'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Claims Black People Were 'Happy' Pre-Civil Rights
Question: if black people were so happy during the Jim Crow era, why did they push so hard to have the Jim Crow laws repealed? To me, this sounds no different than the people who said that black people were perfectly happy to be slaves.
This is how the Marxists operate.
Robinson, however minimally, threatened their cultural hegemony.
His wildly popular show proudly displayed qualities which he values and the Marxists despise, e.g. family, prayer, firearms, hunting, etc.
Clearly (the word Marxists often use in an attempt to invalidate your argument), it must be destroyed.
That Robinson is a patriarchal figure just makes it all that much important, and sweeter, to the Marxists.
1) Robinson agrees to do an interview with GQ (FIRST F'ING MISTAKE), not realizing Marxist media makes its bones through ambush and vilification.
2) Robinson makes a statement in the interview about his views on homosexuality, (which, given how he has always presented himself, are not surprising), either not knowing or caring that his words will be taken in the worst light possible in order to destroy him.
3) The Marxists attempt to Alinsky Robinson using his opinion on homosexuality.
4) A&E suspends/fires Robinson (I believe that they were in their right to do this. I also believe that the decision will bite them in the ass).
5) The attempt backfires as the Christian community rallies behind Robinson and boycotts A&E
6) And most importantly, the Marxists, seeing that they are failing, double-down and attempt to Alinsky Robinson by using his opinions on race (which he also discussed in the same ambush, er - interview).
Robinson gave two opinions.
You could certainly disagree with them, but wrong is not evil.
I will give Robinson the benefit of the doubt on both counts, (i.e.: that he is good-hearted but idiosyncratic in a way which Marxists can easily fit into an Alinsky template), simply because it's the Marxists who are trying to take him down.
And *they* have proven time and again to be the *real* haters.
I just edited my main post.
Thanks for the head's up.
I've read the articles, but DD & the opinions of the Robertsons are not things that concern me.
The constant Alinsky drumbeat from our Marxist Overlords *does* concern me.
It also concerns me that some people have not yet learned to recognize their methods - methods which I consider obvious, transparent, tired, and ridiculous.
You could certainly disagree with them, but wrong is not evil.
---
Actually, it can be, depending on the issue at stake.
Also, I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself by saying this is all a conspiracy by the Marxists. Just because someone isn't a diehard Republican, that doesn't automatically make them a Marxist...
You can't have someone on one of your (if not your leading) hottest revenue shows decide to talk about his "personal beliefs" that they know would up and piss off a huge segment of your viewers and not do anything... it's like what the food network did with whatzername (sorry, I'm not a big People-style media watcher) when she pissed off the black community. He's paid acting talent... when he torpedoes his own value, and puts his employer at risk, just like any other job, it's time to say Adios.
The interview was for GQ, it was not on the show or part of the show.
He was asked a question, he didn't introduce the topic.
But the premise you most need to check revolves around the statement, "...piss off a huge segment of your viewers..."
Considering the nature and locale of the show, I'm not all that sure that homosexuals and homophiles make up all that large a segment of their viewing audience.
It was an interview given for publication in a national magazine.
As the face of the show, it was well indeed "part of the show" - you think he would have gotten the GQ interview were it not for A&E or their DD property?
Asked a question? He didn't have to respond. There is such a thing as being judicious in an interview.
Nature and Locale?? You do realize that A&E is more than 200 miles of Rural Louisiana. Something about being a National Network. Based in New York. And DD is one of their biggest properties - with a viewership larger than 200 square miles of Louisiana Swampland.
And as to the "homosexuals and homophiles" comment, Check YOUR premesis. A lot of those you disregard as "homosexuals and homophiles" live in, and participate in, Rural, Christian communities, watch shows like this, and purchase from advertisers.
Between their *national* demographic (5-10% of 313 million), and the black demographic (20-25%),, that's... what, almost 100 million. Add their family, friends, and people who just don't like people who have racial or sexual bias, and sure, any broadcasting company can piss off maybe 20-30% of their viewers, and convince their advertisers (who may be black, or gay, or maybe just not stupid or prejudicially biased) that they'll go elsewhere... They (A&E) wisely, as a business, cut their losses.
everytime a producer on the site chooses to push a group right to something or a group being disparaged by perceived offenses, the producer will get that heat.
I see so many sheep - following (and parroting, er, bleating) those they percieve as "cool", and if they can make someone look bad, then they think they look good. It makes them... followers. Not leaders.
Just gets mighty old. When you know people living in various *extremely* rural communities (can't help it where I live) that are "GLBT", vote conservative (or TeaParty), have businesses that are supported by their local communities, attend Church - and everyone knows about their personal life, and honestly doesn't care - these parrots and sheep (who drink the hype and BS about we that live out here in the sticks) look pretty (I hate to say this) ignorant.
And to us deep rural "locals", seeing these types - because they stand out so much - make us laugh our butts off. And the "heat" we feel... is what's coming off their embarassed cheeks once we figure them out. ;-)
But in either case, it is important to keep the Civil Rights Act and the war on poverty distinctly separate from one another, even though they both went into effect in the same year.
Poverty didn't cause the breakdown of the black family. Breakdown of the black family caused poverty.
Last month there was a full moon. Today there's an ice storm. Correlation does not imply causation.
The reason the black family and black communities broke down is because of progressive policies and propaganda.
The invention of "black culture", the dismissal of traditional American values once shared by all Americans as being creations of the white man (and therefore automatically evil and oppressive), the victim mentality and dependence on government... a whole campaign by progressives to convince young people, especially young, non-white people that the fabric of their society was unnecessary and everything their parents said was part of a conspiracy to somehow harm them. "Never trust anyone over 30"... "tune-in, turn-on, drop out" and a thousand other catch-phrases and jingles. With the media as more than willing accomplices, they've managed to make Nikita Khruschev's prediction come true.
I am not happy about the path our country is headed down...I'm actually quite angry about it, but if you asked the people I "work" side by side with every day if I am an unhappy person...they would say no...that I'm fun to be around...we laugh all the time... I'm not singin' the blues. But I sure as shit want bocare repealed and some head to roll out of Washington yesterday!!!! But I still find happiness in my day even so.
Don't try and make Phil a liar, or someone who is misreporting his experiences. As much as you want to make him into a racist...your attempt just came off as stretched out and silly.
Anyway, racism has ignorance at its root. He was basically saying that the Civil Rights movement was unnecessary because black people weren't actually suffering under Jim Crow laws. Such a comment is a milder form of racism, but it's still racism.
http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2013/12/...
As for your comment about statistics, it depends on what you use those statistics for. If you tried to say that black people are inherently inferior to white people, and you used statistics about poverty rate and such to support your argument, then yes, that would racist. Now on the other hand, if you used those same statistics as evidence of a problem that needed to be solved, and tried to get to the real cause of a the problem and not blame it on genetics, then that would not be racist. The statistics themselves are neutral. It's the ends towards which they are directed that determines prejudice.
I up-voted your post for contributing to the discussion. ;)
I rarely click on links to thinkprogress for the definition of something. It is not a credible site for objectivity.
Racism, IMO, is a malignant offshoot of our tribal instincts.
I would vote down multiple times if I could.
knock yourself out...
http://www.amazon.com/South-Right-James-...
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_...
That should give you the vapors...
The vast majority of them were sexist, racist homophobes... by today's criteria.