Rancher Cliven Bundy, who became an overnight hero of conservatives when the feds swarmed his ranch (which was on federal land and for which he had not and has not paid grazing fees in twenty years), has stepped into some cow pie with the remarks me made to a New York Times reporter.
To the non-thinkers, his statements sounded horribly racist. To the cowards, his statements made sense but required fierce, public rebuke.
Here’s an excerpt from The New York Times:
"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro," he said.
(He refers to black people in the same way Senator Harry Reid refers to them. Maybe it’s a Nevada thing.)
Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids—and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch—they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
"And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?" he asked. "They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom."
Without thinking about these words, it’s true, they do sound anti-black. But what really is he saying? He’s expressing sympathy for blacks, that they don’t have a family life, that they end up in jail or pregnant, how they have no jobs and are, as he sees it, slaves to the government.
Honestly, is any of that untrue?
Whether blacks did have a better life under slavery than they do now doesn’t matter. The point is that Bundy obviously believes blacks had it better under slavery, and therefore he isn’t saying anything anti-black. He’s saying it was better for blacks, not for whites, when slavery existed in America. That contentious point is up for debate, obviously, but he spoke from a place of sympathy, not malice.
Ignoring the slavery aspect of his remarks (since delving into that requires more words than I’m willing to type), is everything else he said untrue? Be honest with yourself. (Senator Rand Paul pretended to believe what Bundy said was untrue, but he’s running for president and is required to be a coward.)
Last spring, at Virginia Beach’s College Beach Week 2013, 40,000 black teenagers swarmed the town and raped, pillaged, brutalized, murdered, robbed, ransacked, and destroyed property. Nine-hundred emergency calls were made. According to witnesses and to videos, it was all black people who were doing the crimes and causing the ruckus.
Does that sound like these black kids have nothing to do? Sure does to me. The locals are preparing for a repeat of last year’s episode. The coward who wrote this article explains it without once mentioning that it’s blacks who the locals are afraid of.
But in the eyes of those 40,000 black teens, and the ones who are expected this weekend, it’s not that they have nothing better to do; it’s that this is their version of fun. This is the better thing to do, gathering in packs to harass whites. We all have witnessed it, so there’s no purpose in pretending we’re blind. There were times in history when they didn’t do this stuff for one reason or another, but Bundy is right: today, black culture is different. Everybody, including the blacks themselves, is worse off for it.