I mean, it kinda is. The difference is that the Founding Fathers were well aware that what they were doing was treason, hence Benjamin Frankinlin's "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Every terrorist is someone’s freedom fighter. Of course, the word terrorist gets thrown around and the definition is broad and amorphous- or covers almost any combatant ever or whoever we want or need or to cover. The UN has thousands of hours into this topic and a literal web page into the difficulties in identifying and defining terrorism. It is also true that some members of a group may engage in activities that could be almost universally called terrorism but the majority of entirety of the group may not or may not condone such acts or be aware.
The question of lawfulness is a key factor in this debate as terrorism generally is defined as unlawful violence- but was the violence of the American revolution unlawful…? By whos laws? Semantics. Lexington and Concorde were fought before the declaration on independence. We could generally say these battles were unlawful under the crown and those involved committed unlawful violence. This is also true of various unrest and rioting.
However, the Declaration of Independence was not an act of violence, so it doesn’t fit the basic criteria for terrorism- treason perhaps. Unlawful perhaps- but it can’t reasonably be called a terrorist act. So AFTER the declaration, the American state was under its own law in theory- and thusly violence from that point would be lawful- in theory- by at least some standards. The key there is wether one accepts that citizens or colonies have the right and ability to legally separate from their flag, if not, then the colonists were still under the crown and the violence was unlawful. If one can renounce citizenship, the violence was lawful in theory.
Of course- wether the violence was or was not lawful is only part. Generally the violence must have political motivations. We can say fairly concretely that those forming an independent government were fighting for political reasons- well- let’s come back to this. We cannot say of the individual fighters if their goals were political or otherwise- they could have been fighting of any number of reasons including feelings of necessity for survival or straight up revenge. But now we come back to “political reasons.” What are political reasons? Politics permeates everything we do just about. Most decisions made by social animals involve some conscious of subconscious political consideration or bias. Politics has multiple definitions. It can be applied strictly to matters of government, but it also applies to business- another vague term that can include everything from getting your mail to wanting land rights. One of the definitions of politics is simply the complex relations between…
.. people in a society. This includes the way we deal with relationships (family politics, office politics, sexual politics, etc.) or how we secure and maintain our lives and life styles, managing perceptions of others and meeting social expectations or challenging conventions and customs. Deciding to wear something out of fashion or deciding to wear the latest fashion are political choices- you are making a personal declaration of conformity. You are accepting or rejecting an established way of doing things and in so doing either challenging or being complicit in support of an order. So in that sense almost all violence could be said to be politically motivated unless it is truly random such as someone without mental faculty committing violent acts without reason or purpose beyond some biological response. Which even then would arguably be fit to be called an extension of politics as they still exist in society and are interacting with it.
So it gets hard to define a terrorist. Of course fear and civilian killing or harm are two important factors that usually get used. Again though- most soldiers feel fead facing threat of violence. Most populations feel fear from war. War and threats of war change peoples behaviors. The Declaration of Independence carried an explicit and implicit declaration of war as the inevitable subtext was that unless the crown bent to the will of the insurrection or the insurrection gave up on the whole thing, there would inevitably be war. There are few wars in history let alone acts of war- if any- that haven’t caused civilian death or harm. Taken to the extremes, killing a uniformed soldier causes harm so long as that soldier has some person or task that will be harmed by their absence in civilian life. But historically most wars that do not reach early compromise or surrender will see cities and villages and homes looted and destroyed, lives ended and upended of non combatants, resources taken
strategic works destroyed at direct civilian costs or at some point where urbanization of some form occurs, indiscriminate or nearly so warfare effecting the populace. We could also call the British terrorists in this equation. They attacked and destroyed civilian targets and lives, they used fear and threats and violence to attempt to enact their political ends. Of course colonists to the “new world” in general walk some line between what could be called genocidal and terrorist but generally gets summed up as an expected component of the word “colonizer.” Entering especially into the 20th and 21st century we start to see a line blur. Where once terrorism was all but assumed to be the act of an entity other than a state- by the earnest best definitions of terrorism, states often commit acts against others or their own people that fit within the confines of what would historically be called terrorism of done by a non state entity.
Sovereignty becomes a big deal here. Just as we have to ask if the colonists had the right or ability to form a new state entity which could declare war, we have to ask- can individuals or smaller groups declare war? Is it “terrorism” or “war?” Was the shelling of Baghdad “war” or “terrorism” against civilian targets? Where does that differ from Ukraine and Russia? Were Nazi pilots fighting a war as soldiers as they bombed London? Were the allies at Dresden? Or were those terrorist acts by terrorists? Can war even be legal? Who decides? The UN? It’s a legal war of the UN decides? Or to be legal do both sides need to agree to war and the “rules”? Does the war become illegal if one side breaks the rules? What if both sides do? If terrorists are fighting terrorists what is that called- “mutual terrorism”?
Largely regional powers get to decide who in what area is a “hero” or “villain” what is a “war” of “police action” or “special intervention” or “military aid” or “terrorism.”
What is the difference between a revolutionary and a terrorist? The name “terrorist” certainly implies terror needs fo be involved. We covered how being afraid of dying is probably going to bring terror wether that is war or not- but perhaps terror needs to be weaponized? What if we say that someone has to use terror against an enemy with intent? Well… very vague again, and it’s common practice in war and conflict fo attempt to demoralize an enemy, to use propaganda and displays of might and fearsome tactics to coerce a surrender or undermine the will to fight. It’s common to appeal to enemy citizens to end the war out of fear for their best interests and lives. It’s common for those in charge fo use fear of an enemy and what an enemy victory would mean for them to motivate people to fight and to support..
.. the fight. So you can see where the lines can be quite blurry. Is everyone just a terrorist then? Who can say they’ve never used violence or the threat of harm or violence- expressed or implied- in their personal lives to get what they want? Even firing someone or calling or threatening to calm the police can be seen as the threat of force and harm for non compliance.
It’s a tad extreme- but that’s the problem with definitions, they must be clear or else it is up to interpretation and not everyone interprets things the same way.
So I mean- were the “founding fathers” and such terrorists? Maybe? Almost certainly at least a few of them were, and they could be consider such if one wanted to look at things a certain way. Now.. does it matter? Well… we all know history is written by the winners. A little secret is that of two people are willing to kill each other over something, neither one of them is a fluffy “perfect good person.” Deep down somewhere most of us are animals, not constrained by morality but by practicality. Most people will take a life over losing their own. It is instinctual and pragmatic. There are very few “wholly good” people or “enlightened ones with all” that walk the earth now or ever- if at all.
Understand a revolution is usually just a game of musical a&$ holes. Across Europe not so long ago most countries overthrew or cast out their monarchies- often with violent revolution. Unrest at the inequity of wealth and power, upset at corrupt and greedy leaders, upset that a privileged class could get away with most anything as long as they maintained their connections in the elite strata and with the influencers of the day. Upset that a minority owned and controlled most land and profited off of the work of others while living in relative luxury and only “working” mostly to manage relationships and people to keep them in that position. Hey….. it uh… well… Luckily Europe never had any of those problems ever again huh?
Duh. Of course they did. “Down with the great dictator! Long live the new dictator!” That’s largely how this works. The self proclaimed poster child of democratic people’s government literally recently had a deadly insurrection because… its people didn’t understand how democracy works but are allowed to participate regardless. While things often are better of worse for certain groups as power changes, that’s about it. Exchange who gets screwed but seldom the fact that someone is going to get screwed for the benefit of someone else. That’s baked in. Things are seldom truly about noble ideals as much as they can be distilled to cold hard practical realities and basic human nature. Call something terrorism or revolution or righteous judgment- whatever you want. Call it a tickle fight. It doesn’t matter much.
Whatever you want to call it when people use force the make other people do what they want or give them their way, when people will kill someone else to take what they want or protect what they have- that’s what it is. The terms don’t matter much at all in the grand scheme. Does it really matter, does it change anything, if your brother or sister or mother or child or spouse or best friend or your entire neighborhood is killed in a “terrorist action” Vs. Any other way that someone out there decided that their lives were worth less than whatever they wanted was? That some mad bomber blew up your loved ones to try and get independence or your loved ones got blown up because some jerk off at the utilities company wanted to save money and get a bonus or some government suit took some free vacations and looked the other way while they did it?
Did that terrorist necessarily want to kill or intend to kill your loved one? Can we say that their intent is any different than the soldier that drops a bomb knowing people who aren’t soldiers will be killed or the executive who knows that those safety regulations exist so people don’t get killed?
We can split hairs on how we want to weight motive and who Carrie’s more moral burden in reasonably expecting or intending to cause death, so that for a million years and it won’t bring the dead back to life though. Bin Laden killed a lot of Americans and america killed Bin Laden, everyone “over it” now? Fear and loss are all gone?
And what’s the difference if it had been some other world leader like Kim or Putin and America had gone and killed them and it wasn’t “terrorism” but “open warfare” or a “weapons malfunction” would that have changed how the whole thing impacted people who lost and suffered? An explosion is an explosion- especially from inside the blast.
If Ashton K had popped out after the second plane hit and said “you’ve been punk’d” and 9/11 was listed as a “prank” vs. “terrorist action” in history books- what the f@ck does that change to the people killed or injured or who lost and hurt other than MAYBE, who exactly they are mad at and who they might sue? In the big picture it doesn’t make a difference.
Terrorism, not terrorism, winners errors history to suit them, history gets rewritten and re interpreted to suit the modern times, and even the Nazis- one of the closest things to an actual universal villain in recorded history- even they have people who still think they were the “good guys.” So it doesn’t even matter what we call it today so much because in 50,100 years, America could have Osama on a t shirt next to Ernesto “Che” as a youth culture icon and little twits for suburbia could be walking around talking about how “misunderstood” he was and how “bias” history treated him.
The question of lawfulness is a key factor in this debate as terrorism generally is defined as unlawful violence- but was the violence of the American revolution unlawful…? By whos laws? Semantics. Lexington and Concorde were fought before the declaration on independence. We could generally say these battles were unlawful under the crown and those involved committed unlawful violence. This is also true of various unrest and rioting.
What is the difference between a revolutionary and a terrorist? The name “terrorist” certainly implies terror needs fo be involved. We covered how being afraid of dying is probably going to bring terror wether that is war or not- but perhaps terror needs to be weaponized? What if we say that someone has to use terror against an enemy with intent? Well… very vague again, and it’s common practice in war and conflict fo attempt to demoralize an enemy, to use propaganda and displays of might and fearsome tactics to coerce a surrender or undermine the will to fight. It’s common to appeal to enemy citizens to end the war out of fear for their best interests and lives. It’s common for those in charge fo use fear of an enemy and what an enemy victory would mean for them to motivate people to fight and to support..
It’s a tad extreme- but that’s the problem with definitions, they must be clear or else it is up to interpretation and not everyone interprets things the same way.
We can split hairs on how we want to weight motive and who Carrie’s more moral burden in reasonably expecting or intending to cause death, so that for a million years and it won’t bring the dead back to life though. Bin Laden killed a lot of Americans and america killed Bin Laden, everyone “over it” now? Fear and loss are all gone?
And what’s the difference if it had been some other world leader like Kim or Putin and America had gone and killed them and it wasn’t “terrorism” but “open warfare” or a “weapons malfunction” would that have changed how the whole thing impacted people who lost and suffered? An explosion is an explosion- especially from inside the blast.
Terrorism, not terrorism, winners errors history to suit them, history gets rewritten and re interpreted to suit the modern times, and even the Nazis- one of the closest things to an actual universal villain in recorded history- even they have people who still think they were the “good guys.” So it doesn’t even matter what we call it today so much because in 50,100 years, America could have Osama on a t shirt next to Ernesto “Che” as a youth culture icon and little twits for suburbia could be walking around talking about how “misunderstood” he was and how “bias” history treated him.