I wouldn’t defend him, but I would at least try to get what he said right, in the context and spirit in which it was given. He’s a conservative and feels that family integrity and a sense of purpose are extremely core factors to people’s wellbeing. In his own words he denies that he was comparing slavery to welfare (and admits that it was a poor choice of words). He’s trying to say that this great freedom that black people supposedly have is pretty hollow if it means that their social structure is torn apart. He also talks about illegal immigrants who get a lot of criticism, but who he admires for their attitude and strong families. He’s generalizing based on very limited experiences, but he’s not accusing black people of being inferior, expressing hatred towards black people, saying that they had it better when they were slaves, conflating their issues with his own (apart from a general opinion that the federal government screws everything up), suggesting that black people should return to slavery or any of half a dozen other things that people are accusing him of here. There’s plenty to criticize in his actions up to this point and his statement here, but I’d like to see a bit less hyperbole whenever the opinions of some conservative guy who did something we don’t like are discussed.
This seems to be one of those issues where any expression of support for the conservative weirdos who rolled out for this thing translates as the proverbial red cape in front of the bull.
I thought that saying “The moment I saw the photo of the fenced off “First Amendment Area” in the leadup to the confrontation I was on the Rancher’s side even if I didn’t agree with their personal politics” in my initial post was clear enough, but apparently not.
Lesson learned. Achievement unlocked. 1,000 Internets awarded.
"Colonel Sanchez? What does… I don’t understand that at all. "
Presumably he’s “waggishly” referring to the ethnicity of many of the workers at the KFC. My father has an unpleasant habit of recounting his issues with the “Julios” at the local McDonald’s who are of course always “slowing around.” (And in the same vein, for some reason years ago he decided that someone pulling a sudden U-turn across a double yellow is “doing a Raoul.” Dad and I have had to Have Some Talks About His Behaviors.)
But it raises the question: was my interpretation flawed, or was the headline?
And what does his being racist have to do with his attempt to frame this as an out-of-control Federal government going too far?
It honestly didn’t occur to me, when I first saw the coverage, that the people showing up with guns were white supremacist groups, and the thought that he might be a racist didn’t cross my mind.
But he’s conservative, that means he’s a dirtbag! Let’s have nothing to do with anyone who has anything to do with those filthy conservatives. Or libertarians, they’re dirtbags.
On second thought…
You should pick some lottery numbers.
“On Facebook, Bundy’s supporters defended the rancher by blaming the news media for distorting his comments.”
Bundy also complained in his press conference that maybe the problem was that he doesn’t have a big vocabulary.
Maybe he’s right?
I dont care to engage in any kind of debate on the nature of this Muslim or that one.
Not my point at all.
You know… the teabagger one.
That video where he used the term ‘negro’… looks kinda… old, does it not?
Like it was filmed a decade or two ago?
Historically there’s been quite a bit of overlap between states’ rights activism and overt racism. Look up Governors Orval Faubus and George Wallace for two of the more high-profile examples.
No, clearly your point was “liberals are hypocrites” except I can’t think of any instance on Boing Boing (and I’ve been reading it since 2003) when any of the editors/bloggers have defended anyone being violent or brandishing a gun to make a political point, so I’m having a hard time imagining anyone here defending a Muslim with a house full of guns threatening to shoot federal officers. If some copyright activist or proponent of net neutrality were preaching violence as a means to an end, I’m pretty sure the editors here would be saying “no, that’s not it, that’s not the way at all.”
If Bundy really did have some legitimate ancestral right to that land (records show the BLM predates his family even living in that area) and went on a hunger strike or other non-violent protest, then I would be willing to support him, racist comments or not.
So, if there was some other point you were trying to make I’m all ears, but when it comes to “liberal hypocrisy” you are way way off.
He made those comments last weekend. I’m no cultural historian, but I’m pretty sure the term “negro” was already out of fashion by then.
I tried to post a similar point a few hours ago and just couldn’t word it right. I really like your post and thank you for having written it. Well done!
I think a lot of conservatives came to the realization a while ago that calling Bundy the little guy standing up to the big, bad feds was an untenable position. Once the white power militia turned up and it became clear that he didn’t have a legal leg to stand on, he went from being a persecuted conservative to being a major liability. They may or may not agree with his points, but now they’re just finding the quickest way to cut him loose. Outrage is the cheapest form of moral pretention.
For the sake of accuracy, he did compare slavery with welfare. You can parse it any way you like, and he can later recant and say “that’s not what I meant” but he did in fact put the two side by side and ask which is better.
He also has some historically suspect views of what slavery was like-- it’s not like family structure was set in stone as a slave, relatives could be (and were) sold off or traded to other slave owners. So if he’s trying to defend the idea of “family” he’s failed.
He may not be racist (I don’t know what’s in his heart), but I think you can see how his comments sure sound racist, and it’s not unreasonable to judge him on those comments, especially since he later reiterated the exact same thing in a radio interview after the video started making the rounds.
Agreed; they were definitely pretty ignorant comments however you read them, I just think he was arguing that the situation now is terrible rather than that slavery wasn’t so bad. He obviously doesn’t have much of an idea about these issues, but I don’t want to crucify him when he’s basically saying that black people deserve better.
As of this writing, a more complete version of that footage has emerged wherein it has become obvious that this footage has been selectively edited, & Mr.Bundy is nowhere near the racist dingbat everyone is making him out to be…
So where is this more complete footage?
Whether this guy is a bigoted yahoo has nothing to do with whether the massive, armed response of the federal government to collect a civil judgment is either justified or responsible.
I keep hearing this idea that the government’s response was disproportionate to the issue at hand. Perhaps, but that seems to be open to debate. Remember: this has been going on for 20 years, the guy owes a million dollars, he has lost several court cases and still won’t pay, AND he requested the assistance of several local armed militias while publicly stating he and his wife had guns and would shoot any federal officers who came to collect. I’m not sure what the appropriate response to that is supposed to be.
