It is coincidental that I was just discussing something similar to Bundy’s statement with my husband. I asked him if he thought that that the Progressive treatment of Blacks had similarities to the treatment of Native Americans and the reservation system. I was thinking about the effects of government dependency that destroyed the culture and the need to work to support themselves and their families. I was thinking how government dependency led to alcohol and drug dependency, all because the need to work was taken away.
My husband pointed out that the Blacks were much more amenable to government dependency than the Indians and that the Blacks weren’t put on reservations, but many of the Blacks were self segregating. The urban ghettos have a lot in common with reservations, except that they have no self government.
Where Bundy went wrong was saying that the Blacks would have been better off as slaves. I don’t think that is exactly what he meant. I think that he meant that moving from slavery to government dependency was a Pyrrhic victory. Slavery was ended just about the time that Whites were forming Trade Unions which were closed to Black membership, leaving Uneducated Blacks to work in only the most menial jobs, formerly performed by slaves in many cases.
I have not seen it written anywhere, but I would not be surprised if the push to empower the public sector unions over the trade unions was not partially based on some level of social justice for the former racist hiring practiced advocated by trade unions.
Interesting post. My friend, partially Native American, tells me that reservations have their own 1% and the trickle down is anything but fair, especially the tribes who have casinos.
You might find my post about slaves interesting too: #57 on this thread
“Where Bundy went wrong was saying that the Blacks would have been better off as slaves.”
He didn’t state that they were better off as slaves,he questioned whether they would be. Big difference IMHO.
The following is the alleged quote.
” 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.”
.
Bundy does not appear to have stated that blacks were better off under slavery, but rather he drew up a two-sided rhetorical question whether moving from slavery to dependency, in the process decreasing the attendant freedom, made the blacks "better off".
Creative editing can make up look like down. I am unsurprised that the actual words are not the subject of the controversy - but the message that can be built up from those words by mincing them in unnatural ways is now the subject.
I think you are right that he may not have meant it the way it sounded.
I have only seen this man speak a few times in some interviews.
I fear the more he speaks - the worse its going to get.