Texas schools teach Boston Tea Party as act of terrorism

[baldeagle]

No other nation on earth was founded by free men seeking to form a government that honored the rights of every individual regardless of their background, their station in life or their political persuasion.

France.

Yes, France comes close. But their legal system takes them down a notch. Even though their bill of rights says you are innocent until proven guilty, their legal system does just the opposite. They also don't have a bill of rights that protects speech and religion and the ownership of guns. For example, the freedom of speech is subject to such abuses as are defined by law. That's no freedom at all. Freedoms cannot be circumscribed by laws. Even if the people allow the legislature to pass such laws, they are null and void, and a free citizen is not required to obey them. Only by force can the state enforce the loss of rights. That is what makes the American system stand apart from the rest. All other systems subjugate the rights of the citizens to the law.

You mean like free speech zones?

The American system didn't do that. An out of control government aided by a citizenry asleep at the switch did that. If the American system was functioning as designed (and it hasn't for almost 200 years), free speech zones would not exist. Nor would a lot of the other restrictions placed upon free men.

[Heartland Patriot]

You know what that disgusting smell is? The one that is all sickly sweet and nauseating? It clings to you and you can't hardly get the smell out, no matter how hard you try and wash it away? Its the decaying smell of MORAL RELATIVISM, the idea that all viewpoints are equally valid, that one person's rebellion is another's terrorist act...because moral relativism does not take INTENT into account, in fact it REFUSES to take intent into account...and its a foundational item for the political left...and they LOVE it.

Is this what you are referring to? Yep, that's pretty bad stuff, alright. It's my way or the highway, right?

I'm not sure how you took what I said as having anything to do with what you said...my comment was not quoting anyone, including you. I made a statement about the political left in regards to the original posting. And I do believe that if you don't stand for something, then are basically standing for nothing.

[VMI77]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/26/texas ... terrorism/

A lesson plan in schools across Texas depicts the Boston Tea Party, the historical protest against taxation without representation and a seminal event leading up to the American Revolutionary War, as an act of terrorism.

The lesson plan, designed for world history and social studies classes, remained available to teachers as recently as January of 2012, CBS Houston reports, and was promoted by the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative.

.....and this was taught in Texas, where the independent spirit is alleged to survive. This is the first I've heard of this. Forgive me if it has been previously discussed. I saw the headline on Drudge Report earlier today. The children who are currently growing up to be voters, were exposed to this kind of hard leftist tripe not too long ago. Some may be still so exposed. And even where this curriculum has been dropped, what has a group as insidious as this one replaced it with? Am I the only one who thinks that TESCCC bears much closer examination? They received $25 million in state funding last year alone. THAT gives John Q. Public the absolute right to know what these creeps are doing.

Seriously folks, if a vipers nest like this isn't brought to the light of day and stamped out, then Texas is only a decade away from becoming California. My son is grown up and done with school. Like I said, I had no idea that this stuff was going on. How many of you who have kids in school right now are 100% aware of whether or not your kids are being spoon fed this kind of revisionist crap?

These days I wouldn't expect them to teach it any other way, because we're all terrorists now, aren't we? You advocate Constitutional government? You're a terrorist. You have more than seven days of food on hand? You're a terrorist. You own guns, and talk about your 2nd Amendment rights? You're a terrorist. You have bumper stickers touting non-socialist political candidates? You're a terrorist. It sort of makes some perverse sense too....after all, we don't have a Constitutional government, so if someone is advocating a Constitutional government they are essentially advocating an overthrow of the current government --at least from the perspective of someone currently in power and benefiting from the current government. The biggest enemy of the US government now isn't a few thousand members of Al Qaeda, but all those millions of Americans who believe that the Federal Government should obey the law.

[jimlongley]

So we can possibly add minor assault to the some in the demonstration......still not terrorism.......Terrorism is meant to install fear into a large section of the populace, it is meant to demoralize a people, as I understand it the Boston tea party was meant to tell Britain we would not be taxed willy nilly, specifically on tea.

So " . . . no one got hurt . . ." morphs into "It's okay if someone got hurt." but it's still OK? Sorry, doesn't wash, if your original statement that no one got hurt, which was wrong, was meant to indicate that it couldn't be defined as an act of terrorism, then the fact that someone did get hurt makes it terrorism, as it puts people in fear of physical harm. Add to that the economic "hurt" and it becomes even more so. And if telling Britain that the tax was unacceptable by assaulting ship's crews and destroying property isn't, by telling Britain and a large portion of the colonies' population that you were willing to resort to violence, instilling fear into a large section of the populace, I can't imagine what is.

[Oldgringo]

So we can possibly add minor assault to the some in the demonstration......still not terrorism.......Terrorism is meant to install fear into a large section of the populace, it is meant to demoralize a people, as I understand it the Boston tea party was meant to tell Britain we would not be taxed willy nilly, specifically on tea.

So " . . . no one got hurt . . ." morphs into "It's okay if someone got hurt." but it's still OK? Sorry, doesn't wash, if your original statement that no one got hurt, which was wrong, was meant to indicate that it couldn't be defined as an act of terrorism, then the fact that someone did get hurt makes it terrorism, as it puts people in fear of physical harm. Add to that the economic "hurt" and it becomes even more so. And if telling Britain that the tax was unacceptable by assaulting ship's crews and destroying property isn't, by telling Britain and a large portion of the colonies' population that you were willing to resort to violence, instilling fear into a large section of the populace, I can't imagine what is.

Quite right, Jim. Check it out:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tallmike]

The American system didn't do that. An out of control government aided by a citizenry asleep at the switch did that. If the American system was functioning as designed (and it hasn't for almost 200 years), free speech zones would not exist. Nor would a lot of the other restrictions placed upon free men.

I would bet you could find someone in France saying something similar about the way their country is currently being run.

The fact is, the way our nation is being run is "the American system" because it is the system that we - Americans - are using.

[tallmike]

@ Baldeagle: "...no other founding fathers but ours". Really? Who started all of the other countries and religions of the world, eh?

It would help if you could actually name one.

Look here for a few.

I don't think either Jesus or Mohammed are on the above list but they would certainly qualify as founding fathers, don't you think?

Neither Jesus nor Mohammed ever founded a free nation, and no, I don't think anyone on that list qualifies.

Nobody on that list qualifies? Really? Ireland? France? India? Brave people in many other nations have risen up to fight for their independence too, very often from the same folks we fought with.

[The Annoyed Man]

So we can possibly add minor assault to the some in the demonstration......still not terrorism.......Terrorism is meant to install fear into a large section of the populace, it is meant to demoralize a people, as I understand it the Boston tea party was meant to tell Britain we would not be taxed willy nilly, specifically on tea.

So " . . . no one got hurt . . ." morphs into "It's okay if someone got hurt." but it's still OK? Sorry, doesn't wash, if your original statement that no one got hurt, which was wrong, was meant to indicate that it couldn't be defined as an act of terrorism, then the fact that someone did get hurt makes it terrorism, as it puts people in fear of physical harm. Add to that the economic "hurt" and it becomes even more so. And if telling Britain that the tax was unacceptable by assaulting ship's crews and destroying property isn't, by telling Britain and a large portion of the colonies' population that you were willing to resort to violence, instilling fear into a large section of the populace, I can't imagine what is.

Jim, I'm having trouble tracking here.........are you saying that the Boston Tea Party was illegitimate because somebody got hurt? If that's the case, then were the patriots at Concord and Lexington also acting without moral authority? After all, they killed British soldiers in their protest.

We have a dilema here........Few would argue (at least here in America) that the Revolution was a bad thing. Granted, a peaceful granting of independence would have probably been better, but there was a recalcitrant party to this whole shebang, and that was King George—so a peaceful granting of independence was not a realistic possibility. Thus, the colonists were faced with two difficult alternatives: 1) remain colonies; or 2) fight for independence. As it happens, my own ancestors on my father's side were tories, and post revolution they fled to Canada because of the rough treatment tories received at the hands of patriots immediately after the revolution. But I don't blame the patriots for the hard feelings. Perhaps they should have been more willing to reconcile....but I digress. Be that as it may, the fact is that without violence, there would be no revolution, and without revolution, there would be no independence, and without independence, there would be no USA for us to fret over its political health. It is equally a fact that otherwise decent people suffered at the hands of patriots because they did not share the same fervor for independence.......or, they were genuinely against the idea. But, at what point does a person of that era stop being a terrorist, and at what point does he become a patriot? Moral relativism is just plain dumb because it makes the case that nothing is worth dying for, and certainly nothing is worth hurting someone else for.

There is certainly a time for peaceful civil disobedience, but Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's pacifism is not the ONLY thing that brought about Indian independence. It did not happen in a vacuum. It also took a fair amount of riotous rage and violence on the part of Joe Hindu against the brutality of British oppression to make it happen.

The problem with trying to define "terrorism" is that of legitimacy. When an illegitimate government is attacked by enraged citizens, that is patriotism. When a legitimate government is attacked by enraged citizens, that is terrorism. Governments earn their legitimacy. Our nation's founders jumped through many hoops to seek peaceful resolution to their complaints through legal channels before they resorted to violence as a final measure. So whether or not they are terrorists or patriots in your eyes or mine depends really on whether or not you think their complaints were legitimate or illegitimate.

Just consider that, without those people and that violence, there IS NO U.S.

Now, are they terrorists, or patriots? To NOT know that answer is to be subject to all of the Rawlsian falsehoods used to promote and sustain progressivism: Justice as Fairness, The original position, Reflective equilibrium, Overlapping consensus, Public reason, Veil of ignorance, and Political constructivism (could not find a link for this one). In any case, these progressive principles are all false constructs which overlook THE MAIN THING—that the people involved in such actions are not amoebas swimming around in a petrie dish. They are real live human beings, facing real live persecutions, and make real live hard decisions to rebel against those persecutions. In John Rawls's moral equivalence world of unrealistic philosophical constructs, we are not allowed to know the history leading up to the acts; we are not allowed to know the moral depravity of General Burgoyne toward the colonists; we are not allowed to know about the larger picture of unjust taxation; we are not allowed to know the eventual outcome of the Revolution; we are not allowed to know ANY of the context; etc., etc., etc. Under the Rawlsian principle of "Veil of Ignorance," we can ONLY consider the actions themselves, and whether or not they are acceptable........and by the way, who gets to decide what's "acceptable?"

Well, of course, in the progressive viewpoint, and under this false construct in which amoebas theoretically threw some tea into a theoretical harbor, in absence of any of the context, those amoebas are terrorists. But in the REAL world, where actual human beings of flesh and bone reside, who are subject to all the natural laws—INCLUDING THOSE WHICH IMBUE THEM WITH NATURAL RIGHTS—they are patriots.

That is why I am baffled by people who fall for the relativistic argument. For their arguments to make sense, the real world and the people in it must necessarily be reduced to amoebas in a petrie dish and judged from behind Rawls's Veil of Ignorance.................and frankly, with as much as we know to be fact about our history, to impose a philosophical veil of ignorance on the process is simply inexcusable.

But what do I know?

[Abraham]

Semantics or common sense - which one will/should prevail?

The liberal argument regarding American history generally paints patriots as terrorists.

Conservatives see it oppositely.

Simple.

[jimlongley]

So we can possibly add minor assault to the some in the demonstration......still not terrorism.......Terrorism is meant to install fear into a large section of the populace, it is meant to demoralize a people, as I understand it the Boston tea party was meant to tell Britain we would not be taxed willy nilly, specifically on tea.

So " . . . no one got hurt . . ." morphs into "It's okay if someone got hurt." but it's still OK? Sorry, doesn't wash, if your original statement that no one got hurt, which was wrong, was meant to indicate that it couldn't be defined as an act of terrorism, then the fact that someone did get hurt makes it terrorism, as it puts people in fear of physical harm. Add to that the economic "hurt" and it becomes even more so. And if telling Britain that the tax was unacceptable by assaulting ship's crews and destroying property isn't, by telling Britain and a large portion of the colonies' population that you were willing to resort to violence, instilling fear into a large section of the populace, I can't imagine what is.

Jim, I'm having trouble tracking here.........are you saying that the Boston Tea Party was illegitimate because somebody got hurt? If that's the case, then were the patriots at Concord and Lexington also acting without moral authority? After all, they killed British soldiers in their protest.

No, my argument is more with mama's terminology and what appears to me to be her errant thought process. Initially she stated that no one got hurt, therefore it could not be considered terrorism, and then it was more like "so what if some minor injuries occurred, it was still not terrorism. The "moral authority" is granted to themselves by the winners.

Sorry, just don't see it that way. It may well have been terrorism, but it was also the beginning of the actual rebellion, and there was terrorism on both sides in that conflict.

I never said or even implied that the Tea Party was illegitimate because someone got hurt, my protest is that ANY act that causes anxiety, fear, etc, etc, etc could be considered terrorism without regard for if anyone was hurt in any way shape or form.

Actually, I would think that some amount of terrorism would be involved in any rebellion, else how would you intimidate the fence sitters and wafflers.

We have a dilema here........Few would argue (at least here in America) that the Revolution was a bad thing. Granted, a peaceful granting of independence would have probably been better, but there was a recalcitrant party to this whole shebang, and that was King George—so a peaceful granting of independence was not a realistic possibility. Thus, the colonists were faced with two difficult alternatives: 1) remain colonies; or 2) fight for independence. As it happens, my own ancestors on my father's side were tories, and post revolution they fled to Canada because of the rough treatment tories received at the hands of patriots immediately after the revolution. But I don't blame the patriots for the hard feelings. Perhaps they should have been more willing to reconcile....but I digress. Be that as it may, the fact is that without violence, there would be no revolution, and without revolution, there would be no independence, and without independence, there would be no USA for us to fret over its political health. It is equally a fact that otherwise decent people suffered at the hands of patriots because they did not share the same fervor for independence.......or, they were genuinely against the idea. But, at what point does a person of that era stop being a terrorist, and at what point does he become a patriot? Moral relativism is just plain dumb because it makes the case that nothing is worth dying for, and certainly nothing is worth hurting someone else for.

There is certainly a time for peaceful civil disobedience, but Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's pacifism is not the ONLY thing that brought about Indian independence. It did not happen in a vacuum. It also took a fair amount of riotous rage and violence on the part of Joe Hindu against the brutality of British oppression to make it happen.

The problem with trying to define "terrorism" is that of legitimacy. When an illegitimate government is attacked by enraged citizens, that is patriotism. When a legitimate government is attacked by enraged citizens, that is terrorism. Governments earn their legitimacy. Our nation's founders jumped through many hoops to seek peaceful resolution to their complaints through legal channels before they resorted to violence as a final measure. So whether or not they are terrorists or patriots in your eyes or mine depends really on whether or not you think their complaints were legitimate or illegitimate.

Just consider that, without those people and that violence, there IS NO U.S.

Now, are they terrorists, or patriots? To NOT know that answer is to be subject to all of the Rawlsian falsehoods used to promote and sustain progressivism: Justice as Fairness, The original position, Reflective equilibrium, Overlapping consensus, Public reason, Veil of ignorance, and Political constructivism (could not find a link for this one). In any case, these progressive principles are all false constructs which overlook THE MAIN THING—that the people involved in such actions are not amoebas swimming around in a petrie dish. They are real live human beings, facing real live persecutions, and make real live hard decisions to rebel against those persecutions. In John Rawls's moral equivalence world of unrealistic philosophical constructs, we are not allowed to know the history leading up to the acts; we are not allowed to know the moral depravity of General Burgoyne toward the colonists; we are not allowed to know about the larger picture of unjust taxation; we are not allowed to know the eventual outcome of the Revolution; we are not allowed to know ANY of the context; etc., etc., etc. Under the Rawlsian principle of "Veil of Ignorance," we can ONLY consider the actions themselves, and whether or not they are acceptable........and by the way, who gets to decide what's "acceptable?"

Well, of course, in the progressive viewpoint, and under this false construct in which amoebas theoretically threw some tea into a theoretical harbor, in absence of any of the context, those amoebas are terrorists. But in the REAL world, where actual human beings of flesh and bone reside, who are subject to all the natural laws—INCLUDING THOSE WHICH IMBUE THEM WITH NATURAL RIGHTS—they are patriots.

That is why I am baffled by people who fall for the relativistic argument. For their arguments to make sense, the real world and the people in it must necessarily be reduced to amoebas in a petrie dish and judged from behind Rawls's Veil of Ignorance.................and frankly, with as much as we know to be fact about our history, to impose a philosophical veil of ignorance on the process is simply inexcusable.

But what do I know?

And if King George's troops had succeeded in completely snuffing out the rebellion? Then the "patriots" would be forever labeled terrorists, for he who wins write the history and gets to assign the labels.

My ancestors were generally Whigs and rebels, but my only argument is with the absolutist language that says that no one got hurt therefore it was not terrorism, even though some got hurt.

[Jaguar]

On a lighter note...

-snip-

As it happens, my own ancestors on my father's side were tories, and post revolution they fled to Canada because of the rough treatment tories received at the hands of patriots immediately after the revolution.

-snip-

My ancestors on my father's side beat up your ancestors on your father's side.

It's all good now, right?

[baldeagle]

Semantics or common sense - which one will/should prevail?

The liberal argument regarding American history generally paints patriots as terrorists.

Conservatives see it oppositely.

Simple.

However, they are not two opposing opinions. One is right. The other is wrong. In a liberal's world, there is no right or wrong, which is why what is right is so often wrong in their eyes. And if you understand that, you just might be a liberal.

Unless you base your philosophy on the theory that every human possesses certain rights, regardless of the government under which he labors or the people among whom he lives, your philosophy is "moored" in jelly and will shift with every other man's opinion.

[Oldgringo]

Semantics or common sense - which one will/should prevail?

The liberal argument regarding American history generally paints patriots as terrorists.

Conservatives see it oppositely.

Simple.

However, they are not two opposing opinions. One is right. The other is wrong. In a liberal's world, there is no right or wrong, which is why what is right is so often wrong in their eyes. And if you understand that, you just might be a liberal.

Unless you base your philosophy on the theory that every human possesses certain rights, regardless of the government under which he labors or the people among whom he lives, your philosophy is "moored" in jelly and will shift with every other man's opinion.

I take it that your mind is pretty much made up?

[baldeagle]

Semantics or common sense - which one will/should prevail?

The liberal argument regarding American history generally paints patriots as terrorists.

Conservatives see it oppositely.

Simple.

However, they are not two opposing opinions. One is right. The other is wrong. In a liberal's world, there is no right or wrong, which is why what is right is so often wrong in their eyes. And if you understand that, you just might be a liberal.

Unless you base your philosophy on the theory that every human possesses certain rights, regardless of the government under which he labors or the people among whom he lives, your philosophy is "moored" in jelly and will shift with every other man's opinion.

I take it that your mind is pretty much made up?

My mind is unsullied by the pusillanimous philosophizing of progressives.