Well at least he hasn't already won a Senate primary.
I thought so too. Plus, his grammar is disturbing.
However, I think he has a point. I'm old enough to remember life before Lyndon Johnson's Great Society started encouraging gubmint dependence.
My father's company employed many black people, who were all perfectly charming, had job longevity, families they cared for, even tho they were in low-paying (but steady) restaurant jobs.
I actually drove down to the South Side of Chicago one Saturday evening with some equally nutzoid teenage girlfriends -- through totally black neighborhoods, and people were out with their kids, walking around, socializing, nobody seemed drunk and we didn't know what "stoned" meant. WE didn't belong there, but certainly were safe.
Try that today? Not in an armored tank.
Also, I read The History of the South by Simkin, first published in 1947 by Alfred Knopf, a topnotch publishing house. A few tidbits: Most slaves were well cared for, because, after all, they were investments and needed to be healthy to get the work done. Slaves' living quarters, meals, and general health were equal to paid workers in the North. Lots of statistical studies supported that. Dreadfully dangerous work, like clearing malaria-mosquito swamps, was done by Irish immigrants and other disposable workers. Couldn't risk losing valuable slaves. These assertions make perfect sense from an economic standpoint. But of course, this information has been suppressed by revisionist "historians."
My own family arrived on a Caribbean island in 1650, prior to the arrival of slaves. WE did the toughest work of clearing and planting. And we moved on to settle the South and eventually the West after our lands and fortunes were lost to the Civil War.
So, while I deplore Bundy's inelegant way of asserting what he perceives as the truth, I do see his point.