefs, the Boston Tea Party was merely an act of civil disobedience. It was not an act of terrorism.

Answer 3

No it was not. By definition, an act of "terrorism" is violence aimed at citizens or the state for purposes of inducing fear. The reason for inducing fear is to force the government into givng the terrorists what they desire, as a means of preventing more fear inducing violence.

Those who fomented the "Tea Party" were neither trying to intimidate the British government, nor any private citizens. Their act was designed to be a symbolic provocation to draw attention to what they deemed an unfair tax.

Others who've answered this question have erroneously identified the tea party as an act of "civil disobedience," which clearly it was not. Again, by definition, "civil disobedience" is non-violent non-cooperation. The tea party did constitute a violent demonstration, but because its intended effect was not to fill anyone with "terror," but rather to draw attention to what was perceived to be an unjust tax, it must be viewed as political violence, but by no means terrorism.

Answer 4

Thanks to being able to watch PBS (ha) about the Boston Tea Party----the entire thing was done in a respectful manner. They had dignity, and were willing to prove a point without resorting to violence.
There is no way it could be even close to terrorism....you'd be missing the entire history of why it happened....missing the point.....these two things-Boston Tea Party and terrorism---can't even be compared.

Answer 5

Boston tea party was meant to oppose the tax that was loaded on them. so it was not an act of terrorism.

Answer 6

I have to agree. It was the equivalent of an organised looting, a protest of the masses. If it were an act of terrorism, it would have had to be designed to elicit fear in someone. That apparently was neither the intent of the protesters nor the reaction of the government. Civil disobedience is perhaps the most applicable term.

Answer 7

It all depends on your point of view. It's been said that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I'm sure the Brits considered the revolutionaries to be terrorists--we hid behind trees, rocks, etc., and didn't fight like "normal" soldiers. And I know they didn't like the "patriots" who participated in the Boston Tea Party. One time my parents went to England. At a pub there, my mother commented on how great the tea was, and wondered why we didn't get it here. The waitress said, "Because the last time we sent it, you dumped it in the harbor!"

Answer 8

A rebellion or protest but not an act of terrorism.

Answer 9

No that is the American brand of liberalization. Still they are following the same policy. They do not allow other countries produced agricultural products but strongly advocate opening of the markets for their goods in other countries

Answer 10

it wasnt really an act of terrorism...
i'd say that it was an act of vandalism.
at most, to make a point in history