Phil Robertson

512 Words2 Pages

Is Phil Robertson the most dangerous man in America? Maybe he is. Two people wrote about an interview he had done with “Gentlemen’s Quarterly.” They were both on very different sides of the question. The people from NAACP disagreed with everything he said, and believed he was a dangerous man. However, Mike Buckley agrees with Phil’s answers. They express their opinions, through tone, factual information, and attitude. Although they have very different opinions on the subject, they are both very passionate about their views and they both have plenty of evidence to support their beliefs. The first text, “Why Phil Robertson is the Most Dangerous …show more content…

They may be a little under-informed on what he said, but they are still offended. NAACP states that, “Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow.” They then go on to talk about the “lynching[s] and beatings” of blacks that he did not witness, which they did say from what he saw, but they entirely forgot about that he didn’t witness the bad things, therefore he didn’t know about them. They have their historical facts straight, but use them in a poor, misunderstood way. NAACP was also more sophisticated in the wording of their letter to A&E, unlike the first text, which seemed a little snarky at points. Such as telling the audience to go “look it up” when referring to a bible verse and his obvious distaste towards the Robertsons’ appearance (Buckley). Although the NAACP were slightly biased, they stated their opinions in a polite manner, saying things like, “As you may know [...]” and “His words show an unbridled lack of respect for [...] the ongoing challenges members of our communities continue to

Open Document