I was trying to remember when I first became aware of this
phrase and what it actually meant. I
guess I was in my mid-teens and maybe it was in one of five English classes I
had in high school. Five you say! Yes, five it was. English was one of two
classes I flunked in the 9th grade. Algebra was the other and I
legitimately failed it, unlike my English course. I really tried to understand
algebra, but our moving all over the country had scrambled the rules of math
for me.
For all the crazy stunts I pulled in my English class, I was
totally cowed down in algebra and stayed confused no matter who tried to help
me. I needed to start over. The funny thing is, I took it in the 10th
grade and passed it. Years later in a statistical process control seminar, I
was the go to guy on most of the other fellow’s algebra. Even today I don’t
understand how that was possible.
I failed English because I was the class clown, or rather
the main CC. This stirred my teacher’s righteous indignation and she failed me
by one point to prove her point. I decided the best course of action for me was
to take a summer school English class. I’ve written about this before so I
won’t repeat it, but that was a turning point in my attitude about school and
made future classes so much fun.
I tell young students my story and explain that if you do
your homework and actually listen in class, school is easy… and fun. In fact,
if you read the next assignment, it is almost ridiculously easy. Anyway, I want
to get back on point here.
Now the original meaning of the term righteous indignation,
or maybe righteous anger most likely meant “it is one's right to feel that way;
anger without guilt”. This emotion was based on a lifetime of social
interaction, home and church teachings, an individual’s perception of law and
order, or maybe some self-imposed rule.
Nowhere did it imply violence or breaking the law. What it
did imply was someone did something wrong and based on our own perception of
right, we feel anger. We don’t have to apologize for our feelings because we
don’t act on them. Nowhere in this line of thought justifies doing something
physical in retaliation.
Now in the last so many years and here recently in Washington DC
and other cities we see looting and burning of cars and smashing windows of
businesses as a perverted form of righteous indignation. It is clearly not that
at all. It is lawlessness and anger
combined. It is a physical violation of righteousness and personal property to
attempt to legitimatize someone’s idea of righting wrong doing.
The end does not justify the means and never has. Although
many of the concerns of the women’s march in our Capital city were righteous in
scope, the activities of some and the tons of signage that littered the ground
clearly violated law and what is right. Women plastering windows with slogan
filled maxi-pads are repulsive, trashy, and invasive to the shop owners they
selected.
I support people demonstrating for a cause, but it has to be
done according to the current laws and then they must clean up afterward. It
was disgusting watching videos of the participants cursing bystanders and
shooting the finger when asked to pick up their trash. It embarrassed and
shamed me as an American. When one man questioned why they wouldn’t pick up
their signs, it was met with open objection and ridicule by the protestors. This
is shameful behavior and negates their righteous efforts.
Righteous indignation has taken on an almost criminal bent
that needs to stop and be called what it really is: blatant unbridled anger.
The end certainly does not justify the means, especially when it is violent,
breaks the law, or is destructive of property. People have a right to orderly
march when they have a legitimate issue, but doing it the wrong way has the
opposite effect of their mission and social perception.
On top of everything else, throwing a hissy fit makes you
look like spoiled brats who didn’t get your way. So you didn’t get what you
wanted? Hey, grow up. Life is full of fences and barriers and you should do
like all the righteous people do – go through the doors and gates. The term
social means you have to get along. You have to stand in line and when it comes
to voting for whom or what you want and you may just have to live with something
you didn’t choose. Life goes on. Geeze. Get over it.
I didn’t vote for 16 years of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama,
but I didn’t burn the American flag or threaten to blow up the White House. I
simply wrote my representatives and told them what I supported and didn’t and
then at each election, I cast my vote. That is how I showed my righteous
indignation.
.
5 comments:
Allyce Lankford: Great read Bert and one that I so agree with.
MM: You called it as I see it. Thanks.
James Connealy: My first encounter with 'righteous indignation' occurred in elementary school, seems that me and another knot head were making too much notice in the boys restroom. Suddenly, a nun appeared and both of us were recipients of indignation, righteous or not!
Sam: This makes one ponder the natural human behavior patterns and cultivates food for thought.ha! Good work Bert, thanks for your time.
Candy Lind: Great column, Bert. I wish you'd go back and read some of your comments/posts lately, however. This column implies that you would never stoop to negative trash talk.
Post a Comment