Look guys, you're both right - it's not a mutually exclusive thing, and if you can see both sides you'll grasp that this, like everything, is multidimensional. Tigerpaw, the Tea was just a symbol of one of many taxes imposed by a government upon people who felt disconnected (even oppressed) from their government. Had they not felt so disconnected, they would not have percolated to the point of needing to take some sort of action. It could have just as easily been a clothing item (The (Ugly) Sweater Party) or other spices (what about the Pepper Pot, or the Corriander Consortium?). You also need to remember that violence from the Brits against colonist was widespread and exacerbated the disconnect. They may not have had armored APCs at the time, but they certainly outgunned and out-legislated the colonists, similar to the sense given in Ferguson by the local cops with little sensitivity to the optics of their response. At the same time, magz, this isn't exactly the same as the tea incident. Back then, that wasn't connected to widespread rioting - it was targeted, and it was politically organized. I know of no political organization of the attacks against storefronts. That was action perpetrated by a bunch of hoodlums, separate from the goals and actions of community members who are trying to take the legal route of civil protest.