Over the past couple of weeks, I have had to endure a barrage of not-so-insightful posts and comments about protesters. There was a backlash to the grand-jury decision in Ferguson; there have been excessive responses to even peaceful protests throughout the year. And it makes me wonder.
The reason it makes me wonder, I have to admit, is because one theme recurs so often in these expressions: the abhorrence of the destruction of private property. Don't get me wrong, just because I think if any person, on either side, gets hurt in a protest of any kind that there should be some kind of investigation doesn't mean that I condone destruction of private, or public, property, for that matter. Quite the contrary. I do have problem, however, with how this is portrayed by far too many posters ... as some sort of heinous crime perpetrated by mindless barbarians or criminals, how stupid it is to punish private owners of property because of public or governmental decisions. Oh, the anger, the outrage, the incredulity, the indignance, the ... well, you get the picture.
For these people, in particular, I would like bring back to memory a little event -- a protest -- that occurred a mere 241 years ago today. Yes, even the 16th of December has its uniqueness. Under the cover of darkness, a number of law-abiding, upstanding, male citizens, disguised themselves as Mohawk Indians (how better to divert attention to a hated and abused minority), boarded a ship in Boston Harbor and destroyed the entire load of tea by throwing it into the harbor. In today's terms, it was about $2 million worth of damages ... not a broken window or a looted convenience store, rather 7 digits worth of damage. The protest directed itself against a legally ordained statute affecting the taxes to be paid on said commodity that was then damaged.
My question, of course, is how all these disgusted and offended protesters feel about this. I'd be more than willing to be that the first thing out of their mouths is, "Well, that's different." My problem is, I don't see how. The law was broken. The law was taken into these citizens' own hands. Their actions were prompted by what they considered to be an unfair decision made by their legitimate government. Their rage against this government was directed against the property of a legal corporate entity, and the damage was great. Why is it, then, that the property damage then is so much different than the property damage now?
Oh, I know all the answers to my questions. This isn't the first time I've asked them. The answers each time, however, have always been the same whining accusations about the incomparability of the situations. The answers each time have been as wrong as they ever were.
When we agree with the cause, any means can be justified. When we disagree, no means could possibly be justified. This is what we these days call "hypocrisy". I would really appreciate it if people would think before they post, think before they comment, and above all, inform themselves before they decide to express their oh-so righteous opinions.
No comments:
Post a Comment