Duck Dynasty Faux Pas

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/gop-politicians-defend-39-duck-dynasty-39-star-184932178--abc-news-politics.html

      So, Phil from "Duck Dynasty" stated his personal beliefs to a national magazine.  Should the magazine have censored his comments, as they were possibly hurtful and damaging to his career?  Did it benefit the magazine to ask questions that led him to make comments that were seen as crude and destructive?  Who is responsible for his words?  In this society, a free society, with freedom of speech and freedom of the press, Phil solely is responsible for his comments.  What he says in an interview to the press is his responsibility.   Once it is out of his mouth, the magazine has a duty to its own profits to print what might catch attention, regardless of the consequences to Phil and his own income source.  No one would disagree with that.

     Phil is entitled to his opinion.  If this is how he feels, no one thinks they can truly change his heart.  But, as a public figure, his words have power.  When he makes a comment like what he did, comparing homosexuality to bestiality and multiple partners, his words carry more weight.  If he said this in his church, a bar with his friends, or in his own home (without cameras rolling) he has every right to speak his mind.  Unfortunately, when his thoughts become public, he is responsible for them.  Again, no one attempted to censor him.  No one has tried to block the publication of his words.  What he said is inflammatory because we are in a time of change, and the nation is trying to find a way forward.  The past is easy to go back to, because we know where we came from.

     This issue is being framed as an attack on religion and on free speech, both protected in the Constitution.  The only problem with this line of attack is that the Constitution was designed to protect individuals (through incorporation) and states (originally the purpose of the Bill of Rights) from federal intrusion in these areas.  As an individual I am allowed to say what I choose without the government acting against me.  I cannot, however, criticize another man without the threat of him acting against me.  If I criticize my boss, he has the right to punish me.  As a student, freedom of speech is limited somewhat.  Students cannot cuss or disparage other students.  There are numerous examples of freedom of speech carried out.  But, it can only be protection from a public (government entity) punishing an individual or group.  The government is not stepping in to restrict the thoughts or words of either Phil or other conservatives that may find comfort in his words.  The government has remained silent on this.  While private organizations (A + E is a private company) have spoken out about their disagreement with his words, GQ, A+E, GLAD, and the NAACP are all private organizations, and have as much right to publicly criticize his views, both public comments and religious views, as he does to criticize others.  Ultimately the buyers money will decide who is right in this.  It is not the choice of a few to misuse the Constitution to their own personal benefit.

        Bobby Jindal, Louisiana governor, has expressed his dissatisfaction with the controversy by comparing it to Miley Cyrus.  No one has censored Miley Cyrus, he argues, but they have a religious man like Phil.  Miley Cyrus does not have a long term contract with a television company.  She (I assume) has a contract with a recording company.  That company found her performance at the VMAs beneficial financially to themselves.  There was a lot of public outcry both from the mainstream media, the left and the right about Miley Cyrus' performance.  But, record sales stayed high.  In the case of Phil, there was outcry from many sources for his comments.  The company that holds his contract (A+E) felt they wanted to distance themselves from this controversy.  They chose to suspend his contract, and they had the contractual right to do so.  If Miley were still working for Disney, presumably they would do the same.  Miley was just working for a company that allowed greater latitude.  That is the difference.  This is and never was an issue of the First Amendment, and freedoms from government intrusion.  It is the freedom of companies to choose what is in their own self interest.  Please don't muddy the waters.

Freedom Riders, PBS

Wow, I forgot this was coming on.  What a great documentary.  So powerful.  The Civil Rights Movement could only gain that much steam with the power of cameras and television.   Unfortunately, I missed parts, so I'll have to come back and watch it online:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/freedomriders/watch

Here are some key points that caught my attention:

1.  There is a segment where the story of the Riders is broadcast in the Communist Bloc.  This is intriguing, because it put the abstract ideals America stands for in stark contrast a concrete reality shown to the world.  That was a Cold War blow, and it is often something overlooked. 

2.  The prison system where the riders were sentenced, and the labor they were pressed in to for their challenging the system.  Wow. The chain gang is an interesting experience. 

3.  Robert F. Kennedy (Archival):

"A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all. Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right as well as reality."   -- Wow.   I am called to act.  How do I act like I didn't hear this? 

 

I am curious what others thought of the show. 

"Is BET Reverse Racism?"

       This is touchy and difficult question and concept.  Racism is acting on a set of beliefs that based on the concept of race.  So what is race?  That is hard to explain, and becoming more fluid.  Scholars are not sure they want to pin down the concept of race in 2013.  It is an historical concept, but seems to have outlived its usefulness.  Prejudice is common, and we all live with some form of it, regardless of were we come from.  Acting on prejudice is a problem, and so it is best to be aware of ones prejudice and work to negate actions that may be based on that prejudice. 
     When prejudice becomes mainstream and moves in to the actions of institutions (companies, governments, schools, and any organization that has authority), if prejudice becomes embedded in the practice of this institution, the effects may be devastating.  For example, women not being allowed to attempt to gain a place in combat roles in the military means that women will not advance beyond a basic level.  If one is judged without being given a straight chance to prove their abilities, they are limited incredibly. 
        With this in mind, we come back to the question of black culture celebrated in television, magazines, and other cultural sources.  Is there anything racist about BET? A television show that demonstrates black culture is seen as a threat to the hegemony of white culture.  But why?  Is it racist?  No.  By promoting only black culture, it is not committing a crime, nor is it really threatening to hold back any white actor.  Is BET an entry point for white actors hoping to make it big, duly qualified, but unable to because the producers and execs at the channel don't find the actor to be dark enough?  Not likely to happen.  A celebration of a particular culture does not negate the pride other cultures should be allowed to feel about their own.  The KKK is more than welcome to celebrate white culture and offer up scholarships for white children.  There are white ethnic holidays (St. Patrick was not black, and neither were Lincoln and Washington, or Columbus, although he did speak Spanish). 
         So, what if we had a commercial on television dominated by white people?  Would that offend anyone?  What if we had a magazine full of white people?  What if we went in to a store and all the pictures on the walls were white?  Or just a vast majority, with a black person or Asian person tossed in to even it out, so it doesn't seem like a KKK convention?  Would it surprise anyone that the KKK has a television channel?  I just looked again, and although I won't post their link directly, it doesn't take a lot to google them.  The following is from their television channel, a section for youth. 

Andrew would like to talk to kids for a few minutes each week. He is proud to be a white Christian boy in America, but he knows that because of his minority status, the odds might be stacked against his people. Kids will enjoy hearing a few comments from Andrew as he warns them of things to watch out for because he cares!

The language attempts to mimic the voice of ethnic minorities in the American past who attempted to rally together without institutional power.  Unfortunately, Andrew does have institutional power largely on his side, and the deck is not stacked against him.  He just doesn't like to share. 
      So, no, BET is not reverse racism.  Can a black person be prejudiced against whites?  Yes.  Also very likely is prejudice against a fellow black of a different shade, suprisingly.  We are more complex in our dislikes than we are credited with being.  The real question, when dealing with racism, should be who has the power to enforce their prejudice.  You don't have to like me or what I write.  As long as you are not in my classroom, you will never have to fear whether my prejudice is being used against you.  That is truly the only realm where I have the power to use my prejudice.  Lucky for those who are in my classroom, I am very aware of my prejudice, and work hard to keep it in check.  We all live with prejudice.  The key is learning to balance your feeling with your reality.  To take a deep breath, walk up to your prejudice, put your hand out, take a risk, and pull the mask of the boogey man off.  Ultimately, if we truly believe in a just God, we believe that humans by nature are good.  So, don't be so afraid of them.  Don't look for the worst in people.  Instead, until you get burned personally, treat me as a human being.  Give me a chance to disappoint you.