Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty was suspended from filming after his remarks in a GQ interview. JJ Vincent wonders if this is fair.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I have never watched Duck Dynasty, so I’m not writing this as a fan or foe. I follow the phenomenon in popular media and trade publications, but that (and seeing licensed merchandise everywhere) is the extent of my exposure.)
Duck Dynasty is an unexpected, unbelievable phenomenon, no question.
Or maybe not.
It trades on the stereotype of the ignorant, backwards, stupid redneck southern guy obsessed with guns and hunting and camo overalls and religion and food. It trades on the expectation that people will tune in and laugh and feel superior. Or seem themselves in this family. Or identify with them. Or hope that they can have the rags-to-riches dream.
Because, after all, these “ignorant, backwoods rednecks” are millionaires.
And Phil Robertson is the patriarch. The Dad. The man-in-charge. One of the beards. The man with the plan, the idea. A business man and hunter, a sportsman and marketer, a shrewd trader and expert marksman.
And a preacher. Surprised? You probably aren’t alone. Other members of the family preach, too, and they’re active church members.
So why were people so surprised when, in a GQ interview, Phil Robertson made a string of remarks that were, to be polite, unkind about homosexuals (interview here – contains adult language). He would not be the first preacher to do so. Let’s be honest, some Christians are fine with gay people, some are not.
Maybe because they weren’t expecting it from someone they had come to see as a good guy, or a cartoon character…or a character, period. Or maybe because he had, in one way, lived up to the stereotype.
◊♦◊
A&E, which airs Duck Dynasty, took swift and decisive action. Phil Robertson has been indefinitely suspended from production. The network has distanced itself from him and his comments.
His comments. Which, vile though they may be, were his comments, made in an interview with an entertainment magazine. His beliefs. Phil Robertson’s.
Phil Robertson, the man, or Phil Robertson, the face of a brand, or Phil Robertson, a character on a hit TV show a lead in a reality TV show?
Should he be punished for airing his personal beliefs in an interview about himself and the show?
Should he be cut off from the show, where anything potentially offensive that he says can be edited out?
People are coming out on all sides, in support of A&E, in support of Phil, against the people protesting, against the people protesting the protesting.
Maybe these are the real questions: When do the person and professional become so intertwined that what one says or does can immediately and catastrophically affect the other? Should they? We see this happen to public figures and celebrities all the time. Can a man be a good man in one way while being awful in another?
See more on this in James Poniewozik’s outstanding article, Why Phil Robertson Got Suspended from Duck Dynasty.
Also on NPR’s monkey see blog: ‘Duck’ and Cover: What Exactly is the Point? by Linda Holmes.
Photo: WikipediaCommons
We are currently $16 trillion in debt, Americans are losing homes, jobs and their lives overseas and people are getting worked up over a tv show? Seriously? I swear we are heading for the future in the movie Idiocracy. I don’t like the crap Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps spout, but they have the right to be as idiotic as they want.
This is the worst argument about anything, any issue. We can be mad about many things at the same time. And to deliberately distract from comments which reflect an entire culture which seeks to make second class citizens from a group of human beings, to say they aren’t important or worthy of outcry, is to be complicit in that discrimination.
so the Kardashians and Duck Dynasty are both about beards? in the former Bruce Jenner has one and in the latter all the men do?
I, like others in my LGBTQ family, are not surprised by the vitriol spouted by Phil Robertson. I am, however, surprised that more folks are not up in arms about his racist remarks. Knowing Louisianans like I do, having grown up there and living there most of my young life (but not all my life), Mr. Robertson’s remarks are made from the standpoint of a North Louisiana bigot who worked for awhile in the fields with assistance from the sharecroppers, but by no means held them in equal regard. We must remember that in the 1960s, Mr. robertson was in… Read more »
He has the right to say anything he wants, and I will fight for his right to be an ignoramus as loudly as he wants. That said, the free market has the right to call him on it and shut him out. Yay free market. I love it when it works.
And I am utterly dismayed that his racist comments aren’t getting nearly as much attention.
It is interesting that in the uproar about his comments about homosexuality, his comments about racial issues have received remarkably little attention.
We live in a time where it’s more acceptable to be racist than homophobic. I look at the Supreme Court ruling and the rise in less covert racism as my evidence. It doesn’t surprise me that action by [Hollywood] is “swift and decisive” when anti-g@y remarks are made, but more tolerant and forgiven when anti-anything caucasian remarks are made. Of course, he’ll probably have to fall on the sword and make “anti-bullying” ads to be “forgiven” for his ultimate sin – being *vocal* anti-secular.
Speaking as somebody roughly the shade of standard printer paper, I really do not feel discriminated against based on skin colour. Plus, even if people of colour do make insulting and stereotypical comments about white people, it isn’t the equivalent of a white person doing the opposite. First off, negative stereotypes about white people are often way more benign than they are for other groups. As a group, Middle Eastern people often get accused of being terrorists. Black people get accused of laziness and violence, amongst other ills. White people get accused of dancing badly. One of those things stings… Read more »