Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
CLIVEN BUNDY’S SLAVERY DELUSION
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017188479
One of the most delusional parts of Bundy’s musing was the phrase “having a family life.” A great moral crime of slavery was depriving people of family. There was family love, because that can’t be defeated, but it was often violated. Slaves were denied the sovereignty of family ties. Your children might be sold, and you’d never see them again. You might be raped, and not choose who the father of your children would be. Sexual violence had a broad brutality. The pattern of your life was set by the rhythm of someone else’s family—a death that broke up an estate or a marriage that turned your daughter into someone else’s wedding gift. And the great moral delusion of slave owners was that these transactions and acts of brutality built one big family household, simply by calling an old slave Auntie or Uncle.
It is bizarre that a man who has ranted about his own freedom for weeks can speak so contemptuously about the freedom of others. Given his grand claims regarding what American freedom means, it is inadequate to call him historically illiterate or misinformed about the conditions of slavery—the constant, brutal violence that reinforced it and the way it robbed people of the ability to make the most basic choices about their lives. At the very least, he must know that slaves could not move where they wanted to, and could not vote. For him to muse about black Americans having less freedom now is to find their voices and their volition valueless—to not equate their participation in the democratic process as contributing to everyone’s freedom. The other alternative is that he has such a degraded view of the souls of black people that he doesn’t think these freedoms express anything in them. It suggests that his idea of “more freedom” for black people is similar to his notion of freedom for his cattle: productive, but under private control and private guns, with the absent acquiescence of the federal government.
This relates to one of the absurdities of the Bundy story. He talks about freedom and “ancestral” rights, but grazes his cattle on public land—our land, not his homestead—without paying his share. (It reminds one of the Confederates who went on about how slavery was a matter of states’ rights while insisting on a Fugitive Slave Act, which would put federal resources at the disposal of slave catchers, even in the streets of New York or Philadelphia.) And yet, Bundy is not just a fringe character: he has had the support of Greg Abbott, the Republican nominee for governor in Texas, and Senator Rand Paul, of Kentucky. Too many conservatives have been charmed by the notion of a cowboy singing the anthem on horseback and threatening to turn guns on bureaucrats. They can’t just proclaim themselves stunned here. (Paul, in the wake of Nagourney’s report, said that Bundy’s “remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him,” according to the Post.)
The other delusion in Bundy’s comments is that Africans who became slaves were lucky to be brought into the shelter of this country’s wealth, as if they had arrived in a mansion already built. They made the South rich. Lincoln, in his Second Inaugural, rightly argued that what the Confederates lost on the battlefield was “all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil.” They weren’t here to play music on porches until someone was kind enough to show them “how to pick cotton.” The astounding conflation that Bundy makes is black people working with black people enslaved. Does no other alternative, such as a decently paid job, occur to him? Could someone who claims that the federal government can’t constrain his unbridled spirit have so limited an imagination?
It is bizarre that a man who has ranted about his own freedom for weeks can speak so contemptuously about the freedom of others. Given his grand claims regarding what American freedom means, it is inadequate to call him historically illiterate or misinformed about the conditions of slavery—the constant, brutal violence that reinforced it and the way it robbed people of the ability to make the most basic choices about their lives. At the very least, he must know that slaves could not move where they wanted to, and could not vote. For him to muse about black Americans having less freedom now is to find their voices and their volition valueless—to not equate their participation in the democratic process as contributing to everyone’s freedom. The other alternative is that he has such a degraded view of the souls of black people that he doesn’t think these freedoms express anything in them. It suggests that his idea of “more freedom” for black people is similar to his notion of freedom for his cattle: productive, but under private control and private guns, with the absent acquiescence of the federal government.
This relates to one of the absurdities of the Bundy story. He talks about freedom and “ancestral” rights, but grazes his cattle on public land—our land, not his homestead—without paying his share. (It reminds one of the Confederates who went on about how slavery was a matter of states’ rights while insisting on a Fugitive Slave Act, which would put federal resources at the disposal of slave catchers, even in the streets of New York or Philadelphia.) And yet, Bundy is not just a fringe character: he has had the support of Greg Abbott, the Republican nominee for governor in Texas, and Senator Rand Paul, of Kentucky. Too many conservatives have been charmed by the notion of a cowboy singing the anthem on horseback and threatening to turn guns on bureaucrats. They can’t just proclaim themselves stunned here. (Paul, in the wake of Nagourney’s report, said that Bundy’s “remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him,” according to the Post.)
The other delusion in Bundy’s comments is that Africans who became slaves were lucky to be brought into the shelter of this country’s wealth, as if they had arrived in a mansion already built. They made the South rich. Lincoln, in his Second Inaugural, rightly argued that what the Confederates lost on the battlefield was “all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil.” They weren’t here to play music on porches until someone was kind enough to show them “how to pick cotton.” The astounding conflation that Bundy makes is black people working with black people enslaved. Does no other alternative, such as a decently paid job, occur to him? Could someone who claims that the federal government can’t constrain his unbridled spirit have so limited an imagination?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2014/04/cliven-bundys-slavery-delusion.html
Allies Repeatedly Compared Racist Rancher To Civil Rights Figures
Bundy's racism follows weeks of conservatives championing his cause and comparing his fight with the federal government to those of fugitive slaves, Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther King Jr.
In a column for National Review Online headlined "The Case for a Little Sedition," Kevin Williamson argued that people focusing on how Bundy was on the losing side of the legal questions in his case were missing the point. According to Williamson, "Of course the law is against Cliven Bundy. How could it be otherwise?" He proceeded to compare Bundy's fight to "every fugitive slave" and "every one of the sainted men and women who enabled them."
...
Fringe radio and TV host Gary Franchi -- a conspiracy theorist whose show has been visited in recent years by gun activists like former NRA President David Keene and Gun Owners of America's Larry Pratt -- posted a video dedicated to breaking down on a white board the ways in which Bundy is like Rosa Parks
And media figures weren't the only Bundy allies comparing him to civil rights leaders. Appearing on Iowa conservative Steve Deace's radio show, former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack likened the Bundy situation to "Rosa Parks refusing to get to the back of the bus."
In a column for National Review Online headlined "The Case for a Little Sedition," Kevin Williamson argued that people focusing on how Bundy was on the losing side of the legal questions in his case were missing the point. According to Williamson, "Of course the law is against Cliven Bundy. How could it be otherwise?" He proceeded to compare Bundy's fight to "every fugitive slave" and "every one of the sainted men and women who enabled them."
...
Fringe radio and TV host Gary Franchi -- a conspiracy theorist whose show has been visited in recent years by gun activists like former NRA President David Keene and Gun Owners of America's Larry Pratt -- posted a video dedicated to breaking down on a white board the ways in which Bundy is like Rosa Parks
And media figures weren't the only Bundy allies comparing him to civil rights leaders. Appearing on Iowa conservative Steve Deace's radio show, former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack likened the Bundy situation to "Rosa Parks refusing to get to the back of the bus."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/24/allies-repeatedly-compared-racist-rancher-to-ci/199005
Conservatives can’t decide whether to disown or defend Cliven Bundy
Now that Cliven Bundy has revealed himself as a man who believes African-Americans are shiftless, abortion-happy moochers who’d probably be better off as slaves, anyway, conservatives and Republicans who spent much of the past few weeks celebrating the renegade rancher find themselves in a bit of a pickle.
Unlike the very similar comments made late in 2013 by Phil Robertson of “Duck Dynasty” (rather than slavery, Robertson said Jim Crow was better for black people) Bundy’s remarks left no room for even the tiniest sliver of doubt as to whether or not he held extremely retrograde views on race. With Robertson, the right was somewhat able to argue that Robertson was simply recalling his childhood rather than making any political statements. With Bundy, not so much.
To their credit, some Republicans have disowned Bundy harshly and unequivocally. ”His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him,” said former Bundy booster Sen. Rand Paul. Another former Bundy fan, Sen. Dean Heller, had his spokesman say that the senator “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.”
Yet not every GOPer has been as eager to throw Bundy off the bandwagon. Rick Perry, who like Paul is considered a possible 2016 candidate, refused to distance himself from the racist rancher. “I don’t know what he said, but the fact is Clyde [sic] Bundy is a side issue here compared to what we’re looking at in the state of Texas,” Perry told CBS. “He is an individual,” continued the owner of what used to be known as “Niggerhead” ranch. “Deal with his issues as you may.”
Unlike the very similar comments made late in 2013 by Phil Robertson of “Duck Dynasty” (rather than slavery, Robertson said Jim Crow was better for black people) Bundy’s remarks left no room for even the tiniest sliver of doubt as to whether or not he held extremely retrograde views on race. With Robertson, the right was somewhat able to argue that Robertson was simply recalling his childhood rather than making any political statements. With Bundy, not so much.
To their credit, some Republicans have disowned Bundy harshly and unequivocally. ”His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him,” said former Bundy booster Sen. Rand Paul. Another former Bundy fan, Sen. Dean Heller, had his spokesman say that the senator “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.”
Yet not every GOPer has been as eager to throw Bundy off the bandwagon. Rick Perry, who like Paul is considered a possible 2016 candidate, refused to distance himself from the racist rancher. “I don’t know what he said, but the fact is Clyde [sic] Bundy is a side issue here compared to what we’re looking at in the state of Texas,” Perry told CBS. “He is an individual,” continued the owner of what used to be known as “Niggerhead” ranch. “Deal with his issues as you may.”
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/24/conservatives_cant_decide_whether_to_disown_or_defend_cliven_bundy/
Law and Order for Thee, Not for Me
Taking up arms against the government for collecting cattle fees is not patriotic.
For a long time, conservatives have laid claim to being the paragons of law and order. And if you believe the correct approach to an ever-increasing array of crimes is longer prison sentences or the death penalty, maybe it’s true.
...
To be sure, some laws are unjust, and there are times when resistance is a noble act. Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights protesters challenged segregation at risk of actual physical harm and death. Why did they do it? Because they had been living under the yoke of actual oppression, the kind that affects everything about your life and its prospects, and they’d had enough. Now consider the absurd images of Bundy supporters with their rifles trained on federal authorities. Really? Because Bundy is being required pay for his cattle to feed on public lands, just like anyone else? Please.
At times like this, conservatives like Sean Hannity and Alex Jones like to drape themselves in the flag, characterizing their defense of Bundy as part of the fight for some deeper American principle. And this may be the most ridiculous assertion of all. Because America is, at heart, held together not just by people but by the laws they produce, and a profound commitment to the democratic process by which they come into being. We may not like all of them, and when we don’t we should say so, because dissent is an indispensable part of the American experience. But the notion that one group of people operates above the political process and can, by virtue of their superior perspicacity, pick and choose which laws they want to follow is exactly counter to the democratic principles on which so much of our country was founded.
In other words, taking up arms against the government when it is in the process of collecting cattle fees isn’t heroic, it isn’t patriotic and it isn’t even remotely brave. It is, however, one of the least American things you can think of.
...
To be sure, some laws are unjust, and there are times when resistance is a noble act. Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights protesters challenged segregation at risk of actual physical harm and death. Why did they do it? Because they had been living under the yoke of actual oppression, the kind that affects everything about your life and its prospects, and they’d had enough. Now consider the absurd images of Bundy supporters with their rifles trained on federal authorities. Really? Because Bundy is being required pay for his cattle to feed on public lands, just like anyone else? Please.
At times like this, conservatives like Sean Hannity and Alex Jones like to drape themselves in the flag, characterizing their defense of Bundy as part of the fight for some deeper American principle. And this may be the most ridiculous assertion of all. Because America is, at heart, held together not just by people but by the laws they produce, and a profound commitment to the democratic process by which they come into being. We may not like all of them, and when we don’t we should say so, because dissent is an indispensable part of the American experience. But the notion that one group of people operates above the political process and can, by virtue of their superior perspicacity, pick and choose which laws they want to follow is exactly counter to the democratic principles on which so much of our country was founded.
In other words, taking up arms against the government when it is in the process of collecting cattle fees isn’t heroic, it isn’t patriotic and it isn’t even remotely brave. It is, however, one of the least American things you can think of.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/anson-kaye/2014/04/24/cliven-bundy-and-conservative-double-speak-on-law-and-order
Don't go slithering back under the rocks from whence you came Republicans. Own it!
Own it Koch Suckers!
The Nevada Standoff Has Nothing To Do With "Tyranny," "Sovereignty," "Freedom," or Cows.
Koch Groups Back Rancher Making Violent Threats Against Federal Gov't
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024816638
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
