Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Duck Dynasty, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow laws

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Now, it seems my views in the other thread were fairly unpopular, so I don't expect much support for this thread.

I believe that Phil Robertson is clearly an intelligent man to have built what he has. I believe that the prayer controversy and his comments on homosexuality is a ratings ploy.

By taking a look at his target audience, it is clear that they are people who who either support and agree with his views, or they are people who care about freedom of speech.

I can completely support his right to freedom of speech, but I also have the right to not support his views.

The issue on prayer, sure, even as an atheist I can support this one. No one is hurt by this.

The issue on homosexuality, sure, he has the right to say what he believes, but I certainly can not agree with or support his statement.

The Issue on Blacks, once again, freedom of speech, but I believe this was entirely inappropriate and a very poor move on his part, not to mention the fact that I can not support this as well.


The 67-year-old "Duck Dynasty" star was suspended by A&E Wednesday for calling homosexuality sinful — and putting gay people in same category as terrorists. While those quotes quickly went viral, it wasn't his only brow-raising statement in the interview; he also implied that African Americans were happier living under Jim Crow laws. "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once," the reality star said of growing up in pre-Civil-Rights-era Louisiana. "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!"



"We want to be clear why Phil Robertson's remarks are not just dangerous but also inaccurate," the letter stated, in part. "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."


It is one thing to mention that welfare doesn't breed happiness, but another to claim that they were happier under Jim Crow laws.
tv.yahoo.com... tml
edit on 19-12-2013 by calstorm because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-12-2013 by calstorm because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 

He never heard any blacks complain because....he was a white man in America's Jim Crow South. The Deep South. I cannot believe he said this, well, having never watched the show but hearing of its premise (murdering things), I can believe it. It's just that in his whole life he never realized, or nobody told him, that no black person complained to him because he was a white guy (even if he was their friend) and they were scared for their lives and their families lives if they complained and he told someone else that they were complaining.
edit on 19-12-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-12-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-12-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)


+27 more 
posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

calstorm
Now, it seems my views in the other thread my opinions where fairly unpopular, so I don't expect much support for this thread.

I believe that Phil Robertson is clearly an intelligent man to have built what he has. I believe that the prayer controversy and his comments on homosexuality is a ratings ploy.

By taking a look at his target audience, it is clear that they are people who who either support and agree with his views, or they are people who care about freedom of speech.

I can completely support his right to freedom of speech, but I also have the right to not support his views.

The issue on prayer, sure, even as an atheist I can support this one. No one is hurt by this.

The issue on homosexuality, sure, he has the right to say what he believes, but I certainly can not agree with or support his statement.

The Issue on Blacks, once again, freedom of speech, but I believe this was entirely inappropriate and a very poor move on his part, not to mention the fact that I can not support this as well.


The 67-year-old "Duck Dynasty" star was suspended by A&E Wednesday for calling homosexuality sinful — and putting gay people in same category as terrorists. While those quotes quickly went viral, it wasn't his only brow-raising statement in the interview; he also implied that African Americans were happier living under Jim Crow laws. "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once," the reality star said of growing up in pre-Civil-Rights-era Louisiana. "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!"



"We want to be clear why Phil Robertson's remarks are not just dangerous but also inaccurate," the letter stated, in part. "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."


It is one thing to mention that welfare doesn't breed happiness, but another to claim that they were happier under Jim Crow laws.
tv.yahoo.com... tml
edit on 19-12-2013 by calstorm because: (no reason given)


I think you are stretching just a tad. He actually said "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once," and "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!". He did not mention Jim Crow laws. The writer of the article did. Twisting what he said he observed in his lifetime into some kind of hateful statement. He stated what he experienced, not whether he agreed with Jim Crow laws.


+25 more 
posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

calstorm
It is one thing to mention that welfare doesn't breed happiness, but another to claim that they were happier under Jim Crow laws.


I'm sorry, I must be blind.

Can you underline the portion where ha actually claimed that?



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


I agree with everything you have said in your OP. I would add that A&E also has a right to suspend an employee if he or she makes remarks in public that might be against the interests of A&E. Personally, I think the "suspension" is a temporary thing, and more for that last minute Christmas shopping push than anything, but they certainly have the right to do it.


+24 more 
posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


Grow up in the dirt-poor rural parts of the nation... you'll understand exactly what he was saying and why it is perfectly accurate. Money is the great divider. Throw all races together in a setting where nobody has any of it, and everybody has to pull their own share just to keep a roof over their family's head and food on the table, and watch how harmonious the interactions between those people are.

It is very clear that modern urban America hasn't got so much as a clue about what the living conditions were for rural America following the Great Depression. The average rural white/black/other family in most of the country was uneducated by requirement, not choice, because the family needed every able-bodied member to break their back on the fields. The average rural white/black/other family was poor, not because they wouldn't work to make money, but because they couldn't work away from their farms and still manage to keep the family fed. The average rural family, regardless of race, was so far below the standard of living of most modern welfare recipients today that it would be like comparing a third world country to the USA.

In that environment, you can't afford to be devisive, even if you could somehow muster up the mental and physical strength to do so after working a field and tending stock for 15 hours a day. My dad grew up that way... no running water, no electricity, store trips mostly to buy yeast, sugar, and salt which they could barely afford to mix with everything else they had to grow or shoot to eat. This was in the 1950s and 1960s. Fifty years ago the effects of the Great Depression were still in full effect in rural America.

There's a good reason the civil rights movement began and was fully fought in urban America instead of rural America. The whites in rural America didn't have the time or energy to discriminate against and the blacks didn't have the time or energy to be discriminated against.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

peck420

calstorm
It is one thing to mention that welfare doesn't breed happiness, but another to claim that they were happier under Jim Crow laws.


I'm sorry, I must be blind.

Can you underline the portion where ha actually claimed that?


He didn't say it, he just said he never saw mistreatment of blacks. He must have thought they didn't want to eat in the restaurants he ate in, or that they all wanted to sit in the balcony of the movie theaters, or that they might not have wanted to attend the schools he did. On this one, at least, he should apologize, because he could not have grown up in the Deep South of the U.S. and not known that segregation was a fact and a way of life.


burdman30ott6
reply to post by calstorm
 


There's a good reason the civil rights movement began and was fully fought in urban America instead of rural America. The whites in rural America didn't have the time or energy to discriminate against and the blacks didn't have the time or energy to be discriminated against.


Mississippi. The movement worked its way all through Mississippi, and all through rural Alabama, where blacks couldn't register to vote, and where they weren't allowed to get any kind of quality education. Dirt poor or not, white people went to lunch counters and movies at least a few times a year, but they wouldn't have seen any blacks there. At the time he may have believed it, but he also lived during the civil rights movement era, and grew up realizing that some changes had been made in society.
edit on 19-12-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)


+16 more 
posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I get real tired of these media outlets and people in general taking statements out of context or inserting a socio-political agenda of their own.

We MUST look at the context of what is said and try not to knee-jerk with outrage!



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

peck420

calstorm
It is one thing to mention that welfare doesn't breed happiness, but another to claim that they were happier under Jim Crow laws.


I'm sorry, I must be blind.

Can you underline the portion where ha actually claimed that?



Robertson continued, "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

Given the fact that he is talking about the era of Jim Crow laws, I think it is pretty clear.

And if this is so true, why were these laws changed? Why did we have the civil rights movement and the likes of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and countless others?



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 



Dirt poor or not, white people went to lunch counters and movies at least a few times a year, but they wouldn't have seen any blacks there.


Really? You wouldn't have anything contemporary for material or references to support that would you?

It seems a little extreme to suggest there weren't any truly poor people compared to black poor people. As if a special welfare existed for white people born into bad circumstance or grinding poverty?



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Aleister
 



Dirt poor or not, white people went to lunch counters and movies at least a few times a year, but they wouldn't have seen any blacks there.


Really? You wouldn't have anything contemporary for material or references to support that would you?

It seems a little extreme to suggest there weren't any truly poor people compared to black poor people. As if a special welfare existed for white people born into bad circumstance or grinding poverty?


You misunderstood. Economically they were in the same boat, but actual laws said they couldn't eat in white restaurants, and blacks had to sit in the balconies of the theater and not on the main floor. That's what I meant.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Isn't Willy's son mixed? I have rarely seen him on the show but you see Johnluke all the time. Other than this kids there isn't many black folk in Old Monroe and they certainly are not around for the prayer and dinner on Sunday.
edit on 19-12-2013 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

calstorm

peck420

calstorm
It is one thing to mention that welfare doesn't breed happiness, but another to claim that they were happier under Jim Crow laws.


I'm sorry, I must be blind.

Can you underline the portion where ha actually claimed that?



Robertson continued, "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

Given the fact that he is talking about the era of Jim Crow laws, I think it is pretty clear.

And if this is so true, why were these laws changed? Why did we have the civil rights movement and the likes of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and countless others?


You are missing the point. He is talking about his personal experience......he is not talking about Jim Crow or the civil rights movement.

You are doing the same thing the source article did and are presenting his comments in a way that makes it more controversial than it really is.

It seems that you are trying to say that you know the intent behind his words and that is very dangerous.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


Okay, I understand what you're saying there. It was a very bad time and unfortunately for all, as it happened, black people were held down while white people who didn't fit into good 'ol boy networks running the counties didn't get much better treatment across much of the south.

At least that's my read understanding of it. Hearing first hand descriptions from instructors alive to have seen the Poll Tax in practice is chilling...but it was also interesting to hear them talk about how many whites that also pissed off at the time for being wrong.

I thought you were saying he couldn't have been sincere about not directly seeing mistreatment of blacks relative to his own station in life. It sounds like that is quite plausible given his self described status of 'white trash'. Obviously far removed from the good 'ol boys network of their area at the time.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 





There's a good reason the civil rights movement began and was fully fought in urban America instead of rural America. The whites in rural America didn't have the time or energy to discriminate against and the blacks didn't have the time or energy to be discriminated against.


I have to disagree. I have heard plenty of stories from my white grandmother who grew up dirt poor in rural America in the Ozarks. She and her family certainly had time to discriminate. I have heard the tales of what happened when a white cousin got pregnant by a black man. You can't tell me they didn't have time and I guarantee the father of the child and the child felt the wrath of their discrimination.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "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.”


www.huffingtonpost.com...

seems to me he is saying he did not witness any major negatives effecting their lives in his personal experience not saying that every single black person was happy during jim crow laws just the ones he witnessed personally and that his interactions with LOCAL african Americans at the time were not filled with racial strife or hatred based on his personal experiences. makes a huge difference



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Again, another example of leftists relying on twisting and inventing someones assertion to support their laughable point.

Before Democrats "War On Poverty" destroyed more black families and created more black poverty than ever before in American history, blacks were likelier much happier in general than today.

His personal experience is all he knows, he never saw white hatred among the blacks he knew, so leftists must spin this into "He said Jim Crow laws made Blacks Happier!"

As with all leftist points, its based on deception, dishonesty and plain lies.

Let's not forget: Jim Crow; Bull Connor = Democrats.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


Thats a bit of a misleading headline. He didnt claim or imply that blacks were happier under Jim Crow .. the reporter you cited inferred that.




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.


Robertson was self proclaimed "white trash" when he was growing up. For all practical purposes, poor whites and blacks tended to have the same socio-economic status in the South. They both sharecropped and worked the same heavy labor farm jobs in that time and that place. His point was blacks were better off when they were closer to the Lord and weren't defacto dependents of the government. This was his perspective of what he saw, and that was very clear in the interview.

But by all means, let the pile on continue because the pink mafia has the news media and entertainment industry by its gonads.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   

LDragonFire
Isn't Willy's son mixed? I have rarely seen him on the show but you see Johnluke all the time. Other than this kids there isn't many black folk in Old Monroe and they certainly are not around for the prayer and dinner on Sunday.
edit on 19-12-2013 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)


Not sure where that came from but John Luke is Willie and Korie's biological son. Willie and Korie have 5 children, two of the five are adopted. John Luke, Sadie, and Bella are their biological children. 'Lil Will' is adopted. Not sure why it matters.

blog.zap2it.com...



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Its obvious you havent watched the show.

That kid has been around the dinne table multiple times.

stop BSn. makes you look foolish.





new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join