Posted on 04/24/2014 10:44:44 AM PDT by absentee
He was inarticulate when asking the question; Individual slave-owners or the government as slave-owners? Are they better off where the government keeps them on the government plantation and destroys the family by doing so?
“Slaves had no choice. They could not leave. Their children could not leave. That is the antithesis of the American dream.”
Such as the case with the welfare state. . .but they don’t have to work to reap the ‘benefits.’
Exactly. This is the issue. Many blacks are slaves to government. NOBODY is better off as a slave.
They are better off on the government plantation, because they can leave it. They could not leave the slave platation.
Your turn. Which is better?
1. Being a slave...to the massa.
2. Or being a slave...to the government and its stifling bureaucracy.
Note that both of Bundy's options are premised on being a slave...to somebody...or some institution.
I was not alive during the time of slavery and would not wish the condition on any man -- be it either of the above. And I'm certain Cliveden Bundy doesn't either.
But I was alive during the era of Jim Crow. And I often find myself asking the same question Bundy is asking. Life under Jim Crow was separate...and it was not equal. But it may well have been more equal than it is now.
Many southern cities had (or still have) a second downtown -- which had served as the center of black commerce. Banks, retail stores, hotels, supermarkets, restaurants, professional offices, stock brokerages, etc. I have seen them when they were in their prime -- bustling, even thriving, full of busy, outwardly happy people.
If there were such a thing as a Happiness Quotient, I would not be surprised if it was found that the average black's HQ was higher in 1955 than it will be in 2015.
The simple fact is that Democrat administrations from LBJ forward have done everything possible to a.) rend asunder the black family and make the race dependent upon their governmental policies, thereby b.) controlling the black vote and c.) exacerbating race relations, hoping to benefit from resentment and conflict.
Whatever chance at true freedom blacks may have gained from the Civil Rights Movement was snuffed out by LBJ's War on Poverty. And, as they voted for it, the Democrats were aware of exactly what kind of dependence it would engender. Ass't Sec'y of Labor's Daniel P. Moynihan wrote an analysis spelling out the consequences in detail.
On the other hand, has the black community benefitted from this situation and its political dependency? Are they happier now than in 1955? Or, even, in 1855?
Like Cliveden Bundy, I wonder, too...
Who here is supporting slavery??
The people defending what he said.
“He was inarticulate when asking the question; Individual slave-owners or the government as slave-owners? Are they better off where the government keeps them on the government plantation and destroys the family by doing so?”
I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on the racism charge.
But it was still an ignorant thing to say.
He painted all black people with the same broad brush.
What if I said “You know, after the Civil War the Union should have salted the earth because look at the southerner today. They live in trailers, they’re uneducated. If the land had been made uninhabitable they would have had to moved on from the mindset of the old south”.
That’s me painting every southerner with a broad brush based on a very small percentage of how real southerners are.
At best it’s ignorant.
Bundy said blacks were better off as slaves and people here are agreeing with him.
Scary, isn’t it? It’s no surprise that libs have such an easy time painting the right as racists. Bundy says something like this and there are plenty of people defending what he said and agreeing with what he said.
The Culture of Dependency proves otherwise.
I see no one defending slavery, but I see many asking the question regarding “masters.”
My point is that Bundy said blacks were better off as slaves. He is wrong on 2 points:
1. Blacks today can leave the government plantation. Slaves could not.
2. His idealistic presentation of a slave 'family' is not reality. Slave owners could sell any 'family' member.
“2. His idealistic presentation of a slave ‘family’ is not reality. Slave owners could sell any ‘family’ member. “
True. Makes me wonder where he learned that and what Blacks will learn from the African-American curriculum in Chicago schools next year.
“His idealistic presentation of a slave ‘family’ is not reality”
His presentation of black people today isn’t a reality either.
He compared a broad brushed stereotype to another broad brushed stereotype.
No it’s not, the issue is land rights and Govt Tyranny. Not liberal PC garbage.
My concern is not defending him against the people who already believed in what he is fighting against. My concern is the average low information voter and the thing is - yes, we have to get through their thick heads that the federal government is overstepping their boundaries - that is difficult when he gives the left fodder. First thing I did at lunch, check my facebook and there he is with the caption "what a horrible person this is". At the time I didn't really believe he said what he did, I actually thought it was a lie and I wanted to write the "friend" and say "there is no fact supporting this - it's just some liberal reporter saying it", I held back and now it appears he did say it - so how many times are low information folks going to get this blurb thrust through their head. It doesn't help. It's hard to defend. I just wish he hadn't said it.
I actually agree with much of what he says, that government has driven blacks to a new welfare plantation. But when he says blacks were better off as slaves and had a good family life is simply absurd.
Post 124 has good info and casts light on contrasting life experiences between slaves and northern mill workers.
Interesting.
After discussing the ‘negro’ and cotton picking, Mr Bundy also discussed Mexicans who come into our country.
And now what do you think of illegal alien loving Mr Bundy? Is he still just inarticulate or perhaps he’s not exactly what you had in mind for a straight talking conservative?
“Now let me talk about the Spanish people,” Bundy said in a new video unearthed by New York magazine, right after he concluded his thoughts on “the Negro.”
“I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders,” he says. “But they’re here and they’re people. I worked side-by-side a lot of them. Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people.”
“When you see those Mexican families, they’re together. They picnic together. They’re spending their time together,” he said. “I’ll tell you, in my way of thinking, they’re awful nice people. We need to have those people join us and be with us.”
FatherofFive claimed, “Bundy said blacks were better off as slaves.”
Prove it!
Cliven Bundy is apparently a student of a famous Democrat professor and politician.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Assistant Secretary of Labor, 1965:
The majority of Negro children receive public assistance under the AFDC program at one point or another in their childhood.At present, 14 percent of Negro children are receiving AFDC assistance, as against 2 percent of white children. Eight percent of white children receive such assistance at some time, as against 56 percent of nonwhites, according to an extrapolation based on HEW data. …
Again, the situation may be said to be worsening. The AFDC program, deriving from the long established Mothers' Aid programs, was established in 1935 principally to care for widows and orphans, although the legislation covered all children in homes deprived of parental support because one or both of their parents are absent or incapacitated. …
The steady expansion of this welfare program, as of public assistance programs in general, can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States.
Moynihan was a Democrat senator from New York from 1977 to 2001, when he was succeeded by the Hildebeest.
He did not.
He said he "wondered" if they weren't better off. That's a valid qualification. All things considered, there was a question in his mind.
There is that same question in my mind. Is living in the projects, dealing with drugs and crime daily and waiting in line at the welfare really an improvement?
Look, we're talking generalities here -- seeking to answer what was best for the most people. Some slaves were treated well, others weren't. Some blacks pull themselves up out of the poverty cycle today, most don't. And you don't think there was even cause to wonder?
Do you really believe the way blacks have been suborned and maintained by the government over the past fifty years has been a good thing? When does the concept of "abuse" enter your mind?
I agree Bundy probably shouldn't have risen to the bait the Times interviewer chummed on the water. But most folks don't have a PR counselor sitting at their side during a media interview. Perhaps, you'd be slick enough to avoid the trap, I don't know.
Still, Bundy gave an honest answer...and he properly qualified his statement. The New York Times chose to edit out the qualification -- for nefarious reasons of their own.
And you choose to ignore it...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.