海角大神

Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher and federal antagonist, is defending his remarks that 鈥渢he Negro鈥� may have been better off in slavery than in the modern welfare system, in the process drawing an unusual series of dots between ranching, race, and the meaning of white privilege in post-civil rights America.

After being condemned for his off-the-cuff observations about poor blacks he has seen 鈥渄oing nothing鈥� in North Las Vegas, Nev., Mr. Bundy, who became a political star on the right after standing on 10th Amendment grounds against the US Bureau of Land Management over federal grazing fees, insisted that, 鈥淚鈥檓 right.鈥�

His 鈥淣egro鈥� comments became, some political analysts say, a prism reflecting the views of a certain subset of very conservative Americans, primarily older and white, who have struggled to come to terms with the expansion of federal largess under America鈥檚 first black president.

To be sure, even Bundy鈥檚 hardiest supporters called the comments 鈥渂latantly racist,鈥� in that he seemed to suggest that America should again enslave black people. In explaining his point in subsequent interviews, Bundy insisted he had the best interest of black people at heart 鈥� that the current system enslaves blacks in a different way. 鈥淚 am not a racist,鈥� he insisted.

But his views also point to another basic tension in the fight over who should control the massive tracts of high desert and grazing grounds on the Western plateaus: the specter of white privilege in politics.

After all, if Bundy believes blacks are worse off with government subsidies, that leaves his own situation up for scrutiny: He owes $1 million in grazing fees to American taxpayers for using federal land, but is using a states鈥� rights argument to get out from under the overdue bill.

鈥淗e has been quoted as saying, 鈥業 don鈥檛 recognize the United States government as even existing,鈥� 鈥� , on the Daily Beast website. 鈥淩emarks such as that, unsurprisingly, endeared him to the far-right.鈥�

(When the BLM seized some of his cattle earlier this month, a posse of armed Bundy supporters challenged the action and forced the BLM to relent, release the cattle, and go home.)

That 鈥渨elfare for me but not for thee鈥� paradox is what troubles many critics of tea party-tinged groups and personalities. Even as some tea partyers bemoan benefits to minority groups, they take full advantage of subsidies afforded to them, whether in the form of corporate tax breaks or Medicare.

In an interview with CNN on Thursday night, Bundy, not one to mince words, acknowledged that paradox. When asked whether he was a welfare queen for squatting his herd on federal land, Bundy replied, 鈥淚 might be a welfare queen,鈥� but 鈥渁t least I put red meat on the table.鈥�

Researchers who study the beliefs of conservative Americans said Bundy鈥檚 phrasing isn鈥檛 that unusual. 鈥淚t鈥檚 coming out of religious white supremacy, which is that slavery wasn鈥檛 so bad, because slaves were well treated, and the Civil War was unfortunate because the federal government acted lawlessly and overwhelmed the states,鈥� says Garrett Epps, a University of Baltimore law professor and author of 鈥淲rong and Dangerous: Ten Right-Wing Myths About Our Constitution.鈥�

鈥淎 guy like Bundy, he鈥檚 discussing having driven through a neighborhood that has African-Americans in it 鈥� that鈥檚 the extent of his contact [with black people] in Nevada,鈥� adds Mr. Epps.

But at Community Digital News, Jennifer Oliver O鈥機onnell, who is black, suggests that the Bundy soundbites as circulated by the media don鈥檛 accurately reflect Bundy鈥檚 logic.

鈥淲hat Bundy is trying, and sadly failing, to do is make the connection between government control and the fomenting of grievance and unrest among minorities,鈥� . The question is whether 鈥渄ependency on government handouts 鈥� whether in subsidized housing, food, or land 鈥� [is] a new form of slavery that kills purpose, motivation and independence?鈥�

Then she laments: 鈥淲hile despising the messenger and the way the message is being delivered, we fixate on all the wrong things.鈥�