Bundy’s remarks on race, welfare, and slavery
Cliven Bundy’s remarks about race, welfare, and slavery have drawn a lot of fire, and the right is attempting to back away from them.
First, take a look at what he said:
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. 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.”
There’s a kernel of truth there—that the welfare system has been a goodly part of the reason that people who receive welfare can sometimes end up being harmed by it in terms of killing initiative, undermining the family, and in general fostering dependence. The racist part of what Bundy said is not that outdated word “Negro” (although I’m sure some take offense at that), but the idea that this an especially black phenomenon. In fact, it’s something that happens with welfare as a whole, and although more blacks are on welfare proportionate to their incidence in the population, the culture of welfare is hardly limited to or special to blacks.
The last portion of Bundy’s statement is especially offensive not just to blacks but to the cause of the liberty he professes to support. Even though he couches it as a question (“I’ve often wondered”), the idea that slavery may have been better for black people (or anyone else) than welfare demonstrates an odd lack of appreciation on his part for one of the main—and probably the biggest—reason that slavery was a repulsive institution: the ownership of one human being by another is an especially profound violation of the liberty inherent in each human being, far deeper than anything engendered by welfare.
None of this has anything to do with the merits of Bundy’s legal case, the pros and cons of which were discussed here. Nor does Bundy speak generally for conservatives, libertarians, the Republican Party, or ranchers. However, you can be sure the left will try to impute his remarks to the right no matter how hard and fast the right tries to run away from them. They fit the false stereotypes the left has long tried to push about the Tea Party and the right as a whole.
Yep.
Given the current climate I can’t imagine a dumber way for Bundy to express his views on welfare and government. If Bundy were an agent of the left/Democrat party he could not have been dumber.
Looks like 2014 may be Ground Hog day for Republican self destruction.
It’s a good thing I’m a pessimist otherwise this would be depressing.
Bundy’s remark is a goldmine for libs/”progressives”. It hardens the cement of what they think conservatives are all about. We are all Clive Bundy’s now whether we like it or not.
The peculiar institution was a repulsive institution was an inspirational institution. Those caught up and chained to it had thoughts of escape/freedom, education/betterment, and feelings of familial affections. The present repulsive institution is the welfare plantation. As it applies to blacks, they remain slaves – though the proper euphemism may vary from ‘wards of the state’, or the ‘honored poor’, ‘the irreparably damaged’, or whatever phrase victimoligists would make de rigueur.
The wish to be free is gone. Education is all ‘ ackin’white’, and familial affections have no basis for expression.
Ol’ massah and all the KKK could not have imagined doing to the black community what liberal on black crime, and black on black cultural annihilation had done to them. Massa got rich, Jackson, Sharpton, et al. got rich, and liberal whites got to feelin’ good — about themselves. Bundy is right — slavery of the old sort tended to distill desires to essentially higher human needs. The present day bondsman can’t say that about himself — it couldn’t occur to him — it has been lashed out of him by his benefactors.
I think you are missing the point on black versus white welfare – the whites on welfare don’t have an excuse and are written off, and don’t have an army of PC hacks behind them. Blacks on the other hand make a big deal about how they were slaves 100+ years ago, but if you look at the average inner city black today in Detroit can you say their existence is better than during slavery?
Maybe the answer is “it’s definitely better today”,
but living in mass gang warfare, massive murder and rape rates, and no hope to the future isn’t much to live for. But he is asking the question as the black welfare state keeps descends into more chaos, more incarceration, and more poverty.
The inner cities today are no better than the worst third world ghetto, and Obama and the current “black leaders” (modern slave owners) don’t even care. But, hey, the inner city blacks are “free”. To do what, I am not sure.
All I do know it is going to get worse and worse since the black community is nothing more than a voting block for the democrats, and it will keep being so no matter how low they keep falling. So they are still slaves. We just don’t use the term since it isn’t PC.
I agree. The issue of government’s contractual terms and personal character, or at least its appearance, are separate and separable issues. They certainly have nothing to do with anything outside their own frame of reference. Still, a narrative can be spun from yarns and threads. The special interests are already hard at work pulling the threads. If it is not a yarn, then this was an unforced error.
MR:
The controversy is two-fold. First, present day conditions can and should be presented within their own limited frame. It does not help anyone to couch them with past failures. Second, it’s not strictly a black and white issue, and it does not help to frame it as such. Our goal is to create an independent framework that avoids the obstacles and controversies which create moral hazards. That necessarily binds us more than it does our competing interests.
So, lemme see, oh Keepers of the PC-Flame and Lying Dawgs of the Thought Police Lib-Left: “Negro” is a racist No-No, yet “African American” is PC-Invented & Approved??? Except our(sadly)president, most Black Americans AREN’T “African American”. Nor—Listen closely, y’all—do any blacks call themselves that moniker(African American)other than academics, politicians and doofuses. Go into ANY ‘Hood(as I do regularly)and you’ll find NOBODY using the term. Period.
Now, PC-Airheads, how’bout that term,”Colored” in the NAACP??!!
No doubt the comments section is going to be turned off when they run this story on Fox.
What Bundy said is true. Sorry ’bout that. Neo seems to share in the implied complaint that he didn’t talk about sorry-ass whites in the same breath. Sorry ’bout that too, but very probably he didn’t see them sitting outside that public housing project in north Las Vegas….because they were not there. We require him to be comprehensive in all remarks, as we require that of ourselves??
The Repubs who distance themselves from Bundy’s remarks should instead defend his right to make them. Instead, in the present era, they fear being Politically Incorrect, becoming instant cowards. Such would do well to remember: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Doing the first without saying the second (indeed, giving the second its primacy) forfeits our freedom one syllable at a time.
Don Carlos:
No, I never said he needed to talk “about sorry-ass whites in the same breath.”
But his remarks were indeed unforced errors that have played perfectly into the hands of the opposition. What he needed to do was to indicate and emphasize it was WELFARE he’s talking about, not something special about blacks. That was not at all clear from his remarks, which were made even worse by contrasting welfare to slavery in this country, an institution that applied to blacks only.
The left would almost certainly have made hay of his remarks even had he added the caveat that he was talking about welfare and its effects. But he should have made that clear anyway.
Also, when you write “What Bundy said is true,” you are ignoring the part where he wonders whether blacks were not better off as slaves than as free people on welfare. It may be true that he wondered, but it’s a very odd thing for a man to wonder who has presented himself as a liberty-loving person. Surely it’s rather clear that slavery is a greater evil in and of itself?
And I haven’t heard a single person say he doesn’t have a right to say whatever he wants to say, however stupid. So why do you think anyone should be defending his right to say it? I didn’t see anyone attacking it in the first place. He can say whatever he wants.
I find now that Bundy’s remarks were published by the NYT and the establishment GOP thought leaders all spoke rapidly against his words in an (utterly futile) attempt to worm themselves into the NYT’s good graces.
I chose my words with care, Neo, and stand by my assertion of “seems to share in the implied complaint”. You are a wordsmith, so do not make more of my words than is in them.
We should especially defend the free-speech right of someone assaulted by the Left. To do less is to be a Priebus crawling apologetically toward his thuggish enemy, the NYT, which mangles truth daily. The GOP’s response is rather obviously devoid of any reminder of Bundy’s free speech right, the lack of which plays right into PC hands.
Don Carlos:
I, likewise, choose my words with care (as you are aware), and if I had meant to share in that “implied” complaint I would have said so.
I criticized Bundy for exactly what I think he should be criticized for, no more no less.
And I think it goes without saying that he has a right to say whatever he said. But naturally, if that right were under attack by anyone (and I have not noticed that it is), I would defend it.
I’m with Glenn Beck:
Bundy is a cattle rancher, not a professional pundit. It’s ridiculous to hold him to the same standards as one who writes or speaks for a living.
I’m long past caring what the Left thinks of me or my ideas.
His biggest mistake was talking to a member of the press in the first place. The media are the enemy. He should have told the reporter to go to hell.
I guess there’s a new one out now. Don’t “pull a bundy”.
Why do people on the right side of center insist on saying something totally stupid when things are going well for them? It doesn’t make a particle of sense.
rickl:
He couldn’t resist using his 15 minutes of fame to talk about other topics once he had the podium.
Don Carlos:
Let me re-emphasize that the problems with Bundy’s welfare remarks are as nothing compared to those of his slavery remarks, even though the latter are couched in “I wonder” speculation.
Stupid and anti-liberty. And he’s supposed to be about liberty.
Don Carlos,
I usually read your posts and agree with your words. In this case, Bundy said something very stupid. The slavery that was ended by the Civil War was the antithesis of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and is not a subject for debate between those who hold dear the basic principles of our natural rights as free individuals. As rickl noted, keep your mouth shut when the MSM is baiting you.
Yes, of course he has the right to speak those words, but that does not make them any less stupid. And, yes, the BLM (and the rest of the alphabet soup) is heavy handed and should be eliminated with all the millions of BLM acres turned over to the states. But that is not the issue with regard to his remarks. I often refer to the welfare plantation, but I would never compare the welfare plantation to the cotton plantation.
He was basically comparing the modern welfare plantation to slavery. He is hardly the first to make that comparison. He did it inelegantly, but as I said, he’s a cattle rancher, not a writer.
Don’t take your eye off the ball. This is about a lot more than Bundy. If we wait until we find someone who is above reproach to support, we will be waiting a long time. STOP letting the Left set the terms of debate!
Harry Reid has publcally called those who support Bundy “domestic terrorists”. That should send a chill up everyone’s spine. Ever since Obama took office, federal officials have made numerous statements to the effect that the real security threats are Tea Partiers, conservatives, returning veterans, Christians, gun owners, those who quote the Constitution, and on and on and on.
When the government starts kicking down doors for real, confiscating guns and rounding up dissidents, they will spare no effort to use the media to persuade the general public that the targets are dangerous extremists, domestic terrorists, and/or white supremacists. They have been priming the pump for years now.
A quick heads up: On the current Ace of Spades thread, Mr. Moo Moo is taking the “Bundy is an idiot” position, and is holding onto it like a pit bull.
“They have been priming the pump for years now.”
I found the response to the Boston marathon bombing to be a chilling affair. DHS worries me more than jihad. We are all, as lovers of individual liberty, enemies of the state. What we must do is remember that all they can do is kill us and those we hold dear, they can never take away what you know to be true.
http://tinyurl.com/7ug33qh
Can anyone point me to the youtube of this conversation because I read the original NYT article and it seemed to say that some unnamed writer and photographer got this huge scoop but strangely didn’t want to take credit for it under their own byline. I’m not saying the NYT is unreliable, but it wouldn’t be the first time that they misquoted someone.
Now if the reporter was sooo good at getting juicy quotes and Mr. Bundy was on a tear, you think he would have gotten some scandalous quotes on the topics of gays, religion, etc., as well. Ah, journalists. Just not what they used to be, eh?
This is about an over-reaction from both sides. My take on Bundy is that he was musing aloud (to a jornolist, a member of the Knaves), and yes that is stupid. Quite. But who among us has not had musings that were flat out dumb, though silent? I remember musing, in my late twenties, what was so wrong with a zero-growth economy. It pains me now to admit such stupidity then, but at least it was a silent musing.
I just feel it is somehow bad form to publicly crap all over a guy like Bundy who really represents the pre-1960s strengths that made this country. He is (ahem) inelegant, he doesn’t embrace sustainable environmentalism, nor does he think women can fix barb wire fences just as well as men. I do not think it is too much to let him have his say without flagellating him for it. Consider the people here that have debated whether Obama is either a fool or a knave. You want to be flagellated for that? Then stand with Bundy and the 1st Amendment, which is not to be trotted out only when breaches are perceived.
Considering the statement and the publication….
I need to hear it on audio.
BTW, how in the world did the discourse drift over to North Las Vegas? Just right there the ENTIRE conversation gets racially loaded.
For those in the East: North Las Vegas is to Las Vegas what East Palo Alto is to Palo Alto — a tough neighborhood right next to expensive real estate.
Nevada was never a part of the Confederacy. Cotton is a very thirsty crop.
For reasons unknown, North Las Vegas became the ‘home away from base’ for Nellis AFB. I’m astounded that ANYONE on (Federalized) welfare would reside there. The Summers are absolute hell. (Welfare doesn’t pay the sky high air conditioning bills — or does it? Now, I’m wondering.)
NLV votes wildly Democrat in a toss-up state.
It has a wider reputation as Nevada’s Section 8 ‘capital.’
For those curious, the minority that counts in Nevada is the Latino community. Without Vegas, the state would be deep into the GOP column.
Bundy lives hard upon the EASTERN Nevada state line.
His knowledge of NLV can’t be great.
His knowledge of American slavery is, apparently, pathetic.
I’m putting him down for the Henry Ford award for shockingly stupid off-the-cuff remarks.
I can only hope he was seriously drunk at the time. I rather suspect that to be the case. Such a stupor would largely explain why the audio is not on the airwaves.
Bundy didn’t make the comments in a sit-down with a reporter; he made them while speaking to some of his supporters last weekend. Here’s the video.
Oh yes, this is awesome:
Let’s Condemn All the Sexist, Racist, Homophobic Heroes of American History
But do read the whole thing.
In Bundy’s comment, there’s a big missing block of history between the end of slavery and the modern welfare state.
There are historians who study the transition from slavery in the aftermath of the Civil War who discuss the social-economic costs of ending slavery to former slaves, their descendants, and the nation as whole, as well as the conventionally highlighted benefits. It wasn’t all win-win and, more, the managed transition was botched with compounding downstream effect. The subject set the baseline for my favorite history class in college.
Bundy’s observation isn’t wholly incompatible with scholarly study on post-slavery as well as criticism of the modern welfare state, but it is expressed inelegantly.
I wonder if he’s related to Al Bundy? Dumbass
Add: Chalk up this controversy as yet another piece of evidence added to the overflowing pile of evidence that the Right urgently needs its own proper Marxist-method activist social movement.
Thanks for the video Anne.
rickl…YES!!
DonCarlos…You insensitive lout…YES!!
Rev. Tawana Sharpton: 1-800-Bite-Me
This flap over racially insensitive remarks by Mr. Bundy is very unfortunate because it detracts from the real nub of the matter. Which is that the BLM took up military arms against a citizen who owed the government money. Their totalitarian overreaction to a civil matter that was best settled by putting a lien on Mr. Bundy’s ranch, gives us a further peek behind the overbearing tendencies of this government. Mr. Bundy may be a racist, but he’s also a citizen and the government is supposed to treat all citizens fairly and proportionately. We must not let this flap over his remarks detract from the real issue – the government’s use of the Endangered Species Act and other environmental regulations and rulings, which are depriving citizens of their private property rights. Bundy has lost in court, but that doesn’t mean the legalities were fair. Did I mention that the ESA is an anti-private property law?
I’m disgusted by the conservative pundits who are throwing Bundy under the bus. They’re doing it much as Obama throws people under the bus – for appearances. You can call him a racist, but as Don Carlos says, he has a right to speak his mind. And he has a right to not be attacked by BLM gunslingers for a civil debt. Any real conservative will still stand up for him in his fight with the government.
It’s not a fap. Any more than Palin’s email being hacked was a prank.
Slavery was and still is, a Democrat institution. That’s something they are going to pull the wool over the eyes of people in America, to defend that old propaganda.
Harry the “Extremist” said:
“Bundy’s remark is a goldmine for libs/”progressives”. It hardens the cement of what they think conservatives are all about. We are all Clive Bundy’s now whether we like it or not.”
None of us really supported Bundy. He’d already lost in court and he’s out of tries. We just thought the gub’mint was acting way to heavy handed.
But look on the bright side of guilt-by-association being back in style. If I were a conservative TV commentator and some liberals tried that “you are all Clive Bundy’s” nonsense I’d say:
“I had no idea what Clive Bundy thinks. It had nothing to do with why I or anyone else sided against the BLM in this case. But since you’re going to hold me responsible for these remarks I need to point out a few things.
It’ s not like I sat in a pew and listened to him preach every Sunday for 20 years.
It’s not as if I chose Clive Bundy as may spiritual mentor.
It’s not like I asked an unhinged hatemonger to officiate at my wedding.
I didn’t choose a line from one of his sermons to be the title of my autobiography.
Harry Reid calls Bundy and his supporters “domestic terrorists.” Well, I didn’t launch my political career from this or any other domestic terrorist’s living room.
But since guilt by association is back in style, let’s talk about someone who did all of the above”
Steve57: “It’ s not like I sat in a pew and listened to him preach every Sunday for 20 years. It’s not as if I chose Clive Bundy as may spiritual mentor.”
Great counter point, thanks.
I know that Conservative politicians and commentators will have a cow (pun intended) over Bundy’s comments. Hannity has already rushed to the microphone to tell us how despicable they are.
My take is that Bundy’s comments don’t rank particularly high on the scale of despicable compared to some from Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Jeremiah Wright or Sheila Jackson Lee. There are a couple of differences between him and them, other than the obvious. Unlike those named, he is not skilled and experienced in public speaking. He does not know how to parse his words. He had a thought, maybe it was a good one, maybe it actually was despicable; but, when he blurted it out it was not polished nor was it politically correct.
If I had a conservative microphone, I would say “get a grip”; the old fellow is pissed off and probably would like to re-think how he expressed himself. Nevertheless, it does not tell us about anyone other than him. His comments certainly do not excuse, nor should the divert attention from, the heavy-handed, Gestapo like tactics of the BLM, an arm of the U.S. Government led by an unqualified Harry Reid shill.
Slavery is bad (and according to some reports, more widespread worldwide today than in the 1800s). The concept of owning someone else is bad.
The concept of owning someone else’s labor isn’t far removed, though. I think it’s fair to draw parallels.
So why is it that Bundy makes a stupid comment about slavery and becomes an unperson while most prominent Lefties/Democrats can frequently make slavery comments and it’s OK?
Biden says to a VA crowd (with requisite fake Southern accent) that the GOP wants to put them back in chains, etc. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes is likening fossil fuel usage to slavery. Do either of these comments demonstrate that the speakers understand the gravity & horror of slavery any more than Bundy? Are only people on the Left allowed hyperbole?
Bundy saying slavery was better was disgusting, but not particularly noteworthy amidst the daily race-baiting of our current political class. For example, Al Sharpton has said equally disgusting racial remarks yet enjoys the regular company of the president and his own MSNBC show. At least Bundy doesn’t have blood on his hands as a result of his racial comments.
I am so tired of this crap!
The Comment tide here seems to be turning.
My thanks to those of you who find the GOP and “Conservative” denunciations of Bundy santimonious and holier-than-thou.
Lizzie and Oldflyer would have the Conservative commentariat’s artillery correctly directed at the real enemy instead of the suicidal and futile self-immolation on righteousness exercised in response to the Bundy remarks. I second that motion.
With Evil at the door, we spank our dog for peeing on the rug?
Sub humans, slaves, livestock, indentured servants for life, third class immigrant workers, aren’t allowed to make an argument. That’s something for humans, reserved for Leftists only.
Cliven Bundy EW Jackson says Great Society worse for black families than slavery.
“My great grandparents, Gabriel and Elijah Jackson were slaves and sharecroppers in Orange County, Virginia. I am a direct decedent of slaves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMyV9632PZA
vanderleun:
Thomas Sowell has expressed that idea forcibly in several of his books—that the black family didn’t really start declining till the welfare state came into play. I find his arguments quite persuasive, even more so than anecdotal evidence such as the quote you offer from E.W. Jackson.
However, that point isn’t relevant to the point I’m making. The outrage of slavery was not what it did or didn’t do to the black family, it was the ownership of one person by another, the affront to liberty.
I’m not insinuating you are not in agreement with that last paragraph, by the way. I’m merely emphasizing it in case I haven’t already made myself crystal clear.
“The outrage of slavery was not what it did or didn’t do to the black family, it was the ownership of one person by another, the affront to liberty.”
Really? Who knew? Well I am certainly SCHOOLED!
I just learn something new here every single day of every single week of every single month of every single year.
The whole point of government overreach and running an old man off his property is lost forever to the general public who might have otherwise sympathized with him. Americans ofte gravitate toward the underdog . Those of us who see the issue and not the individual to be the relevant story, will be drowned out and associated with racism ourselves for simply looking at it as government vs citizen and private property owner. . The left could not have asked for a better gift than they got from Bundy’s hoof in mouth disease. We’re all racists by default for having taken his side, exactly as the left has painted limited government conservatives. Another step forward and 3 steps back for the right.
southpaw:
Exactly right.
By David Sherfinski
The Washington Times
Friday, April 25, 2014
INDIANAPOLIS – National Rifle Association executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre said Friday that the country is on edge like he’s never seen it before, and that it’s up to attendees at the group’s annual meeting and like-minded individuals to fight for its future.
“NRA, this organization, is about giving a voice to all the people like all of us in this room today and everyone else in the country that feels like we do,” he told the crowd at an opening event at the group’s annual meetings.
“I love it because corporations can’t control it, politicians can’t control it, the media can’t control it,” he said. “By gosh, there is an organization … that says ‘this is what we stand for, and we’re willing to fight for it.’ And that’s what I love about it. And that’s what it’s about.
“Gun rights, where we are right now in this country, have become a metaphor for a feeling it’s kind of all slipping away,” he continued. “It’s yearning for individual rights – the right to be safe, the right to be secure, the right to protect your family. The Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the right to live the way you choose.”
Mr. LaPierre said those aren’t old or new values, but core freedoms, and that the next two-and-a-half years leading up to the 2016 elections are probably going to determine the direction of this country “for the rest of most of our lives.”
“And I have never seen it on edge the way it is right now, but if it’s going to be saved, it’s going to be saved – it’s in our hands,” he continued. “It’s in your hands. It’s in people like you just throughout the country that are going to have to … put other things aside and say, ‘I’m gonna engage this fight every single day and you’re not going to back me down. I’m going to be in it, and by gosh, we’re gonna win it.’
“And the one thing I promise you, and every one of us that work with the NRA promise you: if you will make that commitment and I know you will or you wouldn’t be here today, this organization will stand there every day in a principled fight and defense of these freedoms,” he said
******************************
Ignore the NRA commercial message parts, and it seems LaPierre fears for a peaceful defeat of the Gramscians. “It’s kind of all slipping away” is something Bundy could’ve /should’ve said.
The whole point of government overreach and running an old man off his property is lost forever to the general public who might have otherwise sympathized with him.
It’s lost because Americans are weak to propaganda. There’s no other reason besides that.
People owning each other has never been a problem. That’s something in the authority sphere of love.
Slavery in the US was always about something else.
From:http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/26/eye-opening-black-marine-letter-makes-powerful-case-for-why-bundy-is-not-a-racist-114936
A letter from a black Marine:
“The media distorts information to the point of social division. This is a photo of myself and the resilient, often charismatic, and maybe not so tactful Cliven Bundy. He’s a cowboy and a helluva family man, not an orator.
One thing he definitely isn’t — a racist. I found his comments to not only be NOT racist, but his own view of his experiences. Who the heck are we to determine another man’s perspective on the world around him?! Just because Picasso’s view of the world was abstract, does it negate the fact that his art was genuine?
Furthermore, if you take the time to do your own research, you’ll find that his statements about some black Americans actually hold weight. He posed a hypothetical question. He said, “I wonder IF” … Hell, I’m black and I often wonder about the same about the decline of the black family.
Bottom line is that we are all slaves in this waning republic, no matter our skin color. Mr. Bundy could have used any racial demographic as an example: Native Americans on reservations, whites in trailer parks, etc. He noticed the crippling effects of receiving government “assistance” and the long term result of accepting handouts.
It’s not progress at all. I challenge Sean Hannity, Rand Paul, and others to read my comment and reconsider their position in this matter. Individual liberties are at stake here, yours and mine. THAT is the issue.
Don’t let the liberal media and ignoramuses like Glenn Beck and that weasel Harry Reid make you lose sight of the real issue here: The federal government is a burgeoning behemoth and a bully on a once constitutional playground. I sincerely hope you real patriots out there who can see through the smoke.”
My hope is that this Marine is for real. It’s hard to know. There’s so much false front stuff on the Internet. I agree with the letter, except for this: How are blacks on welfare, Native Americans, or whites on welfare better off than slaves? They have the option, if they so choose, to better their lot in life. Slaves don’t have that option. So, I don’t think anyone can ever really be better off as a slave. It is not, however, against the law to opine about the issue.
They have the option, if they so choose, to better their lot in life. Slaves don’t have that option.
Slaves had the option of running to the North with the help of Tubman and the Underground.
As for options in the Democrat fiefdoms of Chicago and Detroit… if they had options, they would take them. But other than moving out like the slaves did, the powerful politicians won’t let the peasants get any better conditions.
The better and more perfect slavery is when the slaves put on their spiritual shackles themselves, without any need for physical restraint, and then say to each and everyone of you, JJ, “I am free, there are no chains binding me”.
The idea that mental slavery is inferior to physical slavery, only comes from people lapping up the luxury of wealth in modern day America.
Ymarsakar: “As for options in the Democrat fiefdoms of Chicago and Detroit… if they had options, they would take them. But other than moving out like the slaves did, the powerful politicians won’t let the peasants get any better conditions.”
That may be true, but how about the Native Americans, the poor white trash, the migrant Latino farm workers? What’s their excuse? I have personally seen too many of the so-called victim classes opt to seek a better life and succeed to believe that these people are without options. One of the mysteries of human nature is that some people seem to have little/no ambition or impulse control while others do. And the two types can come from the same family, same parents, and same schools. Does genetics play a role? IMO, yes. In many cases nature may be more important than nurture. If that is so, it certainly helps explain unequal economic results. I’m reading a book about habits and how they influence our lives. Maybe habits and how hard it is to change them is an important factor too. The welfare life is certainly a bad habit and apparently, hard to change.