When I was in the fourth grade I had an Alabama history textbook that would have been a real hoot if I didn’t have to actually slog through the antiquated images and commentary about happy slaves singing in the fields.
I mention this because I am fascinated and repelled by revisionist history and our fear of real free speech.
In the 1970s Jimmy Carter was mocked for comments about lust published in Playboy.
Right. Because the faithful readers of that mag are really interested in fidelity.
So now Phil Robertson has mouthed off in GQ–another bastion of women’s rights and conservative photo shoots–and he has gotten his burly, duck-tricking wrist slapped.
For the wrong thing! If the offensive, airbrushed, hypersexualized images of women in magazines like Playboy and GQ are considered free speech, then why not Carter’s and Robertson’s clumsy moralizing within the same publications?
Go nuts boys, but don’t expect me to respect you for your poor choice of words or venue.
But that stuff Robertson says about only experiencing happy, singing field-hands in the glory days of the 60s in Louisiana?!
Ridiculous. Ridiculous and offensive. Life in the south for African Americans is still no picnic, but back in the day you could get lynched for being black and poor in Louisiana
Not just that he said it, but that no one seems to be listening to what really matters and truly should offend.
I don’t really believe in the “real” in reality tv. But I know the answer isn’t to suspend Robertson.
How about adding some new characters to the show?
The gay, lesbian, African American, and other minority neighbors of Mr. Robertson he needs to get to know better.