So, no one cares about Phil Robertson’s racial comments? Or his sexist ones?

20131220-161644.jpg

Yesterday, Phil Robertson was suspended from the hit A&E show Duck Dynasty after derogatory comments he made about homosexuals in an GQ interview.

The network released the following statement on Wednesday regarding Robertson’s dismissal:

“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck.”

“His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”

Now, what he said about the LGBTQ community was flaw but Robertson also made some insensitive comments about Blacks:

“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!”

And, my personal favorite (note: sarcasm):

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

Oh, White privilege. How often must we meet and how often must I smite you in blog postings?

These comments, along with all the comments Robertson made, are ludicrous at best.

Of course he didn’t hear any Blacks saying anything negative about White people during Jim Crow. They would have been lynched or, at best, run out of town. These folks could have had their homes burned down. They could have lost their jobs, which were already low-wage, meaning they would have zero-income and no way to feed their families. The list goes on.

Now my biggest issue is this whole “entitlement” thing and insinuating that Blacks are the only recipients of welfare.

Yes, the number of Blacks receiving welfare is extremely disproportionate given the current number of Blacks residing in the US. But, overall, more White people are on welfare. So let’s not do this thing where Blacks are made into the poster children for recipients of government benefits.

However, the outcries and outrage isn’t surrounding his racial comments at all. Yes, these statements have been mentioned but not addressed or reprimanded in the same manner that Robertson’s homosexual comments have.

It seems to me that comments against ANY racial or ethnic group take a backseat to comments made about the LGBTQ community. This is problematic because Phil Robertson should be called out equally for everything he said. He should get suspended over every insensitive and ignorant comment he made.

And A&E’s statements on the matter specifically state that Robertson is being suspended because of his homosexuality comments. Nothing is mentioned about his statements regarding Black people.

Robertson’s racial comments took the backseat in the matter because a lot of people are under this facade that America is post-racial. So his racial commentary is brushed off as him being ignorant because it’s assumed that everyone else simply knows better.

Honestly, America is BARELY post-slavery, post-interment camps, post-segregation, and we aren’t even post-immigration laws. How are we going to be post-racial?

A couple years ago, Arizona passed a law stating that someone who LOOKS like an illegal immigrant could be stopped and searched. But we’re post racial?

NYPD has some black or brown kid thrown up against a brick wall RIGHT NOW bc of “stop-and-frisk.” But we’re post-racial?

Kendrick Johnson’s murder is being disregarded by Valdosta PD bc of the blatant disregard for POC life. And we’re post-racial?

Le sigh.

Additionally, Phil Robertson insinuated that a woman’s worth is based in her vagina:

“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

So because I have a vagina, I have more to offer you sexually? That’s my worth? My vag? Okay. Cool.

My point in all of this is that Phil Robertson should be reprimanded for everything he said. Focusing on rude and ignorant comments targeted toward one group insinuates that discrimination has hierarchies. It also ignores the intersectionality of race, gender, and sexual orientation. Black homosexuals were slayed by Robertson twice along with Black women, Black lesbians, lesbians in general, etc.

If you’re gonna call someone out for being insensitive, make sure you highlight ALL his insensitivities. Not just one.

4 thoughts on “So, no one cares about Phil Robertson’s racial comments? Or his sexist ones?

  1. The show has been sexist from the beginning and no one seemed to care about that, aside from a few feminists. Their whole philosophy is women belong in the kitchen serving men and making babies. The women on the show don’t go out and hunt unless it’s to make fools of themselves and be chided by the men for their ignorance of the outdoors. I saw one snipped where the grandmother had the little granddaughters teaching them to cook and Phil came in and said he liked to see girls learning how to cook.

  2. You’re hilarious. The African Americans that Phil Robertson knew weren’t happy, they were pretending to be happy so they wouldn’t be lynched. News flash – there are happy African Americans and there are happy women, even women that are stay-at-home moms. But I suppose these facts disagree with your biases so in your world problems never get better, which gives you something to complain about. Which I suppose is the point.

    • My point was not that most Blacks were not going to be openly vocal about their discontent with the racist sociopolitical climate of the time (i.e. Jim Crow). Phil Robertson’s assertion that Black people were happier “pre-entitlement” and “pre-welfare” (i.e. during Jim Crow) is based on what he saw. What he saw was poor Blacks working to provide for their families. Also, singing while working in fields could serve as proof of discontent seeing that slaves (these reasons are not all encompassing) sung while they worked the fields as a way of staying hopeful and keeping the faith during a time of hardship.

      Additonally, you’re correct. There are plenty of women who stay-at-home and they are very happy with their decision. Keyword: THEIR. Robertson implies that a woman’s worth is based on what she can do for a man whether that be sexually, socially, etc. He believes women BELONG in the home which is totally different than a woman CHOOSING to stay home.

      I hope that clarified some of my points for you! And I’m sorry if anything I said in the post itself came off as unclear.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s