After reading the comments on This ought to be good: Open carry march planned for Ferguson, Missouri, it's pretty clear that many are against the open carry march in Ferguson. However, if you researched the group holding the march on November 16, much of comments seem misinformed and, dare I say, pre-judgmental. How? Well:
1.) The guy organizing the march named, Sam Andrews, is repeatedly being referred to as an Oath Keeper, despite the fact that he actually left them. He used to be a member of the Oath Keepers. His reasons for leaving? Long story short, according to an article on Reason.com:
Andrews charges Stewart Rhodes (founder of the Oath Keepers) with hypocrisy, complaining that the man "was perfectly willing to 'confront the cops' at Bundy Ranch, but is unwilling to say that when it is black people arming themselves to 'confront the cops'"...The bottom line for Andrews is that "the law enforcement side of [Rhodes'] board and membership are racist, and he does not want to lose their money."
Inadvertently proving Andrews's sentiments, Rhodes said the following:
"He could not take constructive criticism," Rhodes contends. "All we were doing is saying, 'Look, Sam, don't make it sound like we're gonna arm violent people who were rioters. We're gonna arm the good people of Ferguson, to stand up for their rights against the police and to control the hoods.'" Invoking a notorious recent crime in the town—the death of Jamyla Bolden, a nine-year-old girl hit by a stray bullet while she did her homework—Rhodes says: "The false choice we're being presented with is, either you put up with thugs running your streets and killing nine-year-old kids and looters and arson, or you get a police state. And we think there's a third way, it's the Founders' way, which is the people themselves being the militia."
Whether you fully agree with Andrews or not, anybody with good reading comprehension skills could easily tell Rhodes and his buddies ARE racist. As a result, Andrews left to start the Tactical YETI's (You Exterminating Tyrant Ideology). In spite of that...
2.) I've read comments saying that Andrews's group (I'll refer to them as T-YETI's from here on,) is still part of the Oath Keepers, still harboring all of the Oath Keeper ugliness. Looking at their Facebook page the T-YETI's appear to be solidifying their inclusiveness. For example, an anti-Muslim yahoo posted a rant on the 'Visitor' post, and the page's moderator used common sense in telling her that not all Muslims are bad. It may seem like it's not that big of a deal, but considering where they broke off from, they're off to a good start. Maybe if the group has more sensible people (calling all members of the DailyKos) to help out or join them, they can tidy up the organization a bit more. (Pushing out the ignorant conspiracy nuts, wording better statements like for the T-YETI's MISSION: I. "People of all races, all financial positions, all religions, should have equal rights." so that it doesn't sound like everyone is already being treated equally, etc...) The T-YETI's motto is "Reach, Teach & Inspire," which can work for the better as a two-way street if done right. However, that doesn't mean trying to make them into another Occupy Wall Street (a massive, yet ineffectual mess) either, because you see...
3.) A lot of people are criticizing the open carry march and the T-YETI's for basically being what is seen as too aggressive and reckless. Yet if you look back on major effective changes that occurred to the system and/or society, there have always been 2 main factions working against the status quo: The Carrot (nonviolence) and the Stick (violence, or at least the threat of such). From the American Revolution (Benjamin Franklin's charm offensive in France) to the Civil Rights Movement, (Malcolm X) if either the Carrot or the Stick was predominant in the movement, the other was there to prop up the other, effectively having their cake and eating it too. Those of us, who call ourselves intellectuals, pacifists, and/or non-violent activists, have taken over much of the political field, chasing away many of the more aggressive reactionary groups. In the process however, the corrupt have taken advantage of our aversion towards violence. They know the worst that could possibly happen to them nowadays, most often amounts to a slap on the wrist, or losing their public position in exchange for a golden parachute or a job in an industry they used to cater; nothing of worth happens, the revolving door keeps turning, and the corruption continues to metastasize. Worst part is, some of us are quite content about this, willing to exchange our privacy, rights and possibilities for a better future, for the promise of order, comfort and safety; a promise that is an illusion or available to a relative few. There has to be the right balance between order and freedom, privacy and publicity, instant gratification and forethought. As there has to be a balance between those things, there also has to be a proper balance between agents of change. The T-YETI's is a fledgling organization, which is so far more reasonable than the usual garden variety gun advocacy and self-defense groups. Instead of trying to drive them away, we should find common ground and foster a relationship that both sides can agree on. If we hope to face off against the forces of corruption today, we've got to have teeth; Andrews and his organization are those teeth. If we continue to exclude them for not being non-violent enough, if we don't even seriously attempt to help nurture them into a group that truly fights for the rights of all colors and creeds of this nation, then one way or another we WILL lose a crucial ally in the fight against corruption and brutality.
If you have a complaint about what I wrote, I suggest you read the following diary entries before you write your comment. Think of them as FAQ:
Terrible Revelations We MUST Face Now, Part 1
Terrible Revelations We MUST Face Now, Part 2
Terrible Revelations We MUST Face Now, Part 3
Terrible Revelations We MUST Face Now, Part 4 (FINAL)
10:17 PM PT: I remember an old fable about a group of blind men describing an elephant. Each man felt a different part of the elephant, but when they tell one another what the elephant may look like, they refuse to listen to one another and spend their time bickering. Not once do they think the different parts are all one animal.
The comments I've read here and across the web, right-wing and the left-wing, have made it clear to me that too many people on both sides are blinded by their own ideologies. The Right resorts to guns, God and violence for their answers, while the Left resorts to overly relying on a broken system that they know is broken, and ineffective pacifism. Deep down inside they both know their ideologies aren't that effective by themselves most of the time, but something stops them from thinking outside of that. They'd both rather subject themselves to willful ignorance, and claim the other side is only one way and are completely wrong without even considering that a good point may have been made. Anyone on their own side even suggests they should reach out to the other to find common ground, and suddenly that person is looked upon in disgust. Did they even bother taking the suggestion seriously in the first place, or did they automatically fallback onto their comfort zone without even daring?
Some reason, I thought the DailyKos would be a bit different; a place that would look at the world more realistically, and think more critically and practically about working towards effective change. Instead, there are people here who are just as mired in a certain ideology, as much as any right-wing website. I'm not asking for full bipartisanship, but some sort of cooperation within reason. This non-constructive arguing is exactly what helps corruption flourish. We're all so busy fighting over the symptoms of the problem instead of the root. Are the symptoms not important? Yes they are important, but what are you and your perceived opposites trying to prove, dedicating so much energy to showing how wrong the other side is? What's the end goal here? Even if a symptom manages to be taken care of, what stops the root from undoing all of that soon after if you're not even going to work to acknowledge the root's existence?
Truth is, without each others' help in trying to tackle the root, we're helping the real enemies to divide and conquer. While we bicker amongst ourselves, the forces of corruption take advantage of this and steadily chip away at our foundations. What's our excuse going to be, when one day we all wake up, and find that there is no one there to help us out from under an oppressive heel?