There is a meaningful question hiding among the Palinesque blather over Phil Robertson’s suspension from Duck Dynasty. We seem to have reached a broad general agreement that differing viewpoints, choices and values should be tolerated in an open society. So how much protection and tolerance should we grant to expressions of bigotry?
We have fought to ensure that voices outside the conventional mainstream have room to be heard in the public square. Strip clubs are protected under the First Amendment. Schools and other public venues are prevented from imposing a majority value set on everyone else. Over the past generation, we have established a new consensus in favor of the open expression of ideas, regardless of how those ideas may challenge public assumptions or offend a few.
It may be time to wrestle more honestly with the question of how to cope with expressions of bigotry. We already protect bigoted political expression to a far greater extent than any other democracy. The Skokie case in 1977, in which a Nazi group was allowed to march through a predominantly Jewish Chicago neighborhood established our commitment to tolerating public expression of even the most offensive character.
What’s happening with Phil Robertson though is quite different from Skokie because this is not a First Amendment question. No one is censoring Robertson’s right to speak. America protects his right to spout off his ignorant opinions to anyone he wants.
No one is going intervene legally to stop the Robertson’s from taking their faux-reality antics over to Glenn Beck’s traveling freakshow. The question is not one of free speech, but the marketplace of ideas. The question is: What are we going to let people express without relegating them to the cultural margins?
Tolerance is a tough value to protect. The reason we shudder when someone is allowed to express racist or homophobic opinions in a generally respected forum is that bigotry thrives on tolerance. Unchallenged expressions of bigotry spread the disease like a flu victim on an airplane. Much of the progress achieved by minority groups in America over the past generation grew out of a commitment to challenge bigotry wherever it appears.
That said, who gets to decide what is and is not tolerable expression? Robertson’s comments are particularly interesting in light of this question. Is there anyone with family ties to the South who was honestly surprised by what he said about homosexuals and race relations?
Robertson’s Holocaust denial-style reinterpretation of race relations was racist and ignorant. It is also the consensus opinion of most white men over 50 in the South. His comments on “Shintos,” gays, blacks and others were incredibly stupid, but they were far more nuanced and far less inflammatory than the comments and accusations that surrounded Paula Deen.
And let’s remember, Duck Dynasty isn’t Meet the Press. If you can’t appear on a goofy reality show in a third-rate network after making a series of ‘drunk uncle’ comments in an interview, then few Southern white men are fit for TV. This is not a straightforward issue. Tolerance means creating an open marketplace of ideas. It means having a choice between Glee and Duck Dynasty, between Starbucks and Chik fil-A.
The world will be a better place when the bigoted opinions and values expressed by Robertson sink into the swamps at the margins of our culture. At some point, as the racist and homophobic ramblings of guys like Robertson are shifted farther and farther to the cultural margins, we may decide that they deserve some kind of protection. We are not quite there yet. Today, Robertson is a frightening reminder of just how much arrogant bigotry still pumps through the veins of our society. That bigotry still impacts people’s lives in ways that darken their horizons and limit their potential.
Does bigotry deserve tolerance? In a sense, it does. To a certain extent, “tolerance” means letting Phil Robertson speak and letting him be judged by his words. In an open culture, Robertson deserves the same freedom to express his dumb opinions that we grant to the noblest Kardashian. And we all have the right to change the channel, throw away our fake beards, and work toward a time when such expressions become too irrelevant to invoke outrage.
****
“I hate Illinois Nazis”
Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.
GOPLifer 
Godny tego, iż nie miłuję go nic bardziej błędnego w woniach.
Poprzednio dobędę w ciemnym sklepieniony w nocy oddechu, Prawdopodobnie kolejnych kwiatów wazony zewsząd w mym ciele żądzę poruszy.
Aczkolwiek nie miłuję go tylko w woniach. Poprzednio dobędę w ociupinę tej
korony kłos wypachniony w nocy oddechu, Być może kolejnych kwiatów wazony zewsząd w
mym ciele żądzę poruszy. Wprawdzie nie mogę w doznań pospiechu.
Zapamiętania jest szanowany tego, iż nie miłuję go ale wręcz
w woniach. Darmowe ogłoszenia. Darmowe ogłoszenia. Darmowe ogłoszenia.
Darmowe ogłoszenia. . Darmowe ogłoszenia. kacper, potocki, wiersze, wiersz,
wiersze, wiersz, wiersze, poezje, poezje, poezje, poezje, poezje,
utwór poetycki, wiersze, poezje, poezje, wiersz, wiersze, poezje, poezje, poezje,
utwór poetycki,.
Tolerance. America is a tolerant nation. You tolerate me, and my opinion. I do the same to you. There’s nothing new under the sun, and homosexuality is not new. It’s not my preference. If you choose to do so, what would you want me to do about it?
Pretty ironic that all this bigotry, racism, and anti-gay hate is spewed in the name of “Christianity” right before Christmas. But it’s all about getting your material worldly presents delivered on time before Christmas despite “Acts of God” eh? And apparently you’re not listening to God even when He smacks you upside the head on the day we are purportedly “celebrating” the birth of his Son. Oh, the clueless irony.
Pope Francis seems to embody the good in Christianity. Bart, DanMan, Buzzy, you guys do not. But keep deluding yourself just like Phil Robertson.
Bubba I have a hunch if you tended to your business as much as you tend to other’s you’d be as successful as those you envy.
DanTroll, I have a hunch if you had any iota of self awareness and understanding of what hypocrisy is, you would even be semi human.
Phil very well could have never seen an unhappy black person, and therefore not technically be lying. But anyone who actually studies history could question whether he really looked at that hard at the black experience, given all the evidence that supports the complete opposite of his statement. Like this:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/01/08/lynching_map_tuskegee_institute_s_data_on_lynching_from_1900_1931.html
Here’s his statement:
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once,” he told GQ. “Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field. … They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’ — not a word!
“Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues,” GQ quoted Robertson as saying.
Do YOU think he saw the whole picture there? The slaves sang while they worked in the fields too. Nobody hear them talk about “these doggone white people” either. Shall we conclude they were happy about being slaves and better off?
Own it flypusher!! Feel the pain! Be. The. Pain.
What a sad little troll you are.
You are one strange puppy Danny Boy.
What is customary always ends up becoming quite painful. On the other hand, it can turn into a Crocodile Dundee in New York moment. The slings and arrows of misfortune have morphed into RPG’s and AR15’s. What else is new?
Flypusher, Merry Christmas – or merry holiday of your choice.
Let me wade into the duck blind here. I downloaded Si’s book “Si-cology” as one of my $2.99 Amazon cyber Monday specials ( I was facing some long flight time and needed some easy reading.)
Si’s book shed some light on the Robertsons’ background and why he personally could never tolerate any prejudice toward black people. Si writes that he grew up in a black community and that he played with black kids while growing up. At times, the Robertson’s finances were precarious. One Christmas, black families in the community banded together to buy the Roberson kids Christmas presents because the parents had no money to buy any. Si writes of the community’s kindness and how grateful he was.
The seven Robertson children spent most of their childhood living in a log cabin and grew produce in their garden or hunted and fished for their food. The cabin had some running water in the kitchen but any hot water had to be heated on their stove. There was no bathroom – only an outhouse. Their father had sporadic work in the oil fields; their mother was manic-depressive and had to be hospitalized from time to time.
Despite the seeming hardship, Si and Phil Robertson thought the parts of their childhood that connected them with nature and hunting were idyllic. Perhaps, according to the standards they grew up with – also facing some prejudice by being considered “white trash” – Phil Robertson felt more of a connection to black people than some of the white people who looked down on them.
In any case, Phil’s son, Willie, adopted a b-iracial child, and so, Phil has a part African-American grandson. Seriously, I doubt that Phil would have tried to cause offense by his comment – even if it was only for his grandson’s sake.
And none of this was enough to inspire any effort to understand this group of people he so deeply admires. None of it was enough to inspire him question bigoted assumptions more generally, whether against African-Americans, gays or anyone else.
The impression I’m getting is of a very simple guy who doesn’t lose a lot energy thinking and has no respect for people who do. Not particularly bad or venal, but militantly ignorant and entirely clueless about life outside the swamp. In other words, the kind of character who formed the backbone of the old regime in the South.
Merry Christmas back atcha objv!
I freely admit, I don’t know much about Phil. I’ve never seen his show; I only know of it through the 2nd hand reflections and discussions that filter into the hard news and the Internet discussion sites. What I am very familiar with is that type of comment. It’s the sort of statement that can often be uttered by a white person ( usually of Phil’s age or older) who can mean well, and has no malicious intent, but just doesn’t get that being black in America is different ( usually in a bad way), from being white. Perhaps this is a generational thing, because I have heard stories about driving/shopping/getting on a plane while black from the people who had those experiences.
This brouhaha is reminding me of an old Disney Movie, “Song of the South”. People under 40 probably haven’t seen it (and I’m betting it’s buried deep in the Disney vaults, never again to see the light of day), but it had that nostalgic, extremely thick rose-colored-glasses attitude about the Old South that’s in the same spirit as Phil’s statement.
When ever I hear some one talking about DD, the first thing that come to mind is, simple minds are simply amused. Seen it maybe once or twice and I just do not understand the appeal. To each his/her own the woman said as she kissed the cow.
Now we have Mayor Parker weighing via Twitter:
“I’ve been a gay community activist since the mid-70s,” Wright quoted Parker as saying. “It was a very different time. We were fighting to keep people out of jails and mental hospitals. What some redneck wingnut has to say about the GLBT community is completely irrelevant.”
I can sympathize with Parker’s sentiments, but I think her choice of words (“redneck wingnut”) is inappropriate for someone in that office. Holding public office does come with the responsibility of choosing your words more carefully.
I wouldn’t demand an apology from her, because I really hate all those fake public apologies that happen after someone “misspeaks”. She said what she believed, just like Phil did. That’s why I don’t insist that he apologize either.
One comment I hear frequently from right wing Christians on this issue is the notion that because their chosen interpretation of their faith says that it’s wrong to act on same-sex attractions, it therefore cannot be bigotry. Given that people once used faith-based reasoning to claim that it was God’s design that blacks be subordinate to whites, the claim of mutual exclusivity falls way short. This is another case of the Bible being at odds with science. The research is ongoing, but what we do know contradicts the ideal that sexual orientation is something a person choses. If it is not a choice, it cannot be fairly and reasonably be called a sin. I know the next counterargument- that ACTING on the orientation is a choice and therefore a sin. But that means that your God is grossly unjust and not worthy of reverence. This would be a God that allowed someone to be born gay, to have the standard human urges to love and be loved, to have a sexual relationship, but demand “No, you can’t have any of that. Your only options are to be celibate or enter into a dishonest relationship with someone of the opposite sex who doesn’t turn you on.”
The Buddhists got it right. In their belief system, if new scientific discoveries contradict their Scriptures, they update the Scriptures. Christians need to follow that example.
Right-wing Christians seem to miss a simple syllogism:
All mortals make mistakes.
I am mortal.
Therefore, I make mistakes.
“Ah!” they will insist, “But I’m not wrong! The Scriptures say so!”
Well, who copied, transmitted, and translated those Scriptures across the centuries? Mortals. And they might have been wrong.
“But God preserves the integrity of His Word!” they may frantically riposte. Could be. But who believes that? You. And what are you? Mortal.
So you could be wrong.
Christian crusaders against the other side in the Catholic-Protestant schism were wrong. Christian slave-holders were wrong. Christians who denied women their basic rights were wrong.
You could be wrong, too.
Jesus’ Great Commandment:
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
That’s not all that complicated, but leave it to fallible mortals to complicate it.
Or I could have read the letter to Philoman and understood that I should not receive someone as a slave but as my brother. I could have read Jesus’ words about is fight not being of the sword and understand that conversion can’t be forced.
Yep. I can read those words and understand the higher way.
It’s easy to cherry pick if one wants to use scripture to justify a worldview. I’d rather read of all scripture and see how all the individual pieces form a beautiful mosaic.
As much as I’ve read the Bible over and over, I can’t find anything in scripture to indicate that God decided homosexual acts were no longer an abhorance to Him. If someone can prove me wrong using a reconciled scripture, great. I’d love to share that with both my evangelical and my homosexual friends (surprise I do have gay friends). But I can’t, and until someone shows me in scripture where I am wrong, I won’t.
BHL — I see little difference between receiving a slave as your brother (even though he remains a slave) and claiming to love a “sinning” homosexual (even though his homosexuality remains a sin). You’re merely claiming that status doesn’t affect your behavior. (Of course, would that most modern evangelicals *actually* practiced that bit of Christian kindness, rather than vomiting hate and bile at homosexuals at any opportunity.)
When did God decide that women no longer needed to be silent in church and remain in subjection to men? Paul certainly didn’t write that, yet most Christian congregations have managed to climb out of the dark ages in terms of women’s liberty.
In any case, what logical, practical reason would a rational, loving God have for condemning committed, loving, adult, homosexual relationships? And if you disdain any need for rationality in your God, shouldn’t that worry you at least somewhat?
Here’s a couple questions for you BHL- do you think being gay is a choice or not? What is the evidence/experience that influences your answer?
Chris, you can take it up with Christ when you stand before him to account for your sins, as I and everyone else will also have to do. You’ve made your point. Christians are bigots (as are orthodox jews and muslims) because they hold to an archaic book and don’t bend to your worldview. Got it. If it comes to being called a bigot or following the word of my Lord, then it’s an easy choice. I refuse to be like the rich young ruler who walked away sad because he couldn’t give up his lifestyle even though he knew what he was walking away from true life.
Christians are only bigots when they allow their private beliefs to affect their public behavior.
Someone may believe that African-Americans are inferior, but if she holds that tight within her heart and serves dark-skinner customers the same as she does lighter-skinned ones, we don’t call her a bigot.
Where does God say you have to be cruel to other people? Nowhere that I’ve seen.
BHL – I think its so perfect that referenced Philemon in your other post. That little book sums up the prevailing attitude of the evangelical movement in the South so perfectly.
Paul, you may remember, was confronted by a slave who had been moved to claim his freedom by the message of the Gospel. Paul was given an opportunity to stand for the entire message he had learned from Jesus’ followers at great risk to himself and the future of his ministry. He blinked.
He sent the slave back to his master with a nice note encouraging Philemon to be real nice to the guy.
Paul said, “Receive him not as a slave, but as a brother,” a slave brother who brings you stuff.
We all face our choices and we will all account for them.
I love this forum.
Me too Bobo.
No matter if those parents are same-sex or opposite sex. A loving home is the most important ingredient.
sorry wrong board
Phil Robertson spoke of sin and lead off with homosexuality and branched off into a number of things including adultery. What if he lead off with adultery and branched off into homosexuality, would that have made a difference? Look folks, tolerance is one thing and calling it as the Bible states is another.
He also spoke of his own PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with the African American community. Do either of those statements really make him a bigot? Last I remember is that a bigot looks down on someone because of race, religion, sexuality, etc… Does Phil actually look down on people? Well find some gay people who’ve interacted with him and ask them. Oh wait, the creator of DD is gay. What does he have to say?
Bullying is bullying. Whether it’s being crass and/or abusive to a gay person or attempting to silence Christians from openly speaking their beliefs or filing lawsuits when it’s easier just to find another baker or photographer.
***Do either of those statements really make him a bigot?***
Of course they do.
From the good folks at Wikipedia, a bigot is someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person’s opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.someone who possesses.
A bigot is usually convinced that their prejudices are justified by some superior understanding of the world. You know, like the superior understanding of the world that you and Phil both expressed when you explained that “tolerance is one thing and calling it as the Bible states is another.”
The Bible is more than a thousand pages long and “states” a lot of things. Most people see the book with a good deal of awe and wonder and approach its lessons with humility.
The bigot, on the other hand, is so convinced that his interpretation is the only correct one that he is comfortable using it defend loathsome, ignorant prejudices against others.Bigots have a tendency to embrace an uncritical understanding of a highly complex source of authority, like the Bible or the Koran or the Constitution, and insist that it justifies their behavior no matter how harmful or outrageous it may be. Bigots are dangerous.
Robertson may be many things, including “entertaining character” and “decent father.” He is also a bigot. Whatever he says in a public forum should be assessed through the lens of that bigotry.
As the culture grows more diverse and embraces a deeper ethic of tolerance, bigots are going to begin to feel more and more persecuted. That’s okay, really.
Chris, your definition of what makes one a bigot seems to fit you perfectly when you refer to Southern (a bigot is someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person’s opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.someone who possesses.), White, Fundamentalist, Neo-Confederate, Tea Partiers. ” A bigot is usually convinced that their prejudices are justified by some superior understanding of the world. You know, like the superior understanding of the world.” Do you include yorurself in this? Why not? “What has happened to the Patrick Henry principle of not agreeing with what one says but defending to the death your right to say it”>?
Bart-1, I would be happy to defend to the death Robertson’s right to say what he did.
And I’m also happy to defend A&E’s right to express themselves as THEY did.
Freedom of expression does not also convey freedom from others’ speech and reactions, when those others are not the government.
And something tells me that a lot of those mourning Duck Dynasty had rather different attitudes about the Dixie Chicks.
Ah, and we make the circle. For isn’t he who condemns the bigot himself a bigot? That’s what bigots tend to misunderstand about bigotry. They don’t think they’re bigots. They are merely expressing a viewpoint which is correct that some people dislike.
To escape from the circle there must be some basis for an opinion beyond identity-based prejudice. That’s why so many “Christians” are convinced that their bigotry is not bigotry. It is based on “The Truth.” Bigots LOVE scripture. It imparts an air of authority that helps tamp down the stench of prejudice.
My opinions about the Tea Party, for example, are not based on the fact that its members are mostly aging white Southerners (which I am as well, isn’t that the standard defense against bigotry?) who are motivated by their fear of losing their racial privileges. My opinion about the Tea Party is based on the fact that it is the nearest the US has ever, and hopefully will ever come to having a viable Fascist political movement. I’m not concerned about their identity. My opinion is based on their politics.
I have no sentimental feelings about the Confederacy or the political/economic system it was based on. I don’t like Fascism. I don’t like racism. Unlike most Tea Partiers, I actually understand what those terms mean. Robertson may be a fine human being in every other respect, but he’s also a bigot. Opposing his views, and those of people like him on the basis of those viewpoints, is not bigotry.
If I opposed him because of the skanky beard, well…that would be another thing altogether.
So what would be a “critical understanding” as you see it in regards to homosexuality? I think you’re comeing very close to making a blanket statement that any Christian who holds what the bible says as true is a bigot. But I’ll give you a chance to expound.
oh and as for your statement, ‘You know, like the superior understanding of the world that you and Phil both expressed when you explained that “tolerance is one thing and calling it as the Bible states is another.”’
You missed the point. I have no superior understanding of the world, I just know that tolerance is about letting people be, and even if the bible says “homesexual acts” are sin and folks want to do such let them because it won’t hurt me; though I do have a Christian responsibility to let them know what the BIble says and they are free to listen or ignore. They’re the one’s who will have to pay the ultimate price and miss out on the ultimate reward. That my friend is tolerance.
Intolerance is doing everything possible to keep folks from partaking in homosexual acts and rounding up all the gays, just as it’s intolerant to bully Christians who try to act in accordance with their faith by refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding.
“.. the bible says “homesexual acts” are sin..”
The trouble is, that opinion was written by people from a bronze-age culture that was very ignorant about biology.
So, someone whose religion said that left-handed people were destined for a painful and eternal damnation unless they rejected that unholy chirality, and who felt a religious responsibility to inform those sinister folk of their perilous state in the Right God’s eyes, even while claiming no personal animus against left-handers, wouldn’t properly be viewed as a bigot?
Religion may be an *explanation*, but it seems to lack credit as an *excuse*.
I mean, really, what omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal God is such a Weenie that He (or She) can’t handle evangelism independently but instead has to rely on busybody followers who, being fallible mortals, inevitably must hash up the job sometimes?
“..And something tells me that a lot of those mourning Duck Dynasty had rather different attitudes about the Dixie Chicks.”
Maybe if Phil had said that while in another country…….
BHL — Where in the Bible does it say that a Christian sins if he photographs homosexuals?
Or, if the prohibition is against *doing business* with sinners, then why do those photographers continue to cater to divorcees, unquiet women, shrimp-eaters, disobedient children, and folks wearing cotton-poly blends? It rather seems like, again, religion is serving as an *explanation* which in no way *excuses* the bigotry of someone who claims to offer a paid service to the general public.
Chris, you very, very lame response to Bart1 is almost laughable if not for the import.
Christian, (no need to put it in quote marks which is bigoted) love God and try to follow His principles. Why can’t non believers understand that we can’t as a faith love sin and the savior. God named homosexuality an abomination as well as other sins, but at the same time as an individual I am to pray for them. But you and other non believers take that stand as saying we are bigoted and hateful. I think the lack of understanding is on you not Christians.
And saying “mostly” which has no meaning in your diatribe and “aging” which if I’m not mistaken we all are and “white” which is YOUR racial call out (by the way, a majority of the citizens are white) means and proves nothing except in your little intolerant mind. There is no circle, you were called out by Bart1 using the same matrix and/or parameters you yourself use to prove a hateful point.
As a conservative, I “almost” never agree with a liberal approach to issues but I do know and appreciate their right to express it. YOU on the other hand and your echo chamber make many comments about the conservatives need to not get involved in the process. You even hinted we shouldn’t get involved because we are “rednecks, racists, bigoted, hateful, dumb, charlatans” etc., while at the same time you do not define those words so we can see where you are coming from. So all rednecks are conservative, racist, bigots? Broad brush partner.
Bottom line, you have become a democratic hack with no chance of changing a view with REAL persuasive arguing. Just making your lame cheap shots to feed your followers. Sad really. Adios.
Bart,
I have a “Christian responsibility” to let you know that your interpretation of scripture is entirely self-interested and bogus. Efforts to fashion the Bible into a cudgel are as offensive as they are incorrect. If you can’t find a justification for a certain policy outside of your scriptures, then it would be best to keep it out of politics.
Happy Holidays.
“..God named homosexuality an abomination as well as other sins,..”
I’d argue that it was the tribal elders/writer of Levitcus instead. You can believe that God said it, you can even argue for it, but you’re going to have those of us who disagree with your interpretation argue back. And as Chris and others have said, you can’t base a law on that belief unless you can produce a valid secular reason.
Chris
This response to BHL and to Bart are only pitch perfect. Thank you.
Chris, thank you for responding. In YOUR words, “That’s what bigots tend to misunderstand about bigotry. They don’t think they’re bigots. They are merely expressing a viewpoint which is correct that some people dislike.” You mean like Disliking their POLITICS? Yes, a bigot feels their opinions, like claiming my interpretation of scripture is bogus but yours somehow isn’t, is correct without any support, so that makes them/you not bigoted at all, right?
Again, In your own words, “My opinion about the Tea Party is based on the fact that it is the nearest the US has ever, and hopefully will ever come to having a viable Fascist political movement. I’m not concerned about their identity. My opinion is based on their politics.” THOSE are supposed to be FACTS?
It’s funny that adultery is mentioned here. Half the people sitting in church pews every Sunday have committed it. If you divorce and remarry, you are an adulterer by the Bible’s standard. Yet adulterers have been welcomed into the church, and revel in the happiness their new, adulterous marriages have brought them. But with homosexuals, we condemn them because we say they celebrate their sin. How is that any different?
The thing about personal experiences with black people is that we fail to acknowledge that back then, black people had a very important reason for making sure they made white people believe all was well. Louisiana, in particular, had a viciously racist past. Black Americans in Louisiana were de facto slaves to the tenant farmer system until well into the 20th century. And being a poor white farmer was hardly on the same level. It’s a very common opinion among Southern whites that black people were always so happy back in those days, couldn’t possibly have been any happier…it’s disgusting, and a grotesque perversion of the reality faced by African-Americans at that time. What are you gonna do when you’re around people who could drag you into the woods at one false look or complaint and shut you up forever? It’s like a Nazi claiming the Jews were happy in the concentration camps because they never once complained about being their lot. Yes, I’m going with the Nazi comparison, in this case it’s actually correct.
A pity there is no thumbs up feature. But I can improvise.
+100
A lynching map of the US:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/01/08/lynching_map_tuskegee_institute_s_data_on_lynching_from_1900_1931.html
Disclaimer: it’s not complete, as it only covers 1900-1931.
So this is about who controls their own destiny? Stars try to pull stuff on studios all the time to see who has the most stroke. In the entire history of show business it has always been the ones putting up the money and not those that take the pay.
It would be interesting to see what was in the contract these guys signed. If there is something in there about interviews needing to be approved by the network will right wingers still be backing this guy knowing that he violated his contract?
And for those that think a network is going to cave to the demands of a Talent….. You need to grow up. If a talent wants to take their show on the road that’s up to them, but if the new net lacks the punch in the marketplace of Disney then there is no reason to think it would be a success on the scale as it currently exists.
This is called the free market. Talents don’t call the shots. Networks don’t call the shots. Advertisers do, and the old saying about that is ‘No dough, no do-ri-me.’
Alec Baldwin lost a show that had a good chance of being a hit for using an anti-gay slur. I didn’t hear much of a protest from Duck Dynasty fans.
This is another excellent article – thanks for the insight, and all the good discussion it is leading to, minus the predictable rantings from the loony far- right.
“he compared homosexuality to bestiality”
He did not. This statement has been all over the media and in comments here. I wonder if people are just repeating what they’ve heard, have an agenda, or if reading comprehension is really so poor.
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine,” Robertson told GQ’s Drew Magary about immorality. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men … Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God.”
So how do you interpret that?
here’s a pretty easy tell…you see any cheaters, the greedy, drunks, liars and crooks clamoring for censorship of Phil? He listed gays among a list of sinners. Why aren’t you libs claiming he’s comparing gays to drunks or of liars to whores? Because he’s talking about sin and he doesn’t distinguish as his savior teaches him.
Its the perpetually offended special snowflakes that are making noise.
You’re right, there’s more nuance.
He strongly implied that homosexuality was a gateway to bestiality. Still doesn’t change the ignorance quotient of his remarks.
this like sounds like malicious accusery to me…
“you see any cheaters, the greedy, drunks, liars and crooks clamoring for censorship of Phil?”
People who cheat, lie, steal are, by definition, actually hurting others (drunks may or may not, but many of them do). Being gay or having a gay relationship does not necessarily hurt others. Therefore I disagree with Phil’s choice of grouping all those actions into a category.
Phil can define “sin” any way he wishes. But then so can I. I like Heinlein’s definition myself:
“Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other sins are invented nonsense. Hurting yourself is not sinful–just stupid”
Also it does NOT follow that tolerance for gays MUST lead to tolerance for things like bestiality or pedophilia. That slope does not slide.
He happened to be enumerating sins that are mentioned in the Book of Corinthians. Gays believe they can demand acceptance. They can’t. They can and should demand accommodation (tolerance) which they get. But they keep pushing for acceptance on their terms, which will always prove frustrating. See bakers, photographers, churches for examples.
No homosexuals do not demand acceptance. They demand their rights, most do not give a a carp what you or I think. Just like he rest of us.
Paul’s Letters to the Corinthians (not “The Book of…”) are irrelevant. We live in a diverse, secular, constitutional republic, not a theocracy bound by any particular interpretation of Christianity. And the Epistles are historical documents of the early church, written by a very fallible mortal man embedded in the prejudices and customs of his own time and place. They are not eternal holy writ — and, in fact, cafeteria Christians pick and choose from Paul’s proscriptions with almost as much hypocrisy as when they parse Leviticus.
There is the question of what context was Paul coming from anyway? Was he responding to individual gay relationships or to some of the more extreme pagan temple rites?
Interesting little tidbit about the show. The creator starred in a gay porn flick.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/20/duck-dynasty-creator-scott-gurney-starred-in-indie-gay-porn-film/
No surprise. What’s funny is A&E thought they were going to ridicule the Robertsons as out of touch freaks and A&E is getting the short end of the controversy.
I doubt A&E were trying to ridicule anyone. Where did you get that from? A&E will be fine no matter what happens. Frankly, I wish they would go back to showing art house films and British shows.
I know its hard GG
“My take is A&E is surprised their attempt at reality Beverly Hillbillies turned into a ratings bonanza and they know they had no control over that aspect. Their attempts to get the family to fight and cuss and quit talking about their faith was rejected. I bet they sent GQ in to do exactly what they did so A&E could get some control over their #1 rated show and they got served again.” They wouldn’t do it because that would be out of character for them…maybe even ridiculous in their minds.
Having a gay porn creator is another tell. I find that quite amusing actually and it shows just how tolerant the Robertson’s are. My hunch is the gay creator is just as tolerant since the Robertson’s told him they would not change their behavior as requested by him and accepted by him.
Has that guy made any comments about this?
No one will ever know what’s really going on. Maybe they know, maybe not. Frankly, the whole thing stinks of a huge PR set up like the Kartrashians do every few weeks.
yep, but so far the common denominator seems to be a media outlet trying to get the attention of viewers. My hunch is the Kardashians would do whatever it takes to remain in the spot light and it doesn’t appear the Robertson care about that as much. We’ll see.
My take is that the DD clan is in cahoots with A&E or has a better offer somewhere else. Rumor has it that he’s wanted off the show for awhile and maybe this was their way of getting out of the contract.
I enjoy the problem A&E foisted upon themselves. Having you tolerant libs discuss it is icing on that cake.
My take is A&E is surprised their attempt at reality Beverly Hillbillies turned into a ratings bonanza and they know they had no control over that aspect. Their attempts to get the family to fight and cuss and quit talking about their faith was rejected. I bet they sent GQ in to do exactly what they did so A&E could get some control over their #1 rated show and they got served again.
Phil and his family were doing fine before A&E came along. They’ll be fine without A&E. Now that we have our onesies on, get some hot chocolate and see how Disney handles it now that Obama has relaxed the Obamacare mandate.
Some free advice Dan- in your rush to bash “libs”, don’t neglect to actually read the posts first. If you had actually bothered to do so, you would have seen that the consensus is:
1) Phil has a right to speak his mind.
2) A&E, your “outrage” is fooling no one
3) Don’t watch if you are outraged
But then you’d have to check your inaccurate rant at the door, wouldn’t you?
Thank you Fly. I was at a loss as to how to respond to that near incomprehensible post.
Damn DadMan, you really need to seek help for your hatred. Blithering on about onesies? and hot chocolate?……I think you have flipped your losely fitted lid. Hopefully your family will insist on professional help.
this is what I referenced sarcastically as you tolerant libs, getting you to bite on the OFA guy was too easy though
You just cannot stay on topic can you Sparkle?
um flypusher, your take on what I wrote has no context. How do you identify consensus from a single writer’s words? The consensus is you libs are frothing at the mouth over a guy repeating the bible. Those are in the comments.
Is the consensus that A&E’s outrage is fooling no one? How in the heck did you arrive at that from reading Chris’ article and pin it on me? My take is A&E is stumbling around risking losing their highly rated show at the behest of GLAAD.
What in the world does choosing to watch or not watch the show have to do with what I said?
I note the Advocate named Pope Francis the man of the year, as did Time Magazine. How do you libs celebrating that square it with Phil Robertson espousing the same scripture Pope Francis does? I know how you do it. Do you?
“The consensus is you libs are frothing at the mouth over a guy repeating the bible.”
Who are these “libs” who are frothing at the mouth? I haven’t seen any. Most everyone agrees he can say what he likes but A&E can still reprimand him as they see fit.
Still going over your head Dan? You come on THIS FORUM with your comment of “Having you tolerant libs discuss it is icing on that cake.” Yet the comments that had already been posted on THIS FORUM didn’t jibe with your triumphantly snarky assumption that here were a bunch of lefties all outraged over what Phil said. The consensus refers to the consensus of THIS FORUM, which everyone, except you, seems to get.
Well kids the first assertion was in the context of the post(s) which I consider Chris’ original article. Since you guys play dial a snark on every one it seems to apply generically. I didn’t read the comments before I added my take but I wasn’t disappointed.
Maybe you should start reading the comments before posting.
Why GG? I reply to comments to me. Can’t I reply to the topic initially? You guys run in a herd and your takes are as predictable to me as mine are to y’all. Heck most everyone of you puts your interpretation of what I say through your crazy babblefish decoder anyway.
Dan, have you thought about taking a course in writing? You really don’t come across very well and often your posts are rather incomprehensible and you do tend to go off on crazy tangents that may make sense to you but not to others. As far as only replying to direct responses to your posts: Why? Aren’t you here for discourse or are you just here trying to flame bait “libs” who are basically anyone who doesn’t follow your hard right line of thinking. You tend to immediately start insulting anyone with a different opinion. As Fly said, you come here with preconceived notions on how we are responding to certain headline stories and wrongfully assume our reactions and talk about us “frothing” when it is obvious we are not, yet you insist we are.
Is it any wonder you get the negative reactions here? Like the late Capt. Sternn you are here for the negative attention. Be happy you get any at all. Seriously, you really aren’t as clever as you think. My apologies for any grammatical or spelling mistakes. I just woke up, still drinking coffee and my eyesight is still blurry.
“Can’t I reply to the topic initially?”
Sure. But you went beyond that. Saying “Having you tolerant libs discuss it is icing on that cake” is commenting on the comments. And very obviously before reading any of them.
here’s some free advice FlyPusher…wipe yer chin, its getting frothy. And GG, add brushing teeth to your morning routine.
Is Dan totally clueless or just one of these people who can’t admit error? Or both?
no x no = no squared
Thank you for your concern about my morning ablutions. I was showered and clean toothed and doing the last of my Christmas shopping by the time you wrote that comment.
Yes, Fly, she cannot ever admit to being wrong and in her world getting the last comment in is “winning”. Strange isn’t it?
DanMan – did you feel the same way when Martin Bashir recently lost his job after making a stupidly offensive statement about Sarah Palin in response to her stupid and offensive comparison of the national debt to slavery? The road goes both ways and we all have the right to express our thoughts and opinions and we ALL have to face the consequences once those thoughts and opinions have become public.
Martin Bashir makes his living giving his takes on TV. He’s been fired by the BBC, CNN, I think ABC and now MSNBC for same. He also tried mightily to offer an apology. The people that pay him fired him. Yeah, I guess I did enjoy that Kitty3 since I kind of like the fact that MSNBC tried so hard to ignore the controversy for a couple of weeks and the public wouldn’t let it go. Bashir only lost his job because they couldn’t fade the heat.
Like I said, Phil doesn’t need A&E and they already gave him license at his insistence. We’ll see what happens but the only reaction so far from the Ducks is to say no Phil no show.
The comparison is who controls their own destiny? Phil appears in charge so far.
Bashir disappointed me. I’m no fan of Palin (although I do appreciate her as God’s gift to comedy), but I really thought Bashir was better than that. His comment was on the level of typical Internet snark, and journalism standards should be higher.
You may be disappointed but most on the left delighted in it. We’re just used to it. I completely agree his delivery, as does most of all of the MSNBC line up carry as much heft as internet snark.
I’ve seen quite a bit of hypocrisy and selective memory over the last few days Kitty.
MY beef with you Danny is over you charging in here and pronouncing judgment on our opinions without bothering to actually read said opinions ( suggestion: go look at the time stamps). You are perfectly within your rights to be so flat out wrong, just as we are within our rights to call you on it.
flypusher your beef with me is I don’t agree with you and am quite comfortable with that. Phil Robertson was asked his opinion and he gave it. And not on his show mind you. Just about every one of you don’t seem to realize he opened every comment you consider vile, disgusting, potentially worthy of censorship (perhaps just a matter of time according to our host) with “this is just me” or I never saw” but he is not allowed to isolate himself from your ownership of personal insult. Comedians can do it as a part of their license but a religious man surely cannot.
It’s really is quite fascinating to see a group take such intense umbrage to another man’s views that won’t make wingwangdo of a difference in their lives but you willingly accept the numerous lies of your president and his party and can witness to the point of actually being impacted by the destruction of his actions and embrace him.
“flypusher your beef with me is I don’t agree with you and am quite comfortable with that.”
Wrong again Dan, and you just again demonstrated why people are taking issue with you- you are responding to what you want us to have said (the strawman) rather than what we actually said. Let’s dissect your latest statement:
“Phil Robertson was asked his opinion and he gave it. And not on his show mind you..”
And so far everyone who has posted here has had ZERO issues with that.
“Just about every one of you don’t seem to realize he opened every comment you consider vile, disgusting, potentially worthy of censorship (perhaps just a matter of time according to our host) with “this is just me” or I never saw” but he is not allowed to isolate himself from your ownership of personal insult.”
The consequences of exercising your right to speak is that others will respond. If others find his opinions to be ignorant or wrong or offensive or laughable, they have just as much right to speak as he did. Some people will resort to insult, others will rebut like adults (most of the regulars here choose the later). The consensus of THIS FORUM has been “I don’t agree with him, but he has the right to say it”. The whole gist of Chris’ post has been that true tolerance demands that you can’t censor someone’s speech just because it offends you. I agree with that idea and I’m far from alone here.
“It’s really is quite fascinating to see a group take such intense umbrage to another man’s views that won’t make wingwangdo of a difference in their lives…”
“Intense umbrage”???? Seriously? Get your umbrage-o-meter recallibrated, because it’s seriously off kilter here. I see some mocking, I see some indifference, I see some discussion on speech and its repercussions, I see mentions of employer standards, I see plenty of distrust of A&E, and I see some reflections on the limits of tolerance, but I’m not seeing that much in the way of umbrage here.
“but you willingly accept the numerous lies of your president and his party and can witness to the point of actually being impacted by the destruction of his actions and embrace him.”
Also don’t assume anyone here is giving Obama any passes on anything unless you can produce some direct quotes. And do not attribute any quotes you do produce to anyone except the person who wrote it.
huh? is this a canned response? how did you come with that after reading what I wrote? stay spun my friend
Now you’ve gone from “totally wrong about the people posting here and what they believe” to “totally makes no sense”. Impressive
DanMan – I asked you a simple question and you can’t answer it? All you can do is spin and try to deflect. I do find it very amusing about how the right likes to twist itself up into knots when one of their own faces the consequences of their own stupid actions or statements yet all the time yelling for someone they don’t agree with to be fired or taken off the air when they themselves feel offended by what that person may have said – no matter what. If you feel that the star of “Duck Dynasty” should not have been suspended by A&E as a consequence of what he said and yet feel that someone like Martin Bashir should be out of a job for his statement, then you are a hypocrite.
So in other words Danny Boy you have no capacity to spin an excuse for your hypocrisy so you just kick the checker board over (chess is too complex and attention grabbing for you)?
Me – “I enjoy the problem A&E foisted upon themselves.”
Kiity3 – “DanMan – did you feel the same way when Martin Bashir recently lost his job after making a stupidly offensive statement about Sarah Palin in response to her stupid and offensive comparison of the national debt to slavery?”
Me – “Yeah, I guess I did enjoy that Kitty3 since I kind of like the fact that MSNBC tried so hard to ignore the controversy for a couple of weeks and the public wouldn’t let it go.”
is English your native language?
and if either of you geniuses (flypusher and Kitty3) can find where I expressed an opinion on whether Phil or Bashir should have been suspended or fired please point it out for all of us, that you two can’t resolve your hypocrisy is your burden to bear
This reminds me very much of the fuss over the show “Politcally Incorrect” immediately post 9/11, when certain comments outraged the right wing. So I’m going to say to the left wing outraged today what I said back then:
Your TV comes with a device called a remote. If Bill(Phil) offends you, you can press one of the buttons labeled “channel”, and he will vanish from your screen!
A word to A&E- you’re SHOCKED that a rightie Christain thinks homosexuality = sin??? Really? Get your heads out of you-know-where and pay better attention. I couldn’t disagree more with Phil’s statements, but I don’t see them as a valid reason to kick him off the show. I’m all for the bigots speaking their minds- then I know who I DON’T want to hang with! Or watch on TV.
It should be noted that it was A&E’s call to fire Phil. I wouldn’t have known anything about what he said had A&E not fired him and caused the media to blow up about it. I don’t watch the show and don’t really care either way, but as I stated already, it’s not like Phil is going anywhere. He’ll end up on the air somewhere else.
A&E hosted a program that caters to these people as long as their true thoughts were kept in the subtext but now that they are out in the open they wish to pretend to be outraged. They have every right to suspend Phil (he will be back) but there do not get to pretend to be stupid.
To Republican congressional candidate Ian Bayne, stop pretending that Phil is this generations Rosa Parks. You are an idiot and only confirming the worst stereotypes of the GOTP.
http://www.bayneforcongress.com/
TR, I know you are a Mormon so I’m curious what the reaction to the strike down of the gay marriage ban in Utah is among your brethren. I know there is a fairly thriving but small gay community there.
Actually, has been pretty quiet but most of the people in my ward know my feelings about the matter so they just may not be saying anything to me. My wife has not heard anything from her friends.
I am sure on Sunday I may hear a quaint comment or two but I am trying to be good at church.
FYI: I have discussed this matter (months ago) with a certain person of leadership in my stake and he agrees with my position on same-sex marriage. Maybe there is hope.
Thanks. Good luck on Sunday. 🙂
I have to spend Christmas dinner with a particularly “political” relative who became hard core right wing as soon as a black guy got elected. It should be lots of fun with all of us trying to avoid or deflect any political discussion while his wife kicks his shin under the table, which he will ignore and continue to try and start discussions on Obamacare and black, Kenyan socialists trying to take our guns away. I’ll politely turn to the person next to me and become involved in an animated discussion of little Caitlyn’s new cheer routine just to get out of the range of fire. Relatives can suck.
I get the biggest kicks out of listening to the persecution complex most right-wingers display while they are simultaneously clam that others people do not deserve the same rights as they enjoy.
GG – Here is my Sunday report. Surprisingly only one indirect comment about the Utah court decision, with a bunch of head nodding, and very little Christmas martyrdom. I was impressed.
I did get a “liberal” media comment from one a younger (22) member and to tell you the truth these comments surprise me the most. Unlike us, young people are very tolerant of each other so it strikes me as weird when a young person makes such comments.
It is strange but I think many young’uns parrot what they hear adults around them say and haven’t really lived long enough to form an opinion one way or the other. I know my son had gay kids in his high school that were quite open about it and everyone at the school was okay with it. It was a small school though without the sports madness and jock hierarchy but I do think the younger generations are perfectly okay with people of different ethnicities, cultures or sexual persuasions.
Just read the perfect comment on Sullivan:
” The Duck Dynasty guy who likened homosexuality to bestiality makes a living helping people trick ducks into thinking they want to f___ them.”
LOL!!! So Phil’s an expert source??
I have to believe A&E knew that if the Robertsons ever talked about gay rights, they’d come down on the conservative side. If Phil had merely quoted Scripture and said he opposed gay marriage, it probably would have resulted in little more than some protest from GLAAD and a margin story over at HuffPo. But he went further than that, and got quite graphic, and of course he compared homosexuality to bestiality, which is outrageously nonsensical even if it is a commonly-held opinion among Christian conservatives. And then the stuff about segregation, which was just stupid. If the Robertsons want to stay on television there will be numerous opportunities for them to do that. I’m sure Fox or one of the religious networks will give them all the air time they want.
Precisely, Anse, it’s all about growing the franchise. Why be the Governor of Alaska when you can be Queen of All Media? I have always had the feeling that Carville and Matalan just rehearse their shtick at home and have no real interest in issues beyond honing their performance and media exposure.
The irony in this is that it would have made perfect sense several years back when A&E was all about arts and entertainment. After finding those topics less than profitable, (or so it seems), they went in a very different direction.
I can see where they would think some of the viewers of that network might be offended by the comments in question, but by and large the demographic they seek most likely is indifferent to them.
As for protection, last I looked employers can pretty much can someone for anything, real or imagined. Yes they might get sued, but if they lose the person gets the job back. I always wondered how well that might work out.
“It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” (Twain)
[…] […]
This may seem like dumb question but who or what is a
‘Duck Dynasty’ fans react to Robertson’s hiatus – Christian Forums
and why do I ever only see […] […] as a comment? Is it just my computer or what?
I was wondering the same thing GG.
Okay so it’s not just me.
It’s a track-back link, linking to a post elsewhere that included this URL.
Okay Chris, thanks.
I’m the same age as Phil and was raised a redneck. However, I didn’t have the experience seeing happy blacks working in the cotton fields for pennies a day. I was raised hard scrabble (what Phil calls white trash) and neither me nor blacks was singing spirituals and getting all happy and such chopping cotton. The man wouldn’t know reality if it bit him in his ass. BTW, here’s a video that surfaced of “Preacher” Phil speaking in what appears to be to me nonsensical unknown tongues.
http://www.thewrap.com/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-anti-gay-sermon-surfaces-video/
Didn’t watch the video but the description appears to be a sermon on fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. You may want to read it someday.
And what are the chances that blacks in pre-civil rights era Louisiana would really share their true opinions on race with a white guy like Robertson?
As if A&E didn’t know how this would end if any member of the family spoke without someone to edit? Not to get all conspiratorial (Sullivan stated the producers of the show actually inserted bleeps so that people would think these guys would curse) but I do think this is a publicity stunt. Yes, this gentleman has a right to be a third rate bigot with a third grader’s understanding of the Gospel and be on television to add further millions to his family’s coffers-the bigger issue is when will everyone accept reality and people, warts and all. If that prompts a large portion of the population of the South to set him up as someone to emulate-oh well, keep on waiting on that South to Rise Again. Reality television isn’t-the mere fact of observation introduces bias and distortion.
So, it would appear the sauce is just as rich for the goose as it is for the gander. Dick Metcalf, formerly of Guns & Ammo, authored a back page editorial addressing 2nd Amendment rights in the December edition that the shooting public in general, and G&A’s readership in particular, found highly objectionable. In response to the outcry from subscribers, G&A terminated Mr. Metcalf’s employment and replaced the editor of the magazine.
Needless to say, the usual media suspects cried foul, decrying the abuse of Mr. Metcalf’s putative 1st Amendment rights. The same voices are curiously silent in the Duck Dynasty brouhaha. As usual, hypocrisy reigns supreme in the land of political correctness.
The bottom line is that you can exercise your 1st Amendment rights in pretty much any way you please. But if you do so while representing your employer or sponsors in a way that offends them, be prepared to deal with the consequences. Dittos for offending your employer’s customers or your sponsor’s financial supporters. If you insist on spouting what is regarded as nonsense in your community, be prepared to find a new community. Either that, or make sure to take the Michael Bloomberg approach, and be independently wealthy.
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Robertson’s remarks aren’t a free speech issue, they’re a who cares issue. He’s an entertainer, he doesn’t make or shape public policy in any way. And yes, I’m a DD watcher. I watch it because it’s entertaining, I don’t watch it for societal insight and commentary.
I’ve seen one episode and it was mildly amusing and after seeing it I’m not surprised at all by his views.
Entertainment isn’t mindless. Humans seek it out and on this country it’s a 9B market — at least. Entertainers influence, just not predictably.
Some entertainment is thought provoking such as history shows or documentaries but, yes, humans do indeed seek out “thoughtless” entertainment. I guess it’s relaxing and doesn’t stress one out too much. Not that you will ever catch me watching the Kartrashians or Honey Boo Boo.
Personally I feel that this whole brouhaha is over the wrong topic. People are focusing on his homophobic comments yet little is being said about his comments about blacks being happy under Jim Crow. Those are far more offensive to me and even my gay friends have mentioned this.
I’m also getting sick of all the screeching about his freedom of speech being infringed upon. No, it wasn’t. He said what he did and people have to right to criticize him and his “employer” has the right to punish him however they see fit. That said I think this is a huge publicity move. Their ratings had fallen and I think this is an excuse to increase viewership or a ploy for more money, which they hardly need.
Is he even old enought to have coherent memories of Jim Crow?
I agree, those are the most egregious and wrong statements. But even then I wouldn’t make the call to fire him. The viewers should do that ( by their choice to watch or not watch).
Phil is 67. The last vestige of Jim Crow laws were eliminated in 1965s VRA. Phil would have been about 18-19 at the time. Most of the actual neutering of those laws ended in 1954. He was commenting on his observations as a kid working in the fields. He also never mentions Jim Crow but surely he would have been aware of the 1964 Civil Rights Act had there been any acrimony where he lived.
I enjoyed reading Stud Terkel and his style of relating history through interviews of regular people. I think it was in his “Hope Dies Last” that he relates an insightful conversation with a black man who talks about the depression and its impacts. The guy said most blacks didn’t really feel it. He knew a lot of whites that didn’t really feel it either. But the whites that did get hit were in the shock of their lives and had to learn to live like they did. They learned humility very quickly and they too all got along and helped each other in the same circumstance. They didn’t have time or energy for bickering over anything that didn’t contribute to existing. No matter what, after wealth is gone, youth is gone, health is failing and nothing is left; hope dies last.
Dan, you conveniently leave out that the white farmer didn’t have the specter of the Klan hanging over him, ready to lynch him if he got too “uppity”. What Anse said in a post above-“It’s a very common opinion among Southern whites that black people were always so happy back in those days, couldn’t possibly have been any happier…it’s disgusting, and a grotesque perversion of the reality faced by African-Americans at that time. “
You go flypusher!! take ownership of Anse’s take! Anse was there riding on Phil’s shoulder and is an eyewitness to make sure he could come back and credibly counter that shameful lie Phil told!
Phil very well could have never seen an unhappy black person, and therefore not technically be lying. But anyone who actually studies history could question whether he really looked at that hard at the black experience, given all the evidence that supports the complete opposite of his statement. Like this:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/01/08/lynching_map_tuskegee_institute_s_data_on_lynching_from_1900_1931.html
Here’s his statement:
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once,” he told GQ. “Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field. … They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’ — not a word!
“Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues,” GQ quoted Robertson as saying.
Do YOU think he saw the whole picture there? The slaves sang while they worked in the fields too. Nobody hear them talk about “these doggone white people” either. Shall we conclude they were happy about being slaves and better off?