When I realized that a handful of bearded duck callers had taken over the shelves of Wal-Mart and the hearts of many, I felt like the South was taking a GIANT leap backward. The phenomenon seemed to blend Honey Boo-Boo, Quran burners, and Paul Broun into a rancid Brunswick stew. There are those that know the South is more than “rednecks,” racists, and recalcitrance. Any time the South is represented by characters designed to be sensational enough for T.V., the rest of the region, a myriad of personalities, preferences, and provenance, cringes.
The first time I saw a Budweiser bottle secured by a foam Koozie brandished with Phil Robertson’s joyless face and a Real Tree background, I cringed. Non-southerners have been pillaging niche artifacts of southern culture for decades. They package and sell them back to us. They sell us an identity that seems innate. Almost ours, but not quite. Still, eventually, the product is adopted. It seeps into our culture and becomes one of many demarcations of southerness that do not, and never will, represent most southerners. The impostor replaces reality with commerciality.
It is in the gray areas, the lines between the product and reality, that debate over Phil Robertson’s homophobic comments exist.
I read the GQ article by Drew Magary and was ready to agree with him. Instead, I found a vulgar proselytization of liberalism.
I detested his free use of the term “redneck,” the most acceptable racial slur of the modern era. He speaks of hunting as if it’s murder. These, as well as his views on the Robertson gang’s religion, is a latent attempt to paint the South as America’s ugly “other.” He fits into a long line of writers who have done this since the days of George Washington.
Southerners have a long history of setting themselves apart from the rest of the world. Duck Dynasty and this controversy gives them one more opportunity. Mr. Magary knows this and baits those who relate to Robertson into anger by damning their god and ridiculing their cherished traditions. Some southerners have played their part, but the “national” attention placed on this story only underscores what historians such as James C. Cobb have claimed for years. What once was labeled “southern” is American, proven by the fact that those “distinctive,” “southern” characteristics are found in every crevice of this country. Whether we like it or not, we have to face it at some point. Blaspheme and hate are not always spoken with a twang.
Before this controversy, I once watched an episode of Duck Dynasty. To my dismay, I laughed. I related to the show as any upcountry deep southerner would. However, I saw the show for what it is, Staged Southernness.
Like the Real Housewives series and other culturally exploitative reality shows, Duck Dynasty caricatures the Robertsons and southerners in a prepackaged product designed for mass appeal. Like The Waltons, The Dukes of Hazzard, and The Andy Griffith Show before it, A&E wants to capitalize on certain lovable aspects of southern identity while ignoring the less-appealing ugliness associated with the South. I reiterate, however, that racism and bigotry know no borders in this country. Like bullying, the act of dissociation from “others” uncovers the inability to live with the “other” within. Even if the Robertsons are not fully aware of the historical significance of their show, they must know A&E’s targeted demographic, most likely through their contracts, which is why Phil was suspended. But I will have to come back to that later.
The problem is not A&E or the Robertsons, although Phil’s beliefs are lower than feculence. My issue is with the 14 million viewers per episode who adopted the Robertsons, not only as archetypes of the South, but as “members of the family.” If you believe, for even a second, that this clan of duck hunters represent what is “right,” or “wrong,” with the South–alone, you are a member of a long line of imbeciles who used the same reasoning throughout the Reconstruction and New South periods.
Also, if you claim that Phil and his antiquated intolerance should represent the moral vanguard of America, you are a member of the Cult of Crudeness that seems to dominate modern pop-culture. My use of the word “crude” is calculated and aims to be synonymous with ignorance. Robertson’s beliefs alone don’t bother me. It helps us to have bigots in the world, we need examples of what not to be. Plus, as an American, nothing that he said was new to me. The festering fallacy of his claims are what bothers me most. Plenty of focus has been placed on his diatribe about vaginas and anuses, but the article also gives evidence to the utter lack of respect for truth within Robertson’s beliefs.
When asked about why he voted for Romney instead of Obama, he explained that he considered the cities the men represented, which to him were Chicago, for Obama, and Salt Lake City, Utah, for Romney (the Mormon), and chose the one who came from the cleanest and least crime-ridden. GQ’s editor made note to his readers that Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, actually represented Boston, a fact that in the years since that election Mr. Robertson had no reason to substantiate before speaking to Magary. Not to mention, the seeming indifference Robertson displays toward the platforms of the two candidates.
Other examples of this kind of disregard for facts infiltrate Phil’s rants. When he ventured into a confusing comparison and contrast exercise between war-hawking marginalized groups like Nazis and Islamists based upon their lack of faith in Jesus, he failed to mention millions killed in the name of Christ throughout history, and some would claim today.
Yes, from his rants about “eternal healthcare” and bestiality, Phil Robertson represents the worst of American Christendom. Only if you believe the staged-familial ending to each episode of Duck Dynasty can you claim he represents the best.
But he is only a T.V. star. So why is his face plastering the internet with revolutionary words, which he may or may not have said at all?
Robertson’s disciples unveiled their true relation to the show when they picked up his cross throughout the social mediasphere, which left me and countless other non-conforming southerners to debate whether or not to “unfriend” family members and childhood friends from our Facebook accounts. I am used to my “friends” posting trendy memes filled with veiled, antiquated hate towards entire groups represented by dear friends of mine, whether gay, black, on welfare, or “tree-huggers.” This debate, however, drove me to madness, not because of the text, but the context.
The prime culprits in my distaste are those that claim that A&E and all other infidels who dare to believe that Phil should be ridden up a flagpole, à la Paula Deen or Michael Richards, are infringing on the poor man’s right to free speech.
Free speech is not free of consequence.
It is one of the most abused policies in politics. The first amendment has always only protected Americans from government persecution due to some forms of speech. I say “some” because there have been several sedition acts which led to war-time imprisonment for reasons ranging from party affiliation to burning effigies of sitting presidents. If President Obama decided to send the Army, or any representative of the government, to Mr. Robertson’s Monroe, Louisiana, estate to arrest him on the grounds of sedition for his remarks, I would rant and rally with the rest of the Robertsonians. However, to the chagrin of the growing discontented American right-wing populace, this did not happen.
If any employee does anything that can injure their employer’s ability to profit they risk termination. This has nothing to do with free speech.
Phil Robertson is now a martyr for the sake of a conservative cause. In the GQ article, Robertson waxed nostalgic about the “good ol’ days” when family and God mattered most and people were happier. As someone who knows an awful lot about history, those days never existed. There were always gays, crime, abortions, and a litany of other “horrors” of “modern” society that bible-thumping evangelists like Robertson warn us about. The “good ol’ days” Robertson remembers, according to the article, included a black population content with systematic racism, white male-dominated supremacy, and a general conspiracy to lie to the world about the ordeal. It was a time when he, nearly 70 years old, represented through the color of his skin, without any other merit necessary, the best of society.
I am certain he misses those days. Those that represent corruption of his earthly superiority–gays, women, and whoever else–are rising to a new state of prominence in this country. I am certain he feels like a dying breed, much like others I know.
I only hope to live long enough to see the death rattle of that brand of bigotry which still clings to the broken ribs of our beautiful nation.
*Source: Away Down South: A History of Southern Identity by James C. Cobb, although the opinions within this passage do not represent his.
Anthony Sadler 