Clive Bundy, explained

HERE’S THE DEAL with Clive Bundy, the alleged racist.

First off, he calls the darker citizens negroes. Negro is Spanish for black, of course, and was the polite term for blacks when Clive was a youngster. He still uses it because he does not keep up with cultural trends emanating almost exclusively from elitist neighborhoods on the two coasts and in Madison, Wisconsin. And because you likely can count the blacks who live in rural Nevada on half of one hand.

BundyIn short, Clive knows no blacks and never has.

Clive also says blacks were likely better off in slave days than they are now. Here is what Clive knows about slave days: pretty much nothing. What he thinks he knows is that blacks were brought over from Africa and put to work in fields, barns and plantation houses. They learned farming, domestic work and how to make wagon wheels and rope and plenty of other useful stuff.

They also were fed and clothed. What they could not do — and here comes the slavery part in Clive’s mind — is resign their post and go elsewhere. Clive, due to never really being interested because there were cows to care for, knows nothing of the nastier elements of slavery.

Flash forward: Clive drove past a housing project in Las Vegas, where he likely had gone to buy a saddle and horseshoes, and he noticed lots of black folks — adults and kids — sitting on porches, drinking beer, twiddling their fingers, doing not much of anything, which is common in urban ghettos. This sits badly with Clive, a man with — one supposes — a formidable work ethic.

Clive knows squat of the black middle class because those people are less visibly concentrated, and they almost never visit the open ranges of Nevada, which is Clive’s world. Clive only drives by the ghetto now and then on his way downtown to buy cowboy stuff.

And he sees what he sees, and it doesn’t look right to him. That is reasonable. You shouldn’t fault an old cowpoke for thinking differently than a clinch-jawed Bryn Mawr professor of gender-identity studies who was born in 1985 in Berkeley.

Plus, Clive was baited by an effete East Coast reporter (with a clear agenda) to jump into these roiling waters in the first place. The Nevadan is no more a racist than you or I, at least in the bad way.

* * * *

Racism, explained:

We are all racists. It’s just that a minority are more extreme than most of us. Those are the bad boys and girls who join the Nation of Islam or the Klan. We moderates, you and I, simply prefer the company of people like us, similar to us in skin tone, educational level, political opinion, economic status, culture, nationality, whatever. It is human nature to prefer the company of folks who are similar.

And that’s a fact, Jack.

13 thoughts on “Clive Bundy, explained

  1. Good post. While I have mixed thoughts on the Bundy situation, I agree with you on the racist issue. By your definition I am a moderate.


  2. Clive may very well have driven past an urban ghetto and seen people sitting on their porch drinking a cold beer on a hot day. Clive’s mind immediately went to, “Look at those welfare bums drinking beer that they paid for with MY tax money and living in houses they rent with MY tax money. Those lazy folks were better off when they were slaves, sitting on massa’s porch drinking lemonade”.

    What did not go through Clive’s tiny mind was, “I have to get home and let my cattle graze and shit on land that is being maintained by other people’s tax money”. On a dollar scale, Clive is a much bigger welfare bum than whole blocks of unemployed folk.


    1. Croft: I have no idea what ran through ole Clive’s mind in such verbal detail. But your interpretation reflects your political post out there on the far left. I am not shocked.

      As for the issue of his grazing rights, that’s not at all what the post is about. Totally different matter.

      Did MSNBC send you over?


  3. I’m afraid it won’t be long before speech like Bundy’s and Donald Sterling’s will get you arrested by the Speech and Thought Police and sent to a Re-Education Camp.


    1. Paul: We’re pretty much at that point. You can already get fired and socially shunned for the “wrong” opinions.

      But I have to laugh at Sterling’s situation. There are downsides to picking eye candy for bed companions, particularly one from a “victimized” segment of society. I recommend that Sterling stick to blondes in the future.


      1. I agree we are all racists. The problem seems that the term has taken on negative connotations, mostly “you are stupid if you don’t like black people.” The definition I’ve found the most accurate is that racism is a concept that there are differences between the races with physiological and genetic differences that result in differences in talent and culture. That there are talents that are manifest as superior between the races. There is nothing that avers one race is superior to the other. Prejudice does not enter into the definition at all. That is an entirely different problem. I can say that, according to this definition, I am a racist but not racially prejudiced. It is true that I am very approving of many blacks. It is also true that I am critical of the vast majority of young black males. Included are the failure to assimilate, the failure to educate, the failure to accept parenthood and family responsibility, the failure to develop a work ethic, the failure to abide by criminal law, and the willingness to blame all his problems on being black. Well, I think that one is right. Finally, I don’t know anything about Mr. Bundy except that his black bodyguard publicly stated the he has so much respect for him that he would take a bullet for him. As for Donald Sterling, he believes in the racial superiority of black basketball players, but at the same time the dude is quite racially prejudiced.


  4. You are right including Madison, WI. Having moved here 26 years ago from Houston to “50 square miles surrounded by reality,” I am definitely in the minority, but thanks to Scott Walker we are making strong improvements.


    1. Thanks for the feedback, John. I often throw in a reference to Madison when writing about left-wing hokum because it’s full of so much hokum, and it’s on neither of the coasts, the traditional zones of American left-wing hokum. We can, of course, blame the University of Wisconsin for much of the foolishness.

      Give Scott Walker my best.


Comments are closed.