I was taught from a young age that anger is wrong. Let me rephrase that. I was told from a young age that answer is wrong. Yet, I observed adults get angry fairly often. I have a memory of my dad being furious that I was playing video games instead of doing homework and ripping my Super Nintendo right out of the television, breaking the cords in the process. Once, my mom was so angry about how the woman in front of her was driving on our way to school that she called her a word that she taught me not to use. Neither of these stories are representative of who my parents are. My dad has spent the better part of his life sacrificing his time, money, and basically everything for his family and others. Likewise, anyone who has met my mother feels they are her best friend because she gives off such an automatic aura of love, acceptance, caring, and kindness. All the same, I’ve seen my parents get very angry over things and to a degree that an outside observer would probably deem inappropriate. 

I should take this opportunity to establish that I too have gotten immensely angry multiple times over things that did not warrant such a response. I can remember a time in the first year of our marriage that Anna critiqued me for where I left the shopping cart at the store, and I spent the rest of the shopping trip and most of that day ignoring her out of spite. It was all very stupid. You see, I was leaving the cart in the same places that my mom would when I shopped with her, and I saw Anna’s critique as an affront on my mom and on the way my family did things. Stupid, I know. 

I am sure that you, reader, also can recall a time that your anger was unwarranted or excessive. Feel free to share those experiences in the comments so that I can read them and hopefully feel less embarrassed about my story.

I told all of these stories to illustrate that anger, while usually spoken of as negative, is employed by basically everyone regardless of their moral, religious, and ethical stances. It can serve positive purposes when used appropriately. However, if anger leads to aggression or goes unchecked, or if someone believes that their anger is always justified then dangerous territory is being entered. At its most extreme, anger can lead to abuse, yet even its milder forms it can lead those we love to be dishonest with us as a coping mechanism (people will be dishonest with overreactors as a way to keep them happy and keep themselves from uncomfortable situations). 

Currently, there is much anger in America over the murder of George Floyd as well as events that are or are seen as related to the murder. Many people are angry that Floyd was murdered by police officers, and more broadly angry about the racial injustice that leads to the deaths of many. Others’ anger is less about racial injustice and more specifically focused on bad cops who use inappropriate force to murder any person. Many are angry about the looting and rioting. Many are angry that others are angry about the rioting, citing Martin Luther King, Jr. who called rioting the “language of the unheard.” (Further analysis of the entire speech reveals that King was not calling for riots, but rather explaining that their appearance will be a natural result when cries against injustice do not lead to change.) Many are angry that the rioters and looters are being clumped together with the peaceful protestors. Many are angry that police in some instances have used unnecessary means to disperse peaceful protestors, claiming these actions actually breed more contention and aggression. Many are angry that police are being vilified due to the acts of certain “bad cops.” Many are angry about a million other related issues and events. 

Who in all of this is the most justified in their anger?

Who in all of this is the most justified in their anger? That question is impossible to answer as each instance of anger grows out of each individual’s morals, experiences, and values, implying that critiquing someone’s anger is a Sisyphean act. If someone is angry, and you tell them that they should not be angry about this particular thing, I would wager that they would not shrug their shoulders, smile, and say, “you’ve got a point there.” Anger generally transcends both reason and character. People who are both intelligent and kind have done things that are both stupid and ruthless while under anger’s influence. 

People who are both intelligent and kind have done things that are both stupid and ruthless while under anger’s influence. 

You’ll notice I mention how deep anger supersedes both reason and character. This is a direct reference to the three modes of rhetoric or persuasion: pathos (emotion), ethos (moral character or authority), and logos (logic and reason). 

The movers and shakers of the world, the politicians, the journalists, the writers, the leaders, the orators, the media personalities–these people often hold a great understanding of rhetoric and they use it to get us to think, feel, and do things. This is not good or bad. It is simply the reality. Malala Yousafzai’s powerful rhetoric has shed a light on the plight of women and girls in the Middle East. On the opposite end, Charles Manson’s use of rhetoric led to the murder of actress Sharon Tate and four others. Manson’s rhetoric did not appeal to most, but those people on the fringes who bought into it did so heavily. Rhetoric is like that. It is not about persuading all people at all times. Rhetoric is about persuading specific groups of people at specific moments to do specific things.

Rhetoric is about persuading specific groups of people at specific moments to do specific things.

What does this have to do with the anger that is filling up hearts, houses, and streets in America this week? Very few of us are primary sources for the events that have transpired, are transpiring, and will transpire. We rely on other sources who share that information in the form of images, text, and video. Those who share these things do so for a specific purpose. They want you to feel, believe, or do something. They may want you to get angry. They may want you to get sad. They may want you to go out and peacefully protest. They may want you to distrust the police. They may want you to support the police. They may want you to feel sadness and sympathy for targets of prejudice and injustice. They may want you to feel angry at our president. They may want you to support the president or praise his responses. They may want you to donate to a cause through a charity organization. They may want you to deem all protests as negative due to the looting and rioting. They may want you to see that the rioters are far fewer than the peaceful protestors. They may want you to feel that the term Black Lives Matter emphasizes current injustices. They want you to feel that the term Black Lives Matter is combative, divisive, and should be replaced by All Lives Matter. There is no limit to the things that people, posts, memes, song lyrics, videos, news outlets, and articles are attempting to convince you, all while using pathos, ethos, and logos.

These arguments can be divisive even when they are not meant to be (though they often are). They generally imply that things are either one way or the other and that both things cannot be true. This is a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy. The fallacy is present when the arguer states only A or B can be true, and that if A is true then B is false and vice versa. An example would be that you either believe all lives matter or you believe that black lives matter. This is incorrect in that if you believe that all lives matter then you automatically believe that black lives matter. On the flip side, saying that black lives matter does not imply that all the other lives don’t anymore than telling one person that you love them does not imply that you don’t love everyone else or love everyone else less. 

If we think carefully about all the things that are endlessly thrown at us on social media and other media outlets, we can likewise find that we can believe both sides of arguments. I can believe that the riots and looting are wrong and still support the cause that they are associated with just like I can continue to love a friend even though they said something that hurt me. I can disagree with how the president does his job and believe that he has done things that helped and improved our country just like I can believe that my school teacher is really bad at connecting with students but very good at explaining math. I can believe that America is wonderful and that America is tragic just like I can believe that my father-in-law is both intimidating and a complete softie.

I can believe that America is wonderful and that America is tragic just like I can believe that my father-in-law is both intimidating and a complete softie.

You see, we extend grace to real people and those we love. We accept their dualities. We accept that they are both right and wrong. Good some days and bad others. Angry sometimes and loving other times. I believe that if we would extend that same grace to our country and to those that we seem to disagree with, we would discover that all of us have so much more in common than we have different. We must be above divisive media. America does not have one story. America does not have one type of citizen. America does not have one type of family. America does not have one type of city. America does not have one type of state. However, this should not divide. This vast variety of accessible diverse opinions should be seen as an opportunity to enrich our own perspective by listening instead of trying to enrich others’ perspectives by teaching them. That goes for both sides. Liberals need to spend more time sincerely understanding why conservatives say and believe what they do. Conservatives need to spend more time sincerely understanding why liberals say and believe what they do. If we all spent more time listening and less time proving, so many things would be better–starting with our own emotional state. 

It is okay to be angry. But don’t let anger be an excuse to ignore or criticize those who don’t think like you do. This only brings more division, anger, and suffering in the end.

I challenge you to a mental exercise this week. Imagine that you disagree with the things and posts that you usually would agree with and that you agree with the posts and things that you would usually disagree with. Find the supportive arguments for the side you usually think is wrong. I promise that as you begin to value the perspective of those you disagree with that you will feel a renewed pride in your country and a deepened love for all people.