'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Claims Black People Were 'Happy' Pre-Civil Rights

Posted by Maphesdus 11 years ago to News
49 comments | Share | Flag

Question: if black people were so happy during the Jim Crow era, why did they push so hard to have the Jim Crow laws repealed?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.
SOURCE URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19/phil-robertson-black-people_n_4473474.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Eudaimonia 11 years ago
    (Edit: Yes, I'm a dumbass. I call Phil Robertson "Robinson" throughout my comment. It shows how much I really follow the show, or the Marxist media's latest kabuki-theater distraction involving it)

    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.

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -2
      Posted by $ 11 years ago
      Robinson gave two opinions.
      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...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 11 years ago
    A&E was doing... damage control, nothing more. If they didn't move on it, they would have lost sponsors, which means losing revenue... No matter if you follow this guy's belief system or not (and that's not really iup for discussion), what they did was a solid BUSINESS decision. One I would have made, even IF this guy was one of my best friends and we were 110% in concert with one another.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by richrobinson 11 years ago
      The problem is that they acted too quickly. They didn't talk to him or even wait to see what the public reaction was. They reacted to the whims of a far left activist group. That makes it a bad business decision. They needed more facts in order make a better decision.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago
      Check your premises.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Susanne 11 years ago
        You are kidding, right? My premesis? Seriously?

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years ago
    I don't think the post should be dinged because I think the discussion needs to happen. The LGBT community takes a lot of heat in here, mostly because many want to hide behind the group instead of be recognized based on merit and individualism.
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Susanne 11 years ago
      +1 for that!

      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. ;-)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 11 years ago
    Another statement taken completely out of context by the left. He was referring to the blacks that he knew personally. The left needs to admit that many mistakes have been made during the Civil Rights era. These mistakes have caused a massive breakdown of the black families and a destruction of predominately black communities. Phil is going to be the new whipping boy for all the overly sensitive activist groups. Once again instead of open and honest discussion the left will simply try to destroy him.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by $ 11 years ago
      Except the primary reason why the black family and black community is breaking down is because of the war on drugs, which had nothing to do with the Civil Rights movement.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by richrobinson 11 years ago
        I think the war on drugs came after. Welfare which came along at around the same time as the Civil Rights legislation is probably more to blame. It is clear that at around that time mistakes were made and now we have major problems.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -1
          Posted by $ 11 years ago
          The war on drugs started in 1971, so only eight years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. Of course the war on poverty also started in 1964, and there is, I think, a legitimate argument to be made that government welfare actually makes poverty worse, not better. But in order to prove this, we would need to look at statistics concerning poverty rates among African Americans from 1964 to 1971 to determine in which year poverty rates actually started increasing. If the poverty rates started increasing in 1964, then we can logically conclude that it was the war on poverty that caused it. But if the poverty rates didn't start increasing until 1971, then we would have to conclude that the cause was the war on drugs.

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago
            The breakdown of the black family began before the civil rights act of 1964. It began in the 1950s, along with the civil rights *movement*.

            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago
        I call BS, bigtime.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years ago
    He's conveying what he experienced, what he saw, what he didn't see and how the people around him seemed. You are putting words (not to mention thoughts and feelings) into his mouth that he never said. Why are you doing that, Maph? You're not making a balanced argument....and you're grasping to further your agenda by any means possible...
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -6
      Posted by $ 11 years ago
      So you don't know how to correctly identify or recognize racism. That's good to know.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 11 years ago
        Maph, this isn't like you. We can have an intellectual discussion about what observations people make. Am I racist for pointing out objective statics regarding Blacks and the poverty level or out of wedlock births or marriage rates, etc? Those statistics would indicate measures of happiness I would think. This is not an endorsement for Jim Crow laws-nor did the guy make that statement. Being ignorant is not the same as being a racist-I am speaking of the Duck guy. calling out LS as racist is illogical.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ 11 years ago
          Sorry, I was just kind of tired last night, and continually refuting these arguments for discrimination is exhausting.

          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. ;)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 11 years ago
            I was speaking of relative happiness in citing statistics. Ignorance may be part of racism but I believe at the root of racism is ultimately force. That is objectively definable for the purposes of "harm."
            I rarely click on links to thinkprogress for the definition of something. It is not a credible site for objectivity.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by Hiraghm 11 years ago
              I have to reflexively question the "ignorance" and "racism" connection, however, because of the left's fondness for portraying any opposition as "ignorant", regardless of merit, and any ally as brilliant "intellectuals", regardless of merit.

              Racism, IMO, is a malignant offshoot of our tribal instincts.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo