Honestly, are you really surprised that a guy like that would hold those views?
Yep. I thought it was satire until I found it in the New York Times. Way to pick your role models, Tea Party!
I literally do not believe that anyone today would say that. I can’t. I don’t want to.
I saw a post here in the last few days pointing to stories that Bundy has been lying about how long he and his family has been on the land, but the Times is repeating his original claim without comment. I can’t find it now.
Can anyone point me toward the claims that he’s relatively new to the land?
This part is good, too:
Betcha he looks for the gold fringe on the flag when he’s finally brought into court.
Mr. Bundy is a true Job Creator. We look at a housing project and see poor people who have no other recourse. Mr. Bundy looks at a housing project and sees people he can kidnap and force to work for free in cotton fields.
I for one welcome our new robotic overlords.
His federal land cotton fields.
That his family has been farming since 1623.
I can’t believe anyone speaks of “the Negro” any more! Didn’t think that usage survived the 1960s!
It says he “exchanged bows” with the robot – common Japanese courtesy, when in Rome, etc.
It’s referring back to when they were criticizing Obama for bowing to foreign leaders. Of course, it was just one of the many thing that all or many presidents did before him that’s OK if you are not a democrat. Or white. Or whatever they think makes the difference.
You want something else to disbelieve?
Glenn Beck sounds like the voice of reason when commenting on Bundy.
I swear, the apocalypse must be just around the corner. I’m agreeing with Beck about something.
To clarify, I do not mean the word “negro” (which there is no good reason to capitalize), I mean the phrase “the Negro,” as if there were only one of them or they were all the same, the way Hitler spoke of “the Jew.” I would not call it an inherently racist usage – MLK often said “the Negro” – but it does seem oddly archaic now.
Conservatives now appear divided on Bundy. Some are condemning him, some are dodging/dismissing the racism question – and some are actually defending him:
When someone begins a speech, “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” you just know it’s going to be gold.
Some of my college-level history students still write and speak using the word.
Admittedly, this is partially due to the fact that some of the primary sources we read also use the word “negro” to refer to blacks, but i make clear to the students that historians need to distinguish between terms that were commonplace in the past, and terms that are appropriate for modern use. And still some of them persist in talking about “negro rights” and other similar stuff in their papers, and in class discussion.
To be honest, i don’t think there’s any good reason for using the word “negro” these days to describe black people.
I don’t think that using it is, by itself, any necessary indicator of racism or any other problematic worldview—more likely ignorance of changing usage—but it does sound archaic and inappropriate, to me at least.
I feel lightheaded.
What overreach FFS *?
You mean collecting 20 years worth of back-owed fees ? Not letting private entities do whatever the fuck they please on land they do not own ? Expecting a guy to comply with a court verdict ? The Federal Gvt. having the temerity of insisting that it does, in fact, *exist *?