My favorite thoughts on Duck Dynasty

[Moxie]

And, really, anything else that makes the news.

 

Love Tsh!

 

http://tshoxenreider.com/real-issues/

[Cricket]

To be fair, many Christians I know care about those issues. The DD flap will soon be over and many Christians (and others) will still be working to help those hurting. I was pleased with how little the DD thing popped up on my FB feed but I still see plenty on the situation in Syria and prisoners being held in Iraq. I know it's just FB feeds but at least it shows what is in some people's minds. You can't always judge what is important to people by how big a news splash it makes. (The whole Miley Cyrus thing comes to mind. I constantly see her popping up on news websites and yet I haven't had anyone in real life even mention her in passing. Lol)

[SKL]

I didn't think it was Christians who started the DD flap.  They responded to it.

 

I nodded at one post on my facebook page about DD.  Something about why is it OK that [gross pose of scantily dressed Miley Cyrus] is all over the media, but [DD family calmly expressing their religious beliefs] is an outrage.  However, I didn't click "like" or "share" because at least one of my facebook friends is gay.

 

Christians and other Conservatives do their fair share of the charity and volunteering that is done.  I'm not sure why Christians were targeted in the link at all.

[Liz CA]

Robertson himself has asked that people focus on other things. He suggested the neglect of veterans. So, I guess this concludes this chapter.

The other thread got locked. Waiting to see how many posts it will take for this one.

[SKL]

Also, I don't think it's Christians as much as the media who control what Americans focus on in mass.  So....

[Heather in Neverland]

I am perfectly capable of being worked up over both the DD kerfuffle AND the situation in Syria. I don't have to pick one or the other.

[Word Nerd]

I am perfectly capable of being worked up over both the DD kerfuffle AND the situation in Syria. I don't have to pick one or the other.

 

I agree that it presents a false dichotomy. However, in general my social media feeds have been blown up by Duck Dynasty–related posts and virtually silent on Syria and the other issues mentioned.

[Truscifi]

I agree that it presents a false dichotomy. However, in general my social media feeds have been blown up by Duck Dynasty–related posts and virtually silent on Syria and the other issues mentioned.

 

Mine too. Some of my extended family who are very religious are truly angry that Phil is being "persecuted", but they never mention those other issues (you know, the ones that happen in those other countries).

 

ETA - I know not all Christians are like this, and not even all my relatives. I just get frustrated with those few.

[SKL]

I agree that it presents a false dichotomy. However, in general my social media feeds have been blown up by Duck Dynasty–related posts and virtually silent on Syria and the other issues mentioned.

 

Well, since the DD debacle, I have only seen 3 posts in my facebook on DD (2 on one side, 1 on the other), compared to probably about a hundred related to helping people in need, being socially responsible, or protesting [real] wrongs.  Maybe it has something to do with who our friends are.

[Dory]

I suppose from the outside looking in it might seem that I responded more to the DD thing (and I don't even watch the show) than Syria, but that tends to be because if something really matters to me, it won't just be a passing thing of interest that I pop onto my facebook. The things that really matter, I talk about with those around me, I tend to see if there is any action that I can contribute in some to helping. Facebook is an entertainment to me. I post a few things that interest me and a few funny things that my kids say or do, but I might only say a couple things about the stuff that really matters because I am actually trying to be active with those ones, not sit at the computer and grumble about them.

[Word Nerd]

Maybe it has something to do with who our friends are.

 

Of course, but I also follow a wide variety of people who aren't friends or relatives on Twitter.

[MistyMountain]

I don't post on either on Facebook. I try to keep Facebook mostly free of politics. I don't post on stuff like Syria because I know there are people out there who who post things that would really really get me down if I did and I know people would not like me if I turned it into my views on politics. I know I am not going to change anyone views so I rather avoid politics altogether on Facebook. I spend way more time outraged about world wide problems then I do about DD. There are definitely people out there who do not think about global issues but spend lots of time on pop culture.

[gaillardia]

My dh and I were discussing the DD thing and while I didn't read the article I did read quotes from it (which I don't recommend for the faint of heart), I was told that he, the guy from DD, didn't just make comments about homosexuality, but that he also made remarks about African Americans. That about does it for me on the dynasty issue.

Yeah, there are a lot of other things we can be occupying our time with, it helps to know what is appropriate and what is not, for anyone who cares.

Freedom of speech is one thing, but making the kinds of comments that guy made...

It wasn't just about the most-commented on issue that turned me off, it was the racism. What a redneck. And I guess that's the whole appeal for a lot of people. Bleh

[mom2samlibby]

My dh and I were discussing the DD thing and while I didn't read the article I did read quotes from it (which I don't recommend for the faint of heart), I was told that he, the guy from DD, didn't just make comments about homosexuality, but that he also made remarks about African Americans. That about does it for me on the dynasty issue.

Yeah, there are a lot of other things we can be occupying our time with, it helps to know what is appropriate and what is not, for anyone who cares.

Freedom of speech is one thing, but making the kinds of comments that guy made...

It wasn't just about the most-commented on issue that turned me off, it was the racism. What a redneck. And I guess that's the whole appeal for a lot of people. Bleh

So, you are saying that you didn't read the article . . .

 

http://deaconcast.com/2013/12/19/why-phil-robertson-is-the-most-dangerous-man-in-america/

[gardenmom5]

gingerh, on 23 Dec 2013 - 7:15 PM, said:

My dh and I were discussing the DD thing and while I didn't read the article I did read quotes from it

So, you are saying that you didn't read the article . . .

 

http://deaconcast.com/2013/12/19/why-phil-robertson-is-the-most-dangerous-man-in-america/

you know, 1dd did IB in high school.  one thing drilled into her over and over and over. if you want accurate information, you have to go to the original sources.  (commentaries are always biased.)  no ifs ands or buts.  goes for any subject.

 

[MistyMountain]

I did read the original and there were several quotes beside that one that is pretty bad. This is one case where the original doesn't make him look better.

[livetoread]

I read the original article and then more. I think his racial comments are much worse than his comments about homosexuality (though both are cringeworthy).

 

There is a persistent effort by segments of our society to downplay the terrorism played out against AAs in our country post-slavery, especially in the south. What Phil was both saying and implying feeds right into that segment. He could have salvaged some of it by saying he didn't witness anything, but he knows it was out there, or some such thing. Instead, he just left it hanging, the concept that things were fine for black people - they were happy and godly and loved white people until someone told them they were oppressed and welfare messed them up.

 

For the life of me I don't get why so many Christians want this guy as their champion. He is the ugly face of southern racism, just more subtle.

[DawnM]

What he said about heterosexuality was also disgusting.   I don't get the Duck Dynasty craze.  I really don't.  

[SKL]

I have never met a Christian who said s/he wanted this guy as his/her champion.  I'd never even heard of him until the libs had their hissy fit.

 

Supporting a man's right to answer a question honestly based on his own beliefs is not the same as agreeing with his beliefs.

 

Disagreeing with the way certain activists twist and give undue importance to moments of free speech is not the same as agreeing with what was spoken.

[SKL]

Of course, but I also follow a wide variety of people who aren't friends or relatives on Twitter.

 

Why?

[umsami]

I liked the Southern Poverty Law Center's opinion piece, personally.  http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/duck-dynasty-star-oblivious-to-the-suffering-of-african-americans-during-pre-civil

 

Just on a side note, it's more than his comments on LGBTQ and African Americans.  He also said that Islam doesn't have Jesus which is wrong (but then again, ignorance about Islam (and almost a desire to perpetuate that in some circles) runs rampant here.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

 

 

Do any of you remember the 30 days show that Morgan Spurlock did following his "SuperSize Me" documentary?  I'd love to see A&E take Phil and use him in a similar matter.  Have him spend 30 days or whatever living with, or getting to know, a gay couple or gay family.   Have him spend 30 days with African-Americans who still face discrimination.  Have him spend 30 days with Muslims, Shintos, etc.  Use his sadly commonly held misperceptions to help educate him and his audience.

 

 

 

[Word Nerd]

Why?

 

For the same reasons I go to TWTM forums—to learn, find resources and links, chat, hear other perspectives, get book and music recommendations, discuss current events...

[SKL]

For the same reasons I go to TWTM forums—to learn, find resources and links, chat, hear other perspectives, get book and music recommendations, discuss current events...

 

But do you really believe that whatever you see on Twitter is a true reflection of the conscience of the USA?  I'd venture a guess that most of us who are busy working and raising children and looking out for our brother aren't on Twitter.  And even if we were, Twitter quips?  Let's face it, we know nobody "out there" wants to hear our personal thoughts about conscience and responsibility.  So maybe that's why you aren't hearing such things "out there."  Now if the media does something to trigger a mini-movement, you'll hear everyone tweeting "love everybody," "feed the world," bla bla bla because it's "thing" of the day.  But conscience isn't about the "thing" of the day.

 

[SKL]

The Bible says we should pray in private.  It also says we should give charity secretly.  The fact that you aren't seeing everyone blab about how much they care or do for others does not mean nobody cares or gives.  It might mean that those who do are not in need of kudos from our fellow man.

[Scrub Jay]

Can people at least stop saying his freedom of speech was infringed?  This is not true.  He is not in jail and the government is not involved. 

 

 

[stripe]

Do any of you remember the 30 days show that Morgan Spurlock did following his "SuperSize Me" documentary?  I'd love to see A&E take Phil and use him in a similar matter.  Have him spend 30 days or whatever living with, or getting to know, a gay couple or gay family.   Have him spend 30 days with African-Americans who still face discrimination.  Have him spend 30 days with Muslims, Shintos, etc.  Use his sadly commonly held misperceptions to help educate him and his audience.

(Yeah, but Spurlock was under the impression that eating halal food meant eating Indian/Arab food with tons of garlic, even as the footage showed him driving through neighborhoods with pizza, burger, and other such foods (halal) on every corner, and his host family came off to me as a bit holier-than-thou.) I think Wife Swap basically accomplishes the same thing, frankly. Did you watch the episode with Melissa & Joan Rivers and Bristol & Willow Palin?

[Word Nerd]

But do you really believe that whatever you see on Twitter is a true reflection of the conscience of the USA?  I'd venture a guess that most of us who are busy working and raising children and looking out for our brother aren't on Twitter.  And even if we were, Twitter quips?  Let's face it, we know nobody "out there" wants to hear our personal thoughts about conscience and responsibility.  So maybe that's why you aren't hearing such things "out there."  Now if the media does something to trigger a mini-movement, you'll hear everyone tweeting "love everybody," "feed the world," bla bla bla because it's "thing" of the day.  But conscience isn't about the "thing" of the day.

 

 

I think you're reading too much into what I said, which is that in my social media circles, people are not talking about South Sudan, Syria, and other global conflicts to the extent that they are talking about Duck Dynasty—and that was Tsh's point in the original blog post. No one said that people don't care about social responsibility or helping people in need. Even right here at TWTM, we've already had one Duck Dynasty thread locked and the debate is still ongoing in this thread.

 

 

[livetoread]

I have never met a Christian who said s/he wanted this guy as his/her champion. I'd never even heard of him until the libs had their hissy fit.

 

Supporting a man's right to answer a question honestly based on his own beliefs is not the same as agreeing with his beliefs.

 

Disagreeing with the way certain activists twist and give undue importance to moments of free speech is not the same as agreeing with what was spoken.

I would guess that we agree there are limits to supporting a person's right to answer publicly without consequences. If I work for Focus on the Family and I tell the NYT I think gay marriage is great and efforts to stop it are wrong, I'm going to lose my job. It all comes down to what is being said, doesn't it? We all are more likely to support those whose opinions we agree with, when they are punished for those opinions (including me)!

 

That's what I find depressing about all the support this guy is getting. His freedom of speech rights were in no way infringed upon, so that isn't it. It's that people agree enough with what he said that they don't think there should be consequences for it.

[poppy]

I have never met a Christian who said s/he wanted this guy as his/her champion.  I'd never even heard of him until the libs had their hissy fit.

 

Supporting a man's right to answer a question honestly based on his own beliefs is not the same as agreeing with his beliefs.

 

Disagreeing with the way certain activists twist and give undue importance to moments of free speech is not the same as agreeing with what was spoken.

 

"Certain activists" are responsible for this controversy, sure. Just like "certain activist" always get their knickers in a twist when bigots say bigoted things.   If  more men were like this guy, we'd live in a segregated nation still.  And apparently he's not the only one who misses those good old days.  So I do think it is important to call out bigoted speech for what it is.  Just to be clear, thought, I would vociferously defend his right to say it! And your right to misinterpret the concept of Free Speech, too.

[poppy]

To be fair, many Christians I know care about those issues. The DD flap will soon be over and many Christians (and others) will still be working to help those hurting. I was pleased with how little the DD thing popped up on my FB feed but I still see plenty on the situation in Syria and prisoners being held in Iraq. I know it's just FB feeds but at least it shows what is in some people's minds. You can't always judge what is important to people by how big a news splash it makes. (The whole Miley Cyrus thing comes to mind. I constantly see her popping up on news websites and yet I haven't had anyone in real life even mention her in passing. Lol)

 

 

I know a lot of people work to help those hurting in the US, but, I honestly don't know many people who could actually describe the problems in Syria and Sudan.  So, I do get the point.  Two week of media coverage about a very minor reality tv star kerfluffle means more time reinforcing very shallow thinking (as spoken by VERY SERIOUS news anchors).

 

[SKL]

I still don't understand why people even care what the dude said.  Is he the official spokesperson of the USA?  Does he sign international treaties?  Does he condemn people to prison?  The people who agree with him already thought that way before.  The people who didn't think that way before still don't think that way now.  I can't even imagine why this is considered news.

 

If anything, the uproar and subsequent rallying will only encourage more people to be outspoken about controversial beliefs.

 

Someone mentioned that his 1st Amendment rights were not infringed by the government (as far as I know, so far - but I hope Obama didn't feel the need to comment on this as he has on many controversial statements and acts).  But the Bill of Rights is more than just a legal document.  It's supposed to reflect our beliefs about human rights.  When people express such intense outrage over someone honestly answering a question, that tells me that Americans don't really believe in free speech.  The whole "I'd die for your right to state your wrong opinion" seems to have gotten lost.

 

According to what I have read, the question he was answering was "what do you believe is sin."  GQ knew he was a conservative Christian.  Does anybody really believe that he could have answered in any way that would please GLAAD?

[SKL]

 If  more men were like this guy, we'd live in a segregated nation still.

 

See, this is the sort of thing that bugs me. 

 

The man was talking about his experiences working along side black people and enjoying it and feeling that his black coworkers were friendly toward whites.  Not one word of what he said implied that he would prefer segregation.

 

But people are going to read comments like yours above, without reading the source document, and imagine that he said something quite different.  And perception becomes reality.  All of a sudden "they are wonderful to work with" means "keep them as far away from me and my kids as possible."  How is that helpful?

[livetoread]

I still don't understand why people even care what the dude said. Is he the official spokesperson of the USA? Does he sign international treaties? Does he condemn people to prison? The people who agree with him already thought that way before. The people who didn't think that way before still don't think that way now. I can't even imagine why this is considered news.

 

If anything, the uproar and subsequent rallying will only encourage more people to be outspoken about controversial beliefs.

 

Someone mentioned that his 1st Amendment rights were not infringed by the government (as far as I know, so far - but I hope Obama didn't feel the need to comment on this as he has on many controversial statements and acts). But the Bill of Rights is more than just a legal document. It's supposed to reflect our beliefs about human rights. When people express such intense outrage over someone honestly answering a question, that tells me that Americans don't really believe in free speech. The whole "I'd die for your right to state your wrong opinion" seems to have gotten lost.

 

According to what I have read, the question he was answering was "what do you believe is sin." GQ knew he was a conservative Christian. Does anybody really believe that he could have answered in any way that would please GLAAD?

I don't think he could have pleased GLAAD, but there is an ocean of possibilities between that and what he said. A good start would be not referring to bestiality in the same sentence when discussing homosexuality.

[SKL]

It read to me like he was making a list and homosexuality and bestiality both made the list, along with heterosexual sleeping around ...

 

Could he have been more delicate, yes, of course.  Was it worth hijacking the news for a week, no.

 

If people want more awareness and concern about Syria etc., the US media should be addressed about it.  It's no secret where most people get their info on current events.  Of course, if people are informed, then they will have opinions, and they will want their opinions to be taken seriously, and who knows where that might lead....

[poppy]

I still don't understand why people even care what the dude said. Is he the official spokesperson of the USA? Does he sign international treaties? Does he condemn people to prison? The people who agree with him already thought that way before. The people who didn't think that way before still don't think that way now. I can't even imagine why this is considered news.

 

If anything, the uproar and subsequent rallying will only encourage more people to be outspoken about controversial beliefs.

 

Someone mentioned that his 1st Amendment rights were not infringed by the government (as far as I know, so far - but I hope Obama didn't feel the need to comment on this as he has on many controversial statements and acts). But the Bill of Rights is more than just a legal document. It's supposed to reflect our beliefs about human rights. When people express such intense outrage over someone honestly answering a question, that tells me that Americans don't really believe in free speech. The whole "I'd die for your right to state your wrong opinion" seems to have gotten lost.

 

According to what I have read, the question he was answering was "what do you believe is sin." GQ knew he was a conservative Christian. Does anybody really believe that he could have answered in any way that would please GLAAD?

Odd that his words reflect the American value of free speech but the words of those who disagree with him don't , somehow. Maybe ironic is the better word .

[SKL]

Odd that his words reflect the American value of free speech but the words of those who disagree with him don't , somehow. Maybe ironic is the better word .

 

I haven't noticed anyone being bullied into silence over disagreeing with the guy.  I really don't have a problem with disagreeing with his opinion.  Twisting it into something he didn't actually say does bug me, as does attributing the alleged comments to all Christians / conservatives, but I'm not standing on my roof screaming about it.  I just like to point out that that sort of thing creates more problems than it solves.

 

As for the A&E suspension, boycotts, and merchandise being removed from the shelves, it seems people are voting with their pocketbooks one way or the other.  Which is fine with me.

[LizzyBee]

"Certain activists" are responsible for this controversy, sure. Just like "certain activist" always get their knickers in a twist when bigots say bigoted things.   If  more men were like this guy, we'd live in a segregated nation still.  And apparently he's not the only one who misses those good old days.  So I do think it is important to call out bigoted speech for what it is.  Just to be clear, thought, I would vociferously defend his right to say it! And your right to misinterpret the concept of Free Speech, too.

 

Segregated?  He was talking about working alongside African Americans. His sons seem to be very similar to him in attitude and belief, yet Phil has a biracial grandson.

 

[poppy]

Here is his belief about what Jim Crow South was like. Better than now, is the distinct impression I got. 

 

 

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.

 

He at the very least needs  a history lesson on the evolution of the blues.

 

 

[MistyMountain]

Just on a side note, it's more than his comments on LGBTQ and African Americans. He also said that Islam doesn't have Jesus which is wrong (but then again, ignorance about Islam

That one had me cringing too. I'm an atheist and I knew that!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Segregated?  He was talking about working alongside African Americans. His sons seem to be very similar to him in attitude and belief, yet Phil has a biracial grandson.

 

 

Think about his statement and all it implies.

"I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash."

[Alicia64]

I still don't understand why people even care what the dude said.  Is he the official spokesperson of the USA?  Does he sign international treaties?  Does he condemn people to prison?  The people who agree with him already thought that way before.  The people who didn't think that way before still don't think that way now.  I can't even imagine why this is considered news.

 

If anything, the uproar and subsequent rallying will only encourage more people to be outspoken about controversial beliefs.

 

Someone mentioned that his 1st Amendment rights were not infringed by the government (as far as I know, so far - but I hope Obama didn't feel the need to comment on this as he has on many controversial statements and acts).  But the Bill of Rights is more than just a legal document.  It's supposed to reflect our beliefs about human rights.  When people express such intense outrage over someone honestly answering a question, that tells me that Americans don't really believe in free speech.  The whole "I'd die for your right to state your wrong opinion" seems to have gotten lost.

 

According to what I have read, the question he was answering was "what do you believe is sin."  GQ knew he was a conservative Christian.  Does anybody really believe that he could have answered in any way that would please GLAAD?

 

SKL -- This is really well said. What I think is funny is that it's not okay to give an opinion on the gay lifestyle, but it is okay to talk badly about "ignorant" rednecks. (The redneck in question has a masters degree.)

 

Also, as a "made fun of class" by the mainstream -- homeschoolers -- I support people in coming to their own conclusions and voicing their own opinions. (I've been vegetarian for decades too. Long before it was cool.)

 

If A&E want to fire DD, that's their right. If Cracker Barrel wants to fire DD, that's their right. If the Conservative Christians voice their outrage at both A&E and CB, that's their right.

 

A&E and CB are fair weather friends. They'll just support the loudest group w/ the most money in the end. I support people in freedom of speech -- and not just on vanilla topics -- as long as they're not yelling "fire" in a theater.

 

Alley

[SKL]

Here is his belief about what Jim Crow South was like. Better than now, is the distinct impression I got. 

 

 

 

He at the very least needs  a history lesson on the evolution of the blues.

 

He said "I never, with my eyes, saw" ... "Where we lived" ...  He was clearly talking about what happened in front of his face.  The fact that he did not also talk about what happened elsewhere does not mean he denies it happened or that he is ignorant of it.  It is obvious to me that he put the "with my eyes" language in there as a qualifier, i.e., what follows only applies to what I saw with my eyes.  Then why would he say it?  Perhaps to counter the idea in some minds that all southern whites used to hate and persecute blacks all the time?  I mean, why is it offensive to point out that that was not the case?

 

To me the only controversial statement in that quote was the implication, at the end, that maybe entitlements have had a negative effect on those receiving them.  This is not a new idea at all.  He did not come up with this.  Many scholars of all persuasions have said exaclty the same thing.  You can disagree with that, but it is not necessary to twist everything else that he said.  If his thoughts about entitlements are wrong, and you think it is really worth arguing about it, then argue that point.  Don't accuse him of being a segregationist because he said he found the black people he worked with to be friendly and positive.

[SKL]

Think about his statement and all it implies.

"I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash."

 

You know what white trash means, right?  He didn't make up that term.  He was explaining why he happened to hold that job.  It was a fact in his life.  It does not make him a racist.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You know what white trash means, right?  He didn't make up that term.  He was explaining why he happened to hold that job.  It was a fact in his life.  It does not make him a racist.

 

I know exactly what it means, and why using it in that manner is proof of a segregated society.

[SKL]

I know exactly what it means, and why using it in that manner is proof of a segregated society.

 

He did not deny that segregation existed.  However, he also did not say segregation was preferable.

 

[poppy]

SKL -- This is really well said. What I think is funny is that it's not okay to give an opinion on the gay lifestyle, but it is okay to talk badly about "ignorant" rednecks. (The redneck in question has a masters degree.)

 

Also, as a "made fun of class" by the mainstream -- homeschoolers -- I support people in coming to their own conclusions and voicing their own opinions. (I've been vegetarian for decades too. Long before it was cool.)

 

If A&E want to fire DD, that's their right. If Cracker Barrel wants to fire DD, that's their right. If the Conservative Christians voice their outrage at both A&E and CB, that's their right.

 

A&E and CB are fair weather friends. They'll just support the loudest group w/ the most money in the end. I support people in freedom of speech -- and not just on vanilla topics -- as long as they're not yelling "fire" in a theater.

 

Alley

 

Let me explain how it works. It's really simple.

He's allowed to say what he thinks.

Anyone else is allowed  is allowed to respond with what they think.

See? No one is forbidden from saying anything.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Let me explain how it works. It's really simple.

He's allowed to say what he thinks.

Anyone else is allowed  is allowed to respond with what they think.

See? No one is forbidden from saying anything.

 

+1

[TranquilMind]

The Bible says we should pray in private.  It also says we should give charity secretly.  The fact that you aren't seeing everyone blab about how much they care or do for others does not mean nobody cares or gives.  It might mean that those who do are not in need of kudos from our fellow man.

EXACTLY!!!

[poppy]

The Bible also says "judge not".  But I don't know a single soul that lives up to that one.

[poppy]

He said "I never, with my eyes, saw" ... "Where we lived" ...  He was clearly talking about what happened in front of his face.  The fact that he did not also talk about what happened elsewhere does not mean he denies it happened or that he is ignorant of it.  It is obvious to me that he put the "with my eyes" language in there as a qualifier, i.e., what follows only applies to what I saw with my eyes.  Then why would he say it?  Perhaps to counter the idea in some minds that all southern whites used to hate and persecute blacks all the time?  I mean, why is it offensive to point out that that was not the case?

 

To me the only controversial statement in that quote was the implication, at the end, that maybe entitlements have had a negative effect on those receiving them.  This is not a new idea at all.  He did not come up with this.  Many scholars of all persuasions have said exaclty the same thing.  You can disagree with that, but it is not necessary to twist everything else that he said.  If his thoughts about entitlements are wrong, and you think it is really worth arguing about it, then argue that point.  Don't accuse him of being a segregationist because he said he found the black people he worked with to be friendly and positive.

He didn't actually say much about white people, what he described was the way "the blacks" were. Happy and singing in the good old days. Every single one of them, to paraphrase. In segregated Lousiana under Jim Crow.

 

I honestly have no doubt he's coming from a good place in his remarks. I don't think he's hateful at all in that regard. But they are incredibly telling in their nostaglia for the good old days.  And what it really reveals to me is how many people share that view.  I truly do think the defense of him would not be NEARLY as strong if he'd said something ant-Christian.  Or something overtly racist- like using a racial slur against the President.  I think the people rushing to his defense now wouldn't be so eager to do so if he wasn't reflecting their own views to a degree.