An article that fleshes out the "conservative" viewpoint that Bundy is now "radioactive".
As an attempt to restate his argument into interrogatives that would seem to honor his thought process: would African American’s be better off if there had been no Civil War? Is it better for an individual to live as property? Supposing a man is not up to the challenge of freedom, is it then someone’s place to take it away once again?--- Tony Collins [ emphasis added to show that this was not what the author had in mind ]Rhetorical questions that presume what the "right" answers to be.
As for the first question: are Negroes better off if there had been no Civil War? This presumes that the outcome that did occur was the best that could have been achieved. But is that really true? It took 100 years for the Civil Rights Era to bring them up to speed with the rest of the country in terms of their rights. Over 100 years of second class status was not exactly an optimal result. Why this happened is another question, but the answer is apparently not what the author had in mind.
As for the second question: It also presumes that we are all free. But what if we aren't really? What do you say of a country that is single minded destroying the Bill of Rights? Is that country still free? Note that this doesn't concern just black people, it concerns everybody. Of course people should not be property. But where does Cliven Bundy say that it is better to be property than to be free? He says that they are not really free NOW either. Even less free than when they were slaves. This point seems to go over the heads of the critics. They are prisoners of their own delusions.
As for the third question: He is slandering Bundy. Where did Bundy advocate a return to slavery? The author is making this up for rhetorical effect.
Why would American Thinker side with Harry Reid of all people? Very questionable.
No comments:
Post a Comment