Could the Boston Tea Party be considered an act of terrorism by the British?

This appears to be one of the questions that set off the opponents of CSCOPE and led them to believe that the curriculum is fraught with political bias.

Here's a related clip from a news source covering the debate:

Criticism intensified when parents discovered a lesson plan used in previous incarnations of CSCOPE that asked students to consider whether participants in the Boston Tea Party could be considered terrorists in some contexts by the British. Another sample lesson asked students to design a flag for a new socialist country. Some critics also suggested that lessons on the world’s major religions contained too much material on Islam.

Patrick opened Saturday’s debate arguing that studies showed that students in school districts that use CSCOPE performed worse on state standardized tests that those who didn’t. However, he acknowledged that his source was a survey conducted by a ninth-grade business class.

When the debate shifted to the question of bias, Ratliff referred to the Boston Tea Party lesson, saying: “The lesson does not say the Boston Tea party members were terrorists. It does not say it.”

Patrick shot back: “Do you think it’s a good idea to plant the seed (of terrorism) in the mind of high school students?” When Ratliff tried to answer about international perspectives, hecklers shouted: “This is America! You’re American!”

“Read it for yourself and see if you become a terrorist overnight,” Ratliff responded.

In a story last year, the Huntington Post hunted down the assignment, which has since been changed. It asked student to comment on a news story and whether the event covered met the definitions of terrorism:

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.

Its actually a question historians have asked before, so there's nothing new about it:

Here's the simple definition of terrorism from Websters: 

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

And a description of the event from about.com: 

On the night of December 16, 1773, the Sons of Liberty, a loosely knit secret organization of American colonists in favor of American independence, illegally boarded three British East India cargo ships in the Boston Harbor and threw 45 tons of tea into the harbor, rather than let the tea be landed. Today, as some have argued, this protest might be considered an act of terrorism, since it was property sabotage designed to bring to wide attention the political objectives of a non-state group, the American colonists. The event is considered one of the catalysts of the American revolution.

Also check out the Wikipedia entry on the Boston Tea Party.

So the question seems to be whether property sabotage is an act of violence that tries to achieve a political goal. The goal was in fact to provoke the British to do something extreme, which it did by passing the Coercive Acts, which included shutting down trade. This hit the merchants in the pocket and drove them to stop waffling on independence and start supporting it.

So it did have its intended political consequence, though no lives were lost - maybe that does not make it terrorism in the minds of some.

Its worth trying to dig into what drives this dispute - aside from pure politics of course.