Texas Students Are Being Taught A False Version Of History

They were terrorist's from the British point of view. Terrorism is not always a bad thing, it just depends who is viewing the said terrorist act. Im thankful for the rebellious actions AKA terrorist actions of the Boston tea party. Terrorism was used as an effective tool in a just cause in this instance. As for teaching the lesson from a British point of view yah that probably wasnt the best way to go about it.

Originally posted by deadpool84
They were terrorist's from the British point of view. Terrorism is not always a bad thing, it just depends who is viewing the said terrorist act. Im thankful for the rebellious actions AKA terrorist actions of the Boston tea party. Terrorism was used as an effective tool in a just cause in this instance. As for teaching the lesson from a British point of view yah that probably wasnt the best way to go about it.

I disagree. Terrorism would be blowing the ship up with the tea and Brittish sailors on it. How do you have terrorism with no violence? There are plenty of examples from the Revolutionary War period that would fit .. this is not one of them.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Very valid point.

Like it is more of a "corporate sabotage" than terrorism.

ETA: maybe if middle eastern terrorists would blow people up by firing a missile from a drone, instead of doing suicide bombings, it wouldn't be called "terror"?

OK, as a Texan, a historian, a father of a school-aged son, and a future teacher myself (hopefully), I should be outraged.

But I thought it was brilliant. I laughed myself silly over it. It is exactly how it would be written today! Sad, yes, that people have this mindset. But it was a perfect learning example of how to rewrite history. Learn these tricks people, because it won't stop.

/TOA

this is a state that is primarily controlled by conservatives. the school board was going to do much more than what you provided.

www.stanforddaily.com...

to them, certain founding fathers were not conservative enough. and they were only going to give f.d.r. a passing note along with j.f.k while promoting rush and others as more influential on history.

Welcome to 1984. I've been watching, just the past few years, our world shape into an Orwellian reality... reteaching history is just the beginning.

We are royally effed.

In my day they were regarded as heroes, our teachers told us we needed to be like the founding fathers and rebels of the past.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

What does fighting vs other soldiers have to do with the intentional killing of civilians? One is a soldier, one is a terrorist. The Revolutionary War had many soldiers. The Boston Tea Party was a rebellious act, not a terrorist act.

ETA: most of the VERY young people were killed by Britain. So I guess they are the terrorists you speak of?

edit on 27-11-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

You dont seem to understand what terrorism is. On top of that, you seem to miss a few details.

1)Terrorism doesnt have to be violent. It can be a move to intimidate, which this certainly was.

2)The Boston Tea Party WAS a violent action, but it was violence against goods (infrastructure), not people.

If someone trashes a government supply truck, but does not kill anyone in the process, in an attempt to intimidate the government, is that not terrorism?

I think this is a great discussion. It's interesting to watch founding father worshipers, status quo, capitalism lovers wrestle with trying to deny the comparisons. If people are going to be intellectually honest here... there can't be anything but realizing that The Boston Tea Party and The American Revolution would be considered a radical, terrorist movement.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

I subscribe to the "they dumped tea overboard and didn't strap bombs to children, therefore are not terrorists"

Oh okay--we get it now. You prefer that children only associate the word terrorist with something like this:

Originally posted by yadda333

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

I subscribe to the "they dumped tea overboard and didn't strap bombs to children, therefore are not terrorists"

Oh okay--we get it now. You prefer that children only associate the word terrorist with something like this:

No, I prefer children do not associate terrorism with peaceful protest where people are not hurt or intended to be hurt. Maybe you want our children to think protesting is terrorism, I don't.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Very valid point.

Like it is more of a "corporate sabotage" than terrorism.

ETA: maybe if middle eastern terrorists would blow people up by firing a missile from a drone, instead of doing suicide bombings, it wouldn't be called "terror"?

edit on 27-11-2012 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

No if maybe they limited their plots to peaceful actions where goods were the target and not people it wouldn't be called terror. The Boston Tea party was not indiscriminate, it was specifically targeted at a symbol of opression with no violence. If America is trying to force another country to buy overpriced goods citizens of that country have a right to boycott those goods.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

What does fighting vs other soldiers have to do with the intentional killing of civilians? One is a soldier, one is a terrorist. The Revolutionary War had many soldiers. The Boston Tea Party was a rebellious act, not a terrorist act.

ETA: most of the VERY young people were killed by Britain. So I guess they are the terrorists you speak of?

edit on 27-11-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

You dont seem to understand what terrorism is. On top of that, you seem to miss a few details.

1)Terrorism doesnt have to be violent. It can be a move to intimidate, which this certainly was.

2)The Boston Tea Party WAS a violent action, but it was violence against goods (infrastructure), not people.

If someone trashes a government supply truck, but does not kill anyone in the process, in an attempt to intimidate the government, is that not terrorism?

No. It's not terrorism. Show me one instance of an American being tried for terrorism for destruction of government property.

It was not a move to intimidate. Sorry. Had they lined sailors up and destroyed the property with them watching saying you're next that would be terrorism. This was done stealthily, and was not in any way shape or form violent or a form of terrorism.

Originally posted by Kali74
I think this is a great discussion. It's interesting to watch founding father worshipers, status quo, capitalism lovers wrestle with trying to deny the comparisons. If people are going to be intellectually honest here... there can't be anything but realizing that The Boston Tea Party and The American Revolution would be considered a radical, terrorist movement.

I disagree 100%. Show me what we consider a radical terrorist act that is EXACTLY like the Boston Tea Party (or as close as possible). I will wait for it.

reply to post by ShaolinTemple


And every word is TRUE.....from a particular point of view. I have run across this before. When I was having trouble with LEO's my company required me, because of what I do, to see a shrink about the stress I was under. It wouldn't look good for them if I cost the country a lot of money because I was distracted.

This shrink tried to tell me if I took action against LEO's who were committing crimes and endangering members of my family that it would be "suicide by cop". I disagreed and responded that her statement would be the same as saying those who died at the Alamo were guilty of suicide by Mexican Army. She said that I was correct, that it was exactly the same. That those who fought at the Alamo were committing suicide and there was no need for it.

This type of thought fits in with other things. The contempt I have found many people have for honor. The lack of respect taught to our children about their parents. Many other things. To me it seems there is an ongoing attempt to train our people to always do and believe whatever the authorities are peddling that day. We are not to think for ourselves, not to know our true history because our ancestors did not accept authority just because it was, and prevent our children from having the courage or even knowledge that they can stand up to authority. We have no hero's anymore, they are all being smeared.

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot


what are you talking about? When in human history has humanity not tolerated authority?

Human history is nothing but the drifting from one tyrant to another. The very first law book, The Code Of Hammurabi....have you ever read that in school? The word Draconian comes to mind.

Human are far, far too risk averse to consistently rebuff authority. Sure, we have our moments. But they are the exeption.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Very valid point.

Like it is more of a "corporate sabotage" than terrorism.

ETA: maybe if middle eastern terrorists would blow people up by firing a missile from a drone, instead of doing suicide bombings, it wouldn't be called "terror"?

edit on 27-11-2012 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

No if maybe they limited their plots to peaceful actions where goods were the target and not people it wouldn't be called terror. The Boston Tea party was not indiscriminate, it was specifically targeted at a symbol of opression with no violence. If America is trying to force another country to buy overpriced goods citizens of that country have a right to boycott those goods.

Like insurance, under the Individual Mandate?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


My meaning is that The Boston Tea Party would be considered Radical Action. The American Revolution would be considered Terrorist. I'm pretty sure the British in those days used the exact equivalents for the times.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

What does fighting vs other soldiers have to do with the intentional killing of civilians? One is a soldier, one is a terrorist. The Revolutionary War had many soldiers. The Boston Tea Party was a rebellious act, not a terrorist act.

ETA: most of the VERY young people were killed by Britain. So I guess they are the terrorists you speak of?

edit on 27-11-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

You dont seem to understand what terrorism is. On top of that, you seem to miss a few details.

1)Terrorism doesnt have to be violent. It can be a move to intimidate, which this certainly was.

2)The Boston Tea Party WAS a violent action, but it was violence against goods (infrastructure), not people.

If someone trashes a government supply truck, but does not kill anyone in the process, in an attempt to intimidate the government, is that not terrorism?

No. It's not terrorism. Show me one instance of an American being tried for terrorism for destruction of government property.

It was not a move to intimidate. Sorry. Had they lined sailors up and destroyed the property with them watching saying you're next that would be terrorism. This was done stealthily, and was not in any way shape or form violent or a form of terrorism.

You're making up your own definition of terrorism. Here:

Official United States Government Definition of Terrorism

"[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."

yeoldeconsciousnessshoppe.com...

"To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion". To say it wasnt violent is a lie. They destroyed things. Violence, just not violence against a person.


The bottom line is, you're missing the entire point of the exercise. It is a critical thinking exercise. It is meant to show a student the idea of perception.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

What does fighting vs other soldiers have to do with the intentional killing of civilians? One is a soldier, one is a terrorist. The Revolutionary War had many soldiers. The Boston Tea Party was a rebellious act, not a terrorist act.

ETA: most of the VERY young people were killed by Britain. So I guess they are the terrorists you speak of?

edit on 27-11-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

You dont seem to understand what terrorism is. On top of that, you seem to miss a few details.

1)Terrorism doesnt have to be violent. It can be a move to intimidate, which this certainly was.

2)The Boston Tea Party WAS a violent action, but it was violence against goods (infrastructure), not people.

If someone trashes a government supply truck, but does not kill anyone in the process, in an attempt to intimidate the government, is that not terrorism?

No. It's not terrorism. Show me one instance of an American being tried for terrorism for destruction of government property.

It was not a move to intimidate. Sorry. Had they lined sailors up and destroyed the property with them watching saying you're next that would be terrorism. This was done stealthily, and was not in any way shape or form violent or a form of terrorism.

You're making up your own definition of terrorism. Here:

Official United States Government Definition of Terrorism

"[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."

yeoldeconsciousnessshoppe.com...

"To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion". To say it wasnt violent is a lie. They destroyed things. Violence, just not violence against a person.


The bottom line is, you're missing the entire point of the exercise. It is a critical thinking exercise. It is meant to show a student the idea of perception.

I already said there are plenty of instances where they COULD have taken an example from history for this exercise. This is not one of them. Let's use your definition.

(A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State

This was not dangerous to human life at all. It was not Violent.Definition. It broke no law of the US as there was no US law.

(B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping

It was not meant for a civilian population. There was no assassination or kidnapping. It was not meant to intimidate or coerce. Affecting policy through NON violent methods is allowed. That is what protesting is. This was intentionally restrained so as to be a non violent protest of taxes without representation.