Was the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism?
No, it was not. Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. The Boston Tea Party was scrupulous in its protection of “non-combatants” — no one at all was hurt or even threatened with harm. The Boston Tea Party was an act of civil disobedience and vandalism, very like robbing a warehouse or storefront. Such things happen all the time and are not labeled terrorism. The Tea Party was a lone act, an isolated event, and although it was carried out for an ideological goal (to emphasize that Americans refused to pay tax on tea, even to the point of refusing to allow the tea to be sold to them), it was not in any way meant or intended to cause terror in any sense of the word. The participants disguised themselves to prevent identification, but this is vastly different from the hooded Muslim terror
