'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Question: if black people were so happy during the Jim Crow era, why did they push so hard to have the Jim Crow laws repealed?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.
Racism, IMO, is a malignant offshoot of our tribal instincts.
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.
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...
I rarely click on links to thinkprogress for the definition of something. It is not a credible site for objectivity.
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.
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 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. ;-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Load more comments...