It is an interesting question. My first thought is that a core element of the Boston Tea Party was that the colonist had no representation, there was no legitim

It is an interesting question. My first thought is that a core element of the Boston Tea Party was that the colonist had no representation, there was no legitimate way for them to participate in their governance and they were protesting specific laws/taxes that were being imposed without their consent. I don't think that the current situation in the US is analogous. There are lots of ways to affect change without resorting to violence: peaceful protest, drafting new laws, voting for more police funding, voting for different representatives, voting for different executives. The idea that all those options have been exhausted and the only solution is to physically and economically destroy communities in order to draw attention to the problem is illogical and self-defeating. In an even more bizarre twist, the story that seems to be emerging is that the rioter's demands are to make changes that aren't wanted by the people in the communities that the rioters purport to represent (see recent polls that minority communities want more police, not less).