Summary: Boston Tea Party Was Act Of Terrorism

In reference to your point about the Revolutionaries, I was actually discussing this with my sister a few days ago. Technically speaking, Revolutionaries can be considered terrorists--they tried to instill fear in the British government (for example, the Boston Tea Party) for political purposes (specifically protesting taxation). In fact, according to an article titled, "Boston Tea Party Was Act Of Terrorism? Texas Public Schools Teaching New History Lesson," some schools in Texas are even examining it as such. Specifically, teachers are instructed to read the following prompt to their students:

"News report: New 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. 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." ("Boston Tea Party Was Act of Terrorism?").
However, it appears as if many Americans insist that the Revolutionaries were patriots and not terrorists. But, when does patriotism go too far? Furthermore, are we currently so in denial because of the sensitivity associated with terrorism following September 11th (that is, we deny this label because we don't want to be in the same category as others who we