Self Reflection and The Road Not Taken

Time seems to pass by so swiftly sometimes that the realization that two weeks, a month, or even a year has passed seemingly unnoticed as one long streaking blur of events that we often forget to take the time to stop and reflect upon the course that we're traveling.   In today's world, it seems that there is no time to stop at points where the road that we were traveling upon diverges and splits into two in order to ponder which path to take as the traveler does in Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken".   We're just simply too busy, too absorbed in the constant inflow of information, activity, things that need to be done, and things we want to do to even notice the journey that we're on.   The leisurely walk of life is long gone and instead, has been replaced with something akin to the high speed Eurail. 

Is living one's life at such a frenetic pace without taking the time for self-examination and reflection of where one is going good?  I sincerely doubt it.  I have no doubt that most would agree though. Some, however, would argue that they simply have no time at all for either of those things and view the ability to do either as a luxury.  Yet, I challenge those who hold that latter view to stop and consider whether that point of view is actually true or not because I often imagine that it is most likely untrue.  That somewhere in their lives, there are things that could be skipped for an hour or so whether it be not watching one's favorite television show or not spending that hour perusing posts about food, memes, or animal videos on Facebook.   If such time exists, then why is it that it is not taken?  Our lives are important so self-reflection should be on the top of the to-do list.  Where am I going?  What am I doing?  What can I do better?   Are these not important questions to ask oneself?  Instead, I don't think it is actually that the time does not exist but that perhaps fear of asking oneself questions about the course of one's life can be a truly frightening prospect because it forces the asking of those very questions.

Years ago, I was just such a person who felt like they had to be doing something at all times.  If one task was completed, well, there was another already lined up for me to start.  Then came the dreadful day when I had just finished ironing the last shirt that needed to be ironed and as I was putting away the ironing board,  the realization that I had nothing to do next struck me.  I was suddenly terrified at the prospect of having free time in which my thoughts could freely run amok around my head because there was nothing left to do.  My house was clean, my garden tended, the laundry was done.  There were no dishes to be clean and my son was contentedly playing with his toys.   So I stood there before my dryer, trembling, and had a panic attack.   All because of a little thing called free time that led me to have that other thing called self-examination where I asked myself why the idea of thinking was so darn scary to me.

I knew why.  It didn't take long to understand the reasons behind my fear and constant need to keep busy, to keep from thinking.  I was unhappy at the current course of my life.  I found myself in what I viewed as an abysmal situation where I was entrapped into a controlled way of life by my father, whom I worked for, and in a marriage that I knew was not working as neither my husband or I loved each other anymore.  I sometimes joke that the reason why I got a divorce in the first place was because I ran out of ironing.  It's pretty much true.

Self-examination can be frightening.  It can highlight our flaws, our unhappiness in some aspect of our lives, and bring it all into razor sharp focus.  As frightening as it may be though, we arguably have just one life to live and so, self-examination becomes absolutely pivotal.  If we are breezing through life with the rate of a high speed train, are we then taking full advantage of this life or are we risking wasting that precious time where we could be making our lives or even ourselves a little bit better?  Self-examination of oneself and one's course in life is important, especially in this world where everything seems to race by at the speed of light simply because it does.  The busier that we are, the more packed our schedules are with that constant inflow, then the faster our lives pass before us until the day comes where our lives are no more.  That should be reason enough to pause and reflect.

"I enter'd upon the Execution of this Plan for Self Examination, and continu'd it with occasional Intermissions for some time. I was surpris'd to find myself so much fuller of Faults than I had imagined, but I had the Satisfaction of seeing them diminish"  --Benjamin Franklin, "The Art of Virtue"

Protest in the United States

Occupy Seattle

Lately, I've been seeing consistent debate over whether or not an armed protest could be perceived as being a "peaceful" protest or not.  Probably the most common argument justifying the bearing of arms during a protest is that, unlike unarmed "peaceful" protests, armed protests are dealt with differently.  Or, as one individual put it in the comments on Oregonlive.com,  "Do it legally??  Where have you been??  We'll get pepper sprayed, tear gassed, and shot with rubber bullets...ya right!!". That is actually a very troubling statement in regards to the perception of protest here in the US when the bearing of arms during a protest is seemingly justified based on instances where unarmed protests have been subject to pepper spray, tear gas, rubber bullets and more.

Probably the most well known protests over the last few years have been the protests in Sandtown-Winchester in the city of Baltimore (2015),  Ferguson, Missouri (2014) and, of course, the Occupy Movement (2011-2012), which has a presence in nearly every major city in the US.  In all three cases, the protests were largely peaceful, largely unarmed, and were frequently subject to what are called "non-lethal weapons".  Non-lethal weapons would include tear gas, pepper spray, flash bang grenades, long range acoustic devices (LRAD), rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, and more.  To test the theory that "armed protests don't get pepper sprayed, tear gassed, and shot with rubber bullets",  I ran a search on Google using the terms "armed protest" and "tear gas".  Given that I am very keen on following First Amendment issues and protests, I already a pretty good idea what the search return was going to look like and I was right.  The returns were not discussing any armed protest that had been tear gassed.  Instead, the returns were links to discussions of how unlikely it is that tear gas would be used on an armed protest.  Not very surprising. 

Baltimore, 2015, courtesy of The Blaze

On the face of the issue, it seems like the theory that "armed protests do not get tear gassed in the US" seems to be true.  However, that isn't the only question that has been brought up as of late in regards to protests, both armed and unarmed.  In this post and in additional posts, I'll be discussing the questions of whether or not armed protests are legal,  whether they can be construed as "peaceful", whether the differential treatment between Ferguson and Baltimore are related to race or not as presented by the media,  and a review of why people protest and whether or not it is smart to engage in an armed protest.

Is it legal to engage in an armed protest? 

Yes, an armed protest in the US is legal and protected under both the First and Second Amendments.  There is no question of the legality of such a protest.  In fact, there have been multiple armed protests where no arrests have been made whatsoever.  However, just because one is bearing arms does not mean that, should one engage in illegal activities during such a protest, that one will be allowed to walk away free of charges.   All other laws still apply regardless of whether one is toting a gun or not.


Though the bearing of arms during a protest is a legal form of protest,  the problem remains that it is still an armed protest.  While an unarmed protest may be a much more chaotic scene, often due to a strong display of force by the overseeing police, an armed protest is, logically, a much tenser situation simply because there is a great deal of weaponry on display.  While the latter may seem more controlled, an armed protest can quickly turn into an army and that is precisely what increases the tension and, thereby, risk of the situation.  While the police obviously use more caution with such an event, if the trend is going to become more armed protests in the future based on the avoidance of having non-lethal weapons used against protesters, it is almost an inevitability that something untoward may happen. 

Can an armed protest be considered "peaceful"?

If the aim of the protest is to peaceably march or engage in any other non-violent means of protest, then yes, even an armed protest could be construed as peaceful. However, the largest issue with qualifying an armed protest as "peaceful" is that the outright display of force also indicates an expectation and preparedness for the possibility of a threat of violence.  In that sense, the status of whether such a protest is actually peaceful when the underlying cause for the bearing of arms is that expectation of violence shifts the bearing of arms in a protest as an offensive move in order to defend against potential expected violence through a show of force.  To put it bluntly, as I noted in the preceding paragraph--that "peaceful" armed protest can turn from a protest into an army within seconds, depending on treatment.  While the argument that has been seen has been to avoid being the target of non-lethal weaponry, any armed protest that should happen to turn into an outright gunfight will be more likely to receive actual bullets as opposed to rubber ones. While the use of non-lethal weapons may be eliminated, the reality is that the bearing of arms during protest actually increases the risk and danger towards participants and those in the surrounding area.  Thankfully, at this time, armed "peaceful" protesters and their overseeing police have acted with the utmost responsibility in that regard.

Courtesy of Mashable

Additionally, I would argue that the intention and target of such a protest also should be considered.  Mosques have been the target of armed protests over the last few years and even recently.  In a country where burning a cross with the "intent to intimidate" (Virginia v. Black, 538 US 343, 2003) may be banned as a hate crime, one has to wonder where precisely the more intimidating act of standing armed outside a place of religious worship with overt hostility would fall in terms of being comparably intimidating.  Surely, those within the place of worship would be infinitely more intimidated by a group of armed and angry protesters outside than should those same protesters had lit a cross in front of them.  Such an act is reprehensible, deliberately intimidating, and ergo, I find it highly difficult to consider such a protest as being "peaceful" in intent as it is a protest motivated directly out of hostility and with the intent to intimidate those within through the display of force.  If the fellow depicted on the right was outside your church and angry at you, would you feel that he's there peacefully?   No?  Neither would I. 


Is the differential treatment of an armed protest such as the militia in Oregon compared to those largely unarmed protests in Ferguson and Baltimore a matter of race? 

 

Occupy Portland, Courtesy of Oregonlive.com

The media has been largely focusing on the differences between treatments of Ferguson and with the militia holed up at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge as a basis of differential treatment due to race. However, the protesters in Ferguson and Baltimore were not the only ones to get tear gassed, pepper sprayed or shot at with rubber bullets.  Those things also happened at Occupy encampments, which were notably unarmed, across the nation, regardless of skin color.  To make it poignantly clear, one can be a 70 year old white former US Poet Laureate and still find oneself getting beaten by a truncheon at a protest.

Despite the fact that various Occupy Protests across the nation did find themselves on the receiving end of non-lethal weapons, one particular Occupy--Occupy Oakland--still stands alone in terms of a disproportionate police response even in comparison to the other Occupies nationwide.  According to the US Census Bureau, the demographics for the city of Oakland is very racially mixed with 34.5% of the population being white, 28% being African American, 25.4% being Hispanic/Latino, and 16.8% Asian.  The activities by multiple police departments from the surrounding area on the night of October 25, 2011 were so extreme that the police department and Mayor of Oakland came under severe criticism and an investigation by the Department of Justice was ordered.  The crowd at Occupy Oakland  (click for footage of the event) on the eve of October 25, 2011 was a largely interracial crowd and the worst injury was an Iraq veteran by the name of Scott Olsen, who sustained a skull fracture and severe internal  hemorrhaging in his brain after being struck in the head by a beanbag round. 

Huey P. Newton Gun Club, courtesy of Vice

Probably the strongest counter, however, towards the argument that the disparate treatment of the militia in Oregon and the protests in Ferguson and Baltimore as being solely an issue of race would be the occasional armed protests held by the Black Panthers or their offshoots.  Not long after the events of Ferguson, Missouri unfurled on national television, a group of around three dozen armed protesters, calling themselves the "Huey P. Newton Gun Club" marched through Dallas, Texas in direct protest of what they called "police terrorism".  Notably, these armed African American protesters were not tear gassed, pepper sprayed or shot at with rubber bullets--nor were they arrested. Also in Texas in August of 2015, The New Black Panthers, once again, engaged in an armed protest outside of a county jail.  Although it was reported that a "huge contingent" of police officers were present for the protest, there was no violence nor any arrests made in response to this protest.

Based on the above observations, it is potentially very likely that more force may be used against an unarmed African-American or mixed racial protest than a predominately white unarmed protest based on Occupy Oakland, Ferguson, and Baltimore.  However, the fact remains that the actual different between whether or not a protest gets subjected to tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets at all is whether or not it is armed.  An armed protest, regardless of skin color, is far less likely to be the recipient of non-lethal weapons and for obvious reasons.  As stated previously, the tensions of such a protest are much higher as any potential perceived overreaction by police monitoring the situation could very well erupt into a gunfight within the city streets of the United States.  That's damning.

Is it, therefore, "smart" to engage in an armed protest?To this, I would very clearly say "No, it is not smart".   Probably the most memorable and horrific protest within the last 50 years would be none other than the protest at Kent State University.  In early May of 1970, students at Kent State University had been engaging in anti-war protests for several days that culminated into violent and riotous confrontations between protesters and the local police department.  In response to threats of more destruction to the city, the Governor of Ohio made the decision to declare a state of emergency and called in the Ohio National Guard to Kent State.  The circumstances of the protests were extremely tense with tear gas and rocks being exchanged by the Guard and the protesters, respectively.  Finally, on May 4, 1970, after the Guard had been present in the area for less than 48 hours, 28 Guardsmen present at a noon rally on the campus turned and opened fire on the students, firing between 61-67 shots in 13 seconds, killing 4 students and wounding 9 others.  In the investigation of the shooting of these students, the guardsmen involved testified that they were "in fear of their lives" and both the criminal and civil courts found that these Guardsmen acted in "self-defense."

Kent State University, courtesy of NPR

While the protesters at Kent State University were armed merely with rocks and bottles, the incident should remain as a stark reminder of just how quickly a protest can turn deadly.  If rocks and bottles being thrown can make trained Guardsmen in a tense situation open fire "in fear of their lives", then how much more likely is that it that protesters carrying actual deadly weapons may instill that same level of fear?  All it takes is the slamming of a car door, a car backfiring, or any other noise to be misconstrued as a gunshot and we could find ourselves confronted with the reality of another Kent State but this time, perhaps far worse.  When engaging in an armed protest, one may be almost guaranteed to avoid tear gas and rubber bullets but at the possible expense of one's own life if just one little thing goes wrong.

Lastly, it is also not smart in terms of garnering support for one's cause.  The goal of any protest, generally, is to highly, spread awareness and garner support for a cause in the hopes of exerting a change over an issue perceived by the protest group.  Protests, by nature, are disruptive and that is why James Madison made sure to include the right to peaceably assemble in the First Amendment.  All of the provisions included within this amendment are there because they are those rights that are most likely to cause friction and faction within American society.  While it still protects majority opinion, ideologies, and beliefs, what it really services are those behaviors and beliefs that are held to be contentious by the majority and probably the most contentious would be protests due to that disruptive tendency.

As such, the more mainstream media will have a tendency of latching onto those behaviors that are more sensationalist and fractious than all of the behaviors exhibited at a protest.  This observation was actually made by none other than Martin Luther King, Jr. in his "I've Been To the Mountaintop" speech:

That's always the problem with a little violence.  You know what happened the other day, and the press dealt only with the window-breaking.  I read the articles.  They very seldom got around to mentioning the fact that one thousand, three hundred sanitation workers are on strike, and that Memphis is not being fair to them, and that Mayor Loeb is in dire need of a doctor.  They didn't get around to that."

What King is saying here is quite simple:  Do something negative, something that can be perceived as violent, and the media will run with it and not the issue that you are trying to present.  In the case of Ferguson and Baltimore, the press focused on the rioting, the burning buildings, and the looting--not the hundreds or even thousands of peaceful, law abiding protesters present to protest the deaths of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray, respectively.  At the various Occupies across the nation, it was any broken windows, refuse in the parks, blocking the streets, fires lit and any other perceived riotous behaviors that because the "issue" presented by the press--not the issues that Occupy was protesting about in the first place.  In the case of armed protests, they're going to focus on the fact that they are armed.  Is what the militia in Oregon doing a protest or an armed standoff?   See my point?   It's quite literally handing a reason to sensationalize to the media, itself, prepackaged into its sensationalist glory.   In every single one of these cases, the response by viewers is almost always the same--loss of support for the cause of the protest, itself.   The acts involved in how a protest is engaged because a reason to dislike the protests themselves--not the issue that is being protested against. 

King was right.  If one is going to protest to generate awareness of an issue, don't give the press something to use to smear your movement right off the bat.  That should be a no brainer at this point if one looks at every single protest over the last 4 years with a neutral view and take note of how each and every one has been presented in the media. 

Final Remarks

Collectively, we should find it deeply sad that we have come to this point where individuals in our nation feel that the only way that they can safely exert their First Amendment rights is through using the Second Amendment to assure that right.  While this is both a completely legal form of protest and there may very well be justification that an armed protest will be less likely to be on the receiving end of that tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets, it is still not without risk.  If anything,  the risk increases exponentially, when recollecting Kent State and they had rocks and bottles--not guns.  Additionally, racial bias, while it may be a factor in overall level of response, does not seem to be the prevalent factor in whether or not a protest will be subject to the use of non-lethal weaponry.  If that were the case, then those Occupies that were predominately white would've gone totally unmolested.  Instead, they were frequently subjected to the same weapons like this footage from Occupy Denver but on a lesser scale.   Likewise, the instances of armed African-American protest marches being held without violent confrontation also counter the argument that race is the predominate factor of whether or not non-lethals are used against a protest.  Instead, the key difference really does seem to be whether or not it is armed and that, unfortunately, makes sense.

None of us should like this reality regardless of which side of the political spectrum we may sit on.  The irony is that, for the unarmed protesters that get beaten, tear gassed and pepper sprayed, they're often called "dumb hippies" by the right side of the political spectrum and those armed protesters that are frequently that same right?  Well, the Left is more likely to perceive their protests as not being peaceful at all because of the presence of those guns.  In either case, the way either the Left or Right view each other as protesters overall is a lose-lose situation.  What we really should be saying is that the right to peaceably assemble is our guaranteed right under the First Amendment and should be treated with equal caution and care regardless of whether the protest is armed or not and regardless of skin color.   That is the very essence behind the First Amendment.  If we do not, then we will continue to be confronted with the deeply troubling scenario that for every unarmed protest that gets gassed or sprayed, it becomes another justification for an armed protest and this is not in the best interest of any of us here in the US.  We all absolutely need to work together as communities to scale back from where we are at now instead of letting it worsen.  The picture below should never be a sight that we ever want to see in the United States again and none of us--whether we be activists, citizens, law enforcement or a Guardsmen--should want this to encapsulate protest in the United States.   It's said that a picture is worth a million words.  What does this one say?

Ferguson, Missouri