Duck dynasty

[Joanne]

There are more passages supporting slavery than against homosexuality. :)

 

And many, many more putting down women, women in leadership or power positions.

[HS Mom in NC]

They seem like pretty savvy business people. You don't think Willie (who seems to be a large part of the business brains), Phil Robertson and the rest aren't aware that controversy breeds profits?

 

 

Yes, it's a completely symbiotic relationship, but A&E is playing the outrage card and dealing out "consequences."   I believe both sides in this controversy are completely aware and intentionally doing it for monetary gain.

 

No one familiar with A&E would consider it a center for conservative philosophy.  No one watching DD would consider them likely advocates of accepting homosexuality as morally neutral or positive. As I understand it, they've been open about conservative religious beliefs before now.  The TV season is really slow right now because of the holidays.  There aren't many earth shattering news reports out right now.  All that DD merchandise at my local Fry's Market Place and Walmart isn't exactly flying off the shelves right now.  Some people may be watching DD, but they're not hanging up those posters and prints of the cast on their walls.

 

All these two parties (DD cast and the network) have to do is generate a little controversy and the social and political activists on both sides go running like lap dogs to support the network or cast with their financial support and/or attention, and both parties are righteously indignant all the way to the bank and make their deposits. Americans taking some sort of action on both sides just got scammed out of money (or attention that translates into money) that would've been better spent on charity or paying off personal debt or retirement investments or education or skills training............

[AlmiraGulch]

I for one never said 'disgusting gays'. I don't recall anyone else using those words either. Not even the DD guy. And further I have never watched the show much less claim to align myself with them. Seems few people in this thread watch the show.

 

I have had my words twisted repeatedly in this thread and I feel like there is a lot of mockery going on toward anyone who believes the practice of homosexuality is wrong. Feels very much like being bullied except I am not in 7th grade so I think I will just go to bed now.

 

I'm sincerely sorry if you feel bullied, Scarlett.  I cannot speak for everyone here, but I do not advocate that behavior and certainly never intended it toward you or anyone else.  

 

I do, however, feel compelled to point out that if you feel bullied on a tiny little internet chat board by a few people you don't even know disagreeing with your opinion, how exactly do you think every gay person in the world feels when you and people who share your beliefs essentially tell them they are an abomination?  Unnatural?  They should suppress their desires and basically live the life of a martyr (because sexual drive is a basic, human need)?  That they are SINNERS!  And going to HELL!  It's pretty awful, frankly, to make that sort of judgement about another human being.  If that's not "bullying", in the worst possible sense, I don't know what is.  

[LucyStoner]

I think that's what she was asking. The differences might be a "small, piddly little difference", but the sexual attraction is still what makes the difference between gay and straight by most peoples definition. The relationship beyond that is going to differ from person to person regardless of them being straight or gay.

 

 

Yet, it is basically never that I hear someone willing to say that same sex relationships are just about sex also say that het relationships are just about sex.  

[Cricket]

That is bully for them. But most people fall in love with the people they want to roll in the hay with, no? In our culture and era? I see nothing wrong with your friends who do not, but is it that hard to see that when a gay person wants to get married, it isn't just because they have sex with that person? That it just might be for the same reasons you wanted to get married (excuse me if you are not married, rhetorical flourish alert)?

People don't get married "just to have sex" but a sexual relationship is a big part of it. I doubt many people get married with the intention of NOT having sex. When you are sexually attracted to someone of the same sex, you are homosexual. If you are sexually attracted to someone of the opposite sex, you are heterosexual. I'm still not sure what is offensive about that.

[I.Dup.]

Yet, it is basically never that I hear someone willing to say that same sex relationships are just about sex also say that het relationships are just about sex.  

 

No one is saying either is JUST ABOUT. I was asking what defines one as "gay" or "straight" if it is not the sexual attraction. That has nothing to do with being "just about sex."

[Joanne]

I'm sincerely sorry if you feel bullied, Scarlett.  I cannot speak for everyone here, but I do not advocate that behavior and certainly never intended it toward you or anyone else.  

 

I do, however, feel compelled to point out that if you feel bullied on a tiny little internet chat board by a few people you don't even know disagreeing with your opinion, how exactly do you think every gay person in the world feels when you and people who share your beliefs essentially tell them they are an abomination?  Unnatural?  They should suppress their desires and basically live the life of a martyr (because sexual drive is a basic, human need)?  That they are SINNERS!  And going to HELL!  It's pretty awful, frankly, to make that sort of judgement about another human being.  If that's not "bullying", in the worst possible sense, I don't know what is.  

 

 

Exactly why I consider that interpretation of religious texts (or the very existence of them as written) to be hate.

[Word Nerd]

I can't say that the dictionary definition of "heterosexual" fully captures the awesomeness of my loving marriage.

I can't say that either, nor did I.

[LucyStoner]

No one is saying either is JUST ABOUT. I was asking what defines one as "gay" or "straight" if it is not the sexual attraction. That has nothing to do with being "just about sex."

 

For me, someone who has been blessed with a loving and fantastic marriage that has only gotten better and better as the years have passed, the definition of gay and straight is defined in more depth than the genitalia you are willing to or even desiring to touch.  To me this is a obvious as saying that the moon exists or that too many carrots have been known to turn people orange.  

 

Certainly that reflects my privilege and bias as a married person.  Or a happily married person.  I certainly don't have anything against people who have no wish to marry or who marry for less romantic reasons than I. 

 

You asked a question.  I answered it but I'd never claim to be the source of absolute truth on pretty much any subject.  Except carrots, they really will turn ya orange.  

[Joker]

Agreed. Honestly, if it weren't for the "ick" factor I could be bisexual, I think. Except for me being Catholic and that being wrong. :/ I can feel "attraction" toward either gender, I could cuddle/be intimate with either gender, it's the sexual organs where I identify myself as straight. So I dunno.

See, this is why I feel for homosexuals. I do not find women attractive and the idea of cuddling or being intimate with a female totally disgusts me. So, if that's how they feel about the opposite sex it really isn't fair to tell them they're wrong or to suck it up.

 

And, maybe I'm just weird but I really like male parts.

[Dory]

For me, someone who has been blessed with a loving and fantastic marriage that has only gotten better and better as the years have passed, the definition of gay and straight is defined in more depth than the genitalia you are willing to or even desiring to touch.  To me this is a obvious as saying that the moon exists or that too many carrots have been known to turn people orange.  

 

Certainly that reflects my privilege and bias as a married person.  Or a happily married person.  I certainly don't have anything against people who have no wish to marry or who marry for less romantic reasons than I. 

 

You asked a question.  I answered it but I'd never claim to be the source of absolute truth on pretty much any subject.  Except carrots, they really will turn ya orange.  

 

But that same thing could be said of a heterosexual marriage. There are lots of people that have loving and fantastic marriages that get better as time passes. That isn't what makes them different. Regardless of who they are attracted to, they are human and have the capability of developing wonderful, in depth relationships with another human being. Who they are sexually attracted to, usually is what makes a difference on what gender they will develop those relationships with. Usually. You keep posting what makes them the same. All those things are great, but she was asking about what makes them different. That would be like my ds asking what makes him and his sister different and me telling him, "well you have blue eyes (they both do)."

[LucyStoner]

People don't get married "just to have sex" but a sexual relationship is a big part of it. I doubt many people get married with the intention of NOT having sex. When you are sexually attracted to someone of the same sex, you are homosexual. If you are sexually attracted to someone of the opposite sex, you are heterosexual. I'm still not sure what is offensive about that.

 

 

Actually you didn't, in fact say being homosexual was defined by sex.  You said "homosexual love".  Here it is again. 

 

But isn't the nature of homosexual love *sexual*? As a woman, I prefer the companionship of women rather than men. I can love my female friends without being a lesbian. The difference is I don't love them in a romantic, sexual way. What makes people homosexual is that they are *sexually* attracted to the same sex. I guess I don't understand what you mean?

 

That is precisely what bothered me and prompted my response that detailed while love is more than sex.  Homosexual love isn't defined only in terms of homosexual sex, any more so than heterosexual love is about heterosexual sex alone.   Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "nature" but can you see where I would have started down that rabbit hole?  My nieces are parented by two people who love each other and love them.  Not just two people who wanna screw.  

[AlmiraGulch]

Exactly why I consider that interpretation of religious texts (or the very existence of them as written) to be hate.

 

I think the religious texts were written out of a need to control populations, and I think they are firmly rooted in fear.  For some, that has morphed into hate.   Others simply have accepted what they've always been told, and (probably because of fear, or even laziness) have never bothered to critically and thoughtfully look into what they're reading from any perspective other than what is comfortable for them to believe.

[Dory]

Another weird thing about Phil, who maybe doesn't get out much, is that it isn't only gay men who have anal sex.

 

I have never understood that. I told my dh years ago that if he suggested it again, I was getting a tattoo that said "exit only".

[justasque]

The NAACP and GLADD put out a joint statement.  I thought it would be interesting to read their perspective on the GQ article.  They raise several points that haven't been addressed in our thread.
 

As leaders of the nation’s premier civil rights organizations for African Americans and lesbian, gay, 

bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans, we’re writing to express our outrage and deep concern 

about the recent racist, homophobic, and ill-informed remarks made by Phil Robertson, a cast member on 

your network’s show ‘Duck Dynasty.’ As you may know, Phil attacked both African Americans and 

LGBT people in a recent GQ interview (January 2014) – saying that African Americans were happier 

under Jim Crow laws, and equating being gay with bestiality and promiscuity. 

 

These remarks go beyond being outlandishly inaccurate and offensive. They are dangerous and 

revisionist, appealing to those in our society who wish to repeat patterns of discrimination. We urge A+E 

to immediately denounce and repudiate Robertson’s comments. Furthermore, we call on you to see that 

Phil Robertson apologizes for his vitriolic comments. Surely a brand like A+E does not want to be 

associated with such racist and homophobic remarks. 

 

We want to be clear why Phil Robertson’s remarks are not just dangerous but also inaccurate. Mr. 

Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow. What he 

didn’t see were lynching and beatings of black men and women for attempting to vote or simply walking 

down the street. And his offensive claims about gay people fly in the face of science. In fact, it’s 

important to note that every single leading medical organization in the country has said that there is 

absolutely nothing wrong with being LGBT – it’s not a choice, and to suggest otherwise is dangerous. 

 

We understand that ‘Duck Dynasty’ is a lucrative show for your network – one that attracts millions of 

viewers from diverse backgrounds on a weekly basis. That’s why it’s so critical for you to take immediate 

action and condemn these offensive remarks. His words show an unbridled lack of respect for African 

Americans and LGBT people, and the ongoing challenges members of our communities continue to 

experience on a daily basis. 

 

When a figure from a popular show like ‘Duck Dynasty’ makes such disparaging remarks about entire 

communities of people, we cannot allow it to go unnoticed. No doubt there are both African Americans 

and LGBT people among the millions of viewers of both ‘Duck Dynasty’ and other programs across 

A+E’s media platform. Those viewers who have demonstrated loyalty to your network deserve to hear 

that there is absolutely nothing wrong with them, and that Americans won’t stand for Phil Robertson’s 

comments. That’s why we’re so hopeful you will move swiftly to condemn his remarks. 

[Joanne]

No one is saying either is JUST ABOUT. I was asking what defines one as "gay" or "straight" if it is not the sexual attraction. That has nothing to do with being "just about sex."

 

 

Phil did; that's the point. My point, anyway. He reduced the issue to genitals. I'm not making it up, I am responding to HIS words.

[Scarlett]

I'm sincerely sorry if you feel bullied, Scarlett. I cannot speak for everyone here, but I do not advocate that behavior and certainly never intended it toward you or anyone else.

 

I do, however, feel compelled to point out that if you feel bullied on a tiny little internet chat board by a few people you don't even know disagreeing with your opinion, how exactly do you think every gay person in the world feels when you and people who share your beliefs essentially tell them they are an abomination? Unnatural? They should suppress their desires and basically live the life of a martyr (because sexual drive is a basic, human need)? That they are SINNERS! And going to HELL! It's pretty awful, frankly, to make that sort of judgement about another human being. If that's not "bullying", in the worst possible sense, I don't know what is.

Well I don't believe in hell. and I would never say someone is an abomination. If people think it is wrong they can stop and if they don't think it is they surely don't believe they are going to hell.

 

Oh and btw sex is not a basic human need.

[Murphy101]

Yes, there are some folks who really do think it's okay. After all, it's not personal, not really "hateful.' They are simply expressing their own beliefs. They still love the sinner and all of that. They just wouldn't want to be friends with any of "those people."

 

But, no offense meant  . . .

  

 

Honestly? I have no problems being friends with people I strongly disagree with. I can be nice to someone who is homosexual while thinking they are making wrong choices and not expecting them to change just bc I think that. I think it's more likely that a homosexual wouldn't want to even discuss being friends with me the second they found out I was a practicing Roman Catholic. I've never said I wouldn't want to be friends with someone bc they are gay/lesbian. However, I also don't mock their beliefs or distort their words or post little pictures of people throwing up on them.

 

but earlier, you said this: 

I cannot imagine a marriage where people feel that way about each other all the time, or even most of the time. I cannot think of one couple I know who has been together for 20+ years who radiates sexual energy like you are describing. *shrug*

 

 

*cough* My dh can't keep his hands off me and I'm happy about it. Every moment of every day? Sure no. We have our irritated with each other moments/weeks too. But mostly our sex life is at least as good as it was at 22 years ago. Which doesn't really matter to anyone but us. I know many people/couples who stop having sex entirely for various reason and they are also quite happy.

[Vida Winter]

Why do we have to watch the show ? Why would I watch the show ? I read the article.

 

And a whole lotta people here are saying 'Go Phil! Express your opinions! Anything else is a leftist gay conspiracy!'

 

Do I need to repeat his opinions on what being gay means ?

 

You're not being bullied, you're being disagreed with.

 

Humour is one way to cope with the fact that this people are still suffering due to Phil and his thought-buddies.

 

Can you clarify your "suffering" comment?  Is Phil really causing suffering?

[Vida Winter]

Well as I said before, this is America and Phil is entitled to his opinion. Your are also entitled to yours. Time to grow up.

[justasque]

  

Honestly? I have no problems being friends with people I strongly disagree with. I can be nice to someone who is homosexual while thinking they are making wrong choices and not expecting them to change just bc I think that. I think it's more likely that a homosexual wouldn't want to even discuss being friends with me the second they found out I was a practicing Roman Catholic. I've never said I wouldn't want to be friends with someone bc they are gay/lesbian. However, I also don't mock their beliefs or distort their words or post little pictures of people throwing up on them.

 

 

Most of the gay folks I know are members of large extended Roman Catholic families who love them to pieces and fully accept/include them.  I would never assume that because someone is RC that they hold a particular point of view regarding homosexuals, the Catechism and "Always Our Children" notwithstanding.  

[AlmiraGulch]

Well I don't believe in hell. and I would never say someone is an abomination. If people think it is wrong they can stop and if they don't think it is they surely don't believe they are going to hell.

 

Oh and btw sex is not a basic human need.

 

Seriously?  You're not serious, are you?  

 

Except....I think you are.  Wow.  

 

[Murphy101]

Seriously? You're not serious, are you?

 

Except....I think you are. Wow.

*eyeroll*

 

Are you being serious. Surely not. Because last I checked no one ever died for lack of sex.

[SKL]

It really bothers people that a guy says gay sex isn't his cup of tea?  Does one now have to say something nice and encouraging about gay sex in order to be politically correct?

 

Maybe it's time we went back to the days when no self-respecting people talked about sex at all.  Then nobody could be offended that we all have different feelings and preferences.

 

As a single mom, I hear all kinds of comments from "I don't know how you do it" to "that's irresponsible, think of the children."  In fact, there are people who erroneously think I am homosexual - including people who think homosexuality is an abomination.  I pretty much don't care.  The only time I might care is if the person attacking me or my lifestyle is someone whose esteem / opinion I value.  So if there are gay people hearing that this weird bearded outwardly-Christian redneck doesn't have a soft corner for gays (surprise, surprise!), I doubt they are all broken up about it.

[Scarlett]

Seriously? You're not serious, are you?

 

Except....I think you are. Wow.

People can live quite happily without sex.

[Vida Winter]

Is that what you'd say to a gay teen being bullied by his 'Biblical' friends  as well ?

 

Phil is indeed entitled to his opinion. Doesn't stop it being a harmful one.

 

You just changed the subject. Phil was not bullying anyone.

[AlmiraGulch]

*eyeroll*

 

Are you being serious. Surely not. Because last I checked no one ever died for lack of sex.

 

[SKL]

No, sex is not necessary for an individual to live or be happy.

 

It is rather important to the survival of the human race, but then again, so is heterosexuality....

[Cricket]

Actually you didn't, in fact say homosexuals were defined by sex. You said "homosexual love". Here it is again.

 

 

That is precisely what bothered me and prompted my response that detailed while love is more than sex. Homosexual love isn't defined only in terms of homosexual sex, any more so than heterosexual love is about heterosexual sex alone. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "nature" but can you see where I would have started down that rabbit hole? My nieces are parented by two people who love each other and love them. Not just two people who wanna screw.

I wasn't quite sure how to word that. My point was that such relationships are defined as such because of the sexual component. There are close, non-sexual, long term relationships between members of the same sex that are not defined as homosexual because a sexual relationship isn't involved. People who are not in committed relationships with members of the same sex but sleep around with random people of the same sex identify as homosexual because of the sexual nature of the temporary relationships. Not saying that all gay people are promiscuous! Just trying to illustrate that it is the sexual component that gives the label. I guess I'm having trouble with divorcing the act from the label. There isn't anything "gay" or "homosexual" about raising kids, living life, mannerisms, or anything else people do. It's the same-sex attraction that is homosexual.

[Joanne]

People can live quite happily without sex.

 

 

Sure. I've done so for quite a while now.

 

However, sex is a basic, primal instinct of biology, supported by and driven by hormones and other chemical realities in bodies.

[Vida Winter]

Phil is contributing to a culture in which bullying of lesbian and gay teens is endemic.

 

Are you ?

 

No, I am not. And I don't appreciate you implying that.

 

edit to add: I don't think Phil was bullying anyone either.

[AlmiraGulch]

So, to return to the initial topic (because it's about to get ugly in here)...

 

A&E suspended one of the cast members on its popular show, Duck Dynasty.  It was 100% within their legal right to do so.  No one said the man could not express his opinion. There is no violation of anyone's right to free speech.

 

He has the right to his opinion, regardless of how popular or unpopular the opinion.  He does not have the right, nor does anyone in this country, to express that opinion without possibility of consequence.  

 

[Scarlett]

Sure. I've done so for quite a while now.

 

However, sex is a basic, primal instinct of biology, supported by and driven by hormones and other chemical realities in bodies.

That does not translate to being a basic human need.

[Scarlett]

So, to return to the initial topic (because it's about to get ugly in here)...

 

A&E suspended one of the cast members on its popular show, Duck Dynasty. It was 100% within their legal right to do so. No one said the man could not express his opinion. There is no violation of anyone's right to free speech.

 

He has the right to his opinion, regardless of how popular or unpopular the opinion. He does not have the right, nor does anyone in this country, to express that opinion without possibility of consequence.

The family has released a statement. Interesting.

[LucyStoner]

I wasn't quite sure how to word that. My point was that such relationships are defined as such because of the sexual component. There are close, non-sexual, long term relationships between members of the same sex that are not defined as homosexual because a sexual relationship isn't involved. People who are not in committed relationships with members of the same sex but sleep around with random people of the same sex identify as homosexual because of the sexual nature of the temporary relationships. Not saying that all gay people are promiscuous! Just trying to illustrate that it is the sexual component that gives the label. I guess I'm having trouble with divorcing the act from the label. There isn't anything "gay" or "homosexual" about raising kids, living life, mannerisms, or anything else people do. It's the same-sex attraction that is homosexual.

 

If I am married to a man, I am in a straight marriage even if I am not engaging in sex.  My brother's marriage remains a gay one even if he and his husband stop having sex.  Or does it not?   If there isn't anything gay or homosexual about raising kids and living life, then there isn't anything straight or heterosexual about it either.  

[SKL]

But he didn't say that, SKL.

 

If he'd said 'It isn't my cup of tea', there'd have been no problem. It's not my cup of tea either.

 

The comment quoted above about preferring a woman's vagina over a man's rectum reads to me like "not my cup of tea."  And (if the journalists are to be believed) he did also say his religious beliefs include the belief that homosexuality is a sin.  Which is certainly nothing unheard of either.  We are all entitled to our beliefs.  Some people would read the same Bible and conclude that that guy is an abomination because of his long hair and gluttony.  Oh, and I'm sure some people have completely written him off since he seems to like guns and eating meat.  But I doubt he would be all broken up about their opinion.

[Jenny in Florida]

  

 

Honestly? I have no problems being friends with people I strongly disagree with. I can be nice to someone who is homosexual while thinking they are making wrong choices and not expecting them to change just bc I think that. I think it's more likely that a homosexual wouldn't want to even discuss being friends with me the second they found out I was a practicing Roman Catholic. I've never said I wouldn't want to be friends with someone bc they are gay/lesbian. However, I also don't mock their beliefs or distort their words or post little pictures of people throwing up on them.

 

Please note I did not name names. However, there are some folks here who have said quite explicitly that they would not consider being friends with LGBT people.

 

Also please note that I have neither mocked anyone's beliefs nor posted any such pictures.

[Joker]

The family has released a statement. Interesting.

There's also a statement going around FB from DD's biggest sponsor, Under Armour. They state they don't agree with what he said but they're not going to sever their business relationship with them. I wonder if A&E will change their mind if other DD financial supporters don't jump ship.

[Stellalarella]

I think there should be a digital litmus test for all TV viewers.  The Network installs a censor on the Dish remote that can tell whether or not the TV viewer's beliefs/opinions are in line with current PC trends.  Got some hidden conservative opinions on homosexual sex acts?  Then you cannot watch A&E tonight.  Sorry, we are just going to have to suspend your TV watching.  Is it right for A&E to profit from viewers who hold views that A&E feels are hateful and bigoted??  Gosh, I would hate for A&E to be on the "wrong side of history" on this one.  

 

 

[SKL]

If sex is a basic human need, so is expression of heartfelt thoughts and feelings.

[Dory]

Sure. I've done so for quite a while now.

 

However, sex is a basic, primal instinct of biology, supported by and driven by hormones and other chemical realities in bodies.

 

But saying it's hormonally and chemically driven is not the same as saying it's a need.

 

 

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is an interesting thing to refer to now and then, but even psychologists I've talked to don't take him completely seriously. There have been many things that have come from his work, but placing sex at the bottom tier just makes me think he had a few issues. There have been psychologically healthy people that are not sexually active.

[Slartibartfast]

I find it irrelevant as to whether or not sex is a basic human need. We aren't in a caste society where one group can never pursue happiness or love. 

 

 

People choose not to be sexually active all the time, but again that is a choice. Paul said it was better to be married if someone could not be celibate. So let them marry.

 

I Corintheans 8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

[Vida Winter]

I agree with you SKL that the man is entitled to his beliefs. I don't mind that he hunts or that he eats meat. He can be as non-gay as he likes in his home and his church and out in nature. He can even say what he likes in an interview. On TV. I'm sure in many other ways he is an interesting and likable person.

 

In some ways I'm less concerned about Phil than about the people who jump to support him. I'm sure some of those people just want to live and let live, but for some people it's an opportunity to express hurtful and harmful ideas about gay people and people of African-American descent.

 

And why do we need that ?

 

I'll try to say this as simply as possible: Please don't invent hate where it does not exist. You have now expanded the topic from gay people to African-Americans. No, we do not need that, and I am not aware of anyone here doing that.

[Vida Winter]

I didn't expand it. Phil did. Have you read the article ? Have you read the response ? Both were linked here.

 

I didn't invent this aspect of the story.

 

No, I did not read the article. Please link the article so I can read it tomorrow. I'm going to bed now.

[Slartibartfast]

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson

 

He said

 

 

 

Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. 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.â€

[SKL]

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson

 

He said

Quote

Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. 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.â€

 

 

See, I don't see this as hate or meanness either.  Maybe a bit of ignorance.  He's probably seeing a great deal of contrast between the black people he worked with as a young man and those in certain environments now.  I feel that it has been unhelpful to teach minority children that they have a lot to be angry at whites about.  Not that they couldn't figure that out for themselves, but it doesn't serve any purpose.  The same thing about teaching low-income people that they should resent people who have more.  You end up with people who have much better material lives but are mired in discontent.  People who are prepared to read neutral comments as racist, to which they react to their own detriment.  (Not everyone, but definitely a significant group.)  It's sad to see.  I think that's what he's saying.  Now, surely there was silent suffering going on that he as a young man probably didn't perceive.  He's just a human. I don't think we need to hold humans to standards of omniscience or other types of perfection.  Sometimes a comment is just a comment, nothing more.

 

[SKL]

I hear he's got a Master's degree. So he's fairly well educated,  yes ? And yet in all his years he's missed the memo about black people not having so much fun in the South ?

 

All I know is his PR person should be getting those sermons down from YouTube. Or denouncing them as fakes. They're linked all over the place.

 

Missed the memo ... because the memo is the best way to learn about real life, right?

 

I mean, he was there.

 

I also have worked closely with black people who were having a great time despite the fact that they worked their tails off (as did I alongside them).  It is lovely to work with someone who knows how to be sunny and cheerful in the midst of hardship.  And they might as well be cheerful, because they didn't have the lottery or student loans back then, right?  A life is a long time to feel angry and resentful.  But people looking in from the outside think they know better about what those smiles and songs and rhythm meant.

 

[Amy in NH]

 

I think it is all about boosting ratings and boosting sales of DD stuff. I read an article a few months ago that Phil was planning on leaving the show. I think this is about publicity and fanning the flames of outrage to get the season 5 off to a "hot" start. Phil has made these type of comments before in other articles. 

 

...

 

I think A&E has created a lot more interest in the show, the network and the merchandise with this.

 

 

 

 

Don't watch, don't care, but I do bet that the whole interview (which I don't know anything about other than what I've read in this thread) and suspension are staged for publicity.

 

Gotta boost merchandise sales during the holiday, especially amongst a particular segment of the population which agrees with him (whatever it was that he said) and will now want to support him.

[[email protected]]

I think y'all have covered this topic thoroughly now.

 

Moderator