By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
I never much liked Paula Deen’s cooking. Filled with butter and gravies and things like Krispy Creme Donuts for hamburger buns, Paula seemed too culinarily eccentric … to foodie excessive … too health oblivious even for a southern cook in 1813 much less 2013. Her story though, like her southern twang, had a certain charm to it: single mother of two left penniless makes ends meet by selling food-to-go out of her home kitchen and works her butt off until she reached the top of the sundae’s cherry with three shows on the Food Network and some spin off shows for her two sons.
That all ended Friday as a deposition of Ms. Deen was released. In that dep (in a case Lisa T. Jackson v. Paula Deen et al. involving a claim of racial and sexual discrimination by an employee of her restaurant, Uncle Bubba’s), Ms. Deen admitted to using the no-no of racial epithets in the past — the distant past, like 50 years ago. Here’s an excerpt from the transcript of Paula’s deposition to see just what I mean:
Q
Okay. Have you ever used the N word yourself?
A
Yes, of course.
Q
Okay. In what context?
A
Well, it was probably when a black man burst into the bank that I was working at and put a gun to my head.
Q
Okay. And what did you say?
A
Well, I don’t remember, but the gun was dancing all around my temple.
Q
Okay.
A
I didn’t — I didn’t feel real favorable towards him.
Q
Okay. Well, did you use the N word to him as he pointed a gun in your head at your face?
A
Absolutely not.
Q
Well, then, when did you use it?
A
Probably in telling my husband.
Q
Okay. Have you used it since then?
A
I’m sure I have, but it’s been a very long time.
Q
Can you remember the context in which you have used the N word?
A
No.
Q
Has it occurred with sufficient frequency that you cannot recall all of the various context in which you’ve used it?
A
No, no.
Q
Well, then tell me the other context in which you’ve used the N word?
A
I don’t know, maybe in repeating something that was said to me.
Q
Like a joke?
A
No, probably a conversation between blacks. I don’t — I don’t know.
Q
Okay.
A
But that’s just not a word that we use as time has gone on. Things have changed since the ’60s in the south. And my children and my brother object to that word being used in any cruel or mean behavior.
Q
Okay
Realizing perhaps too late, the Deen Food Empire (books, utensils, cutlery, you name it) sprung into action. First a very public apology for sins past, then a new revised one on YouTube, the town square of our age, where Paula looking quite shaken literally begs for forgiveness. PC gods served? You tell me:
On cable TV shows up and down the msnbc roster, Deen was decried as racist, uncaring, and calls for her banishment from polite society became overwhelming. So much so that the Food Network pulled the shows and consigned Deen to places we reserve for the likes of George Wallace and Sheriff Bull Connor. But is that fair?
Deen grew up in place far away –temporally and culturally — from most of her critics and, as one who grew up in the same locales, I can tell you that her sin was a popular one in the South in the 60’s . Everybody who wasn’t white and rich had a name: wops, pollaks, heebs, rednecks, pope lovers, crackers, and yes those christened with the “N” word. And each group used the words liberally to each other and even among each other. I never saw a fight over the name calling but there were some close calls.
Surely it wasn’t a very hospitable place for African-Americans who bore the brunt of discrimination, but neither was it a hospitable place if you were poor, or Catholic, or ethnic, or anything other than wealthy, white and Protestant. That didn’t mean people weren’t civil to one another. By and large they were, but there was a palpable feeling of place and hierarchy that was enforced with a rigid caste system administered by state and local governments. That sat pretty well with the white elite who ran things back then.
But you should know those in power considered folks like Paula Deen no better that the “n*iggers” they brought in to do their cooking and cleaning and to raise their kids. Those “people” were there and free only by fiat of the government in Wershington and, by god, if that was the case they were going to be useful, or so it was thought.
The South changed and evolved in the ’60s and ’70s with the Civil Rights Movement as Dr. King’s words touched hearts both white and black and brightened them all. For those who wouldn’t listen, scenes of pregnant women blasted with water cannons and vicious police dogs attacking kids was surely enough. White people who drove pickups and worked in plants and farms started to realize that the folks who lived across the railroad tracks and who drove older pickup trucks and worked in plants and farms weren’t really much different from themselves and they had the same lack of control over their lives. The wedges of words that the ruling élite had no interest in curtailing melted away and it is clearly true that the advent of political correctness shown a glaring light on those southern dinosaurs who couldn’t or wouldn’t change.
Which brings us back to Paula Deen. Paula likely grew up in one of those same southern small towns like I did. She also likely made a distinction between “black people” (as they were called then ), who worked hard and raised their families as best they could under grinding poverty, and “n*ggers” who were seen as lazy, irresponsible, thuggish and no account. She likely came to learn that names reflect stereotypes and they can be and are often wrong; that people don’t fit nicely into boxes; and that, as Edmund Burke so wisely reminds us, you can’t draw up an indictment against a whole people.
Paula evolved and the South evolved. But the question remains for Paula and those like her: When is the sentence for violating political correctness over? When can you freely admit a mistake made decades ago without fear of reprisal? Not the criminal kind administered by the state, but the reprisal from the overlords of decorum who sit in ivory towers or corporate boardrooms and wax philosophic on all manner of society’s ills and largely for their own benefit ? When will a society committed to free expression allow itself to deal honestly with its past and say publicly a two-syllable word that most find offensive?
In my view, you don’t need a word that no one can utter. You don’t need to continually explain and apologize for sins made years ago in a culture far, far away if you’ve done it once and sincerely. And perhaps most importantly, you don’t need to feel society’s wrath for simply telling the truth about that society.
Paula Deen is no hero, but she is certainly no villain for growing up as she did and living as she did. When we master that fact perhaps we can overcome the racism that divides us even as we accept that our differences spring largely from things over which we have little control, and that we can come together in spite of ourselves if we forgive as freely and as often as we decry.
Source: Huffington Post
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Home Depot too.
Walmart Cuts Ties With Paula Deen
I’m really sorry if pointing out that a rush to judgement based on media coverage instead of evidence admitted to trial is every bit as much a form of prejudice as racism is is somehow inconvenient.
And by really sorry, I mean not sorry at all.
Mike,
Not ready to deal with the context that this story is set in is directly related to a trial?
This story wouldn’t exist but for said trial.
“we often discuss different aspects of a post.”
I thought that’s precisely what we were doing, Elaine.
Gene,
I think you and I have read Mark’s post in different lights. Besides, we often discuss different aspects of a post. We don’t limit discussions. Some of us have expressed the opinion that we think Deen may still be a racist/harbor some racist feelings. We came to that conclusion not because of the media–but because of what we read and what we viewed. You may call what we did “prejudicial.” I would disagree.
Hairsplitting?
More like the devil is in the details. And the details in this instance are context. The context of the story is provided by the trial. To try to claim otherwise is semantic and contrary to the reality of the proceedings, Mike.
Elaine,
The context is still that of a court case. And, yes, I do, but that wasn’t what I was highlighting. In fact, I stipulated that the Deen probably was a racist. Is she currently and does it apply to the case at bar? I’m waiting for the evidence.
Gene,
Do you ever make judgments about people without “vetted evidence” and trials?
Gene,
This may be a legal blog….and it may be that Mark used Deen’s court case as a “jumping off” point–but as I read the post–the court case doesn’t seem to be the major focus of it.
*****
Excerpt from this post:
“Paula evolved and the South evolved. But the question remains for Paula and those like her: When is the sentence for violating political correctness over? When can you freely admit a mistake made decades ago without fear of reprisal? Not the criminal kind administered by the state, but the reprisal from the overlords of decorum who sit in ivory towers or corporate boardrooms and wax philosophic on all manner of society’s ills and largely for their own benefit ? When will a society committed to free expression allow itself to deal honestly with its past and say publicly a two-syllable word that most find offensive?”
*****
After viewing the videotape of Deen’s interview, I inferred that she still harbored some racist feelings.
“According to Jung, the shadow, in being instinctive and irrational, is prone to projection: turning a personal inferiority into a perceived moral deficiency in someone else. Jung writes that if these projections are unrecognized “The projection-making factor (the Shadow archetype) then has a free hand and can realize its object–if it has one–or bring about some other situation characteristic of its power.” [4] These projections insulate and cripple individuals by forming an ever thicker fog of illusion between the ego and the real world.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_%28psychology%29
Bob,
As I told you years before I haven’t paid attention to Jung since I read “Flying Saucers on the Attack” many years ago.
Bob: “If all this outrage against Paula Deen stems from true moral principles, rather than pseudo indignation and knee-jerk hysteria, then where was the outrage against HBO and Chris Rock for broadcasting this?”
Mike S.: “More ad hominem judgment of myself and others. I’ll match my morality and ethics against yours anytime Bob and I don’t need any philosopher to call upon to back up my actions. As for my indignation there is nothing “pseudo” about it.”
Mike,
I didn’t attack anyone and to imply that I did is intellectually dishonest. I asked a question intended to bring a murky problem into specific relief; i.e. the absence of any objective morality per this witch hunt.
The inability to distance one’s self emotionally from a topic of debate is nothing to be proud of. That you equate the act of emoting with argumentation is problematic indeed. But then again, it does explain your inability to articulate your particular metaphysics of morals; being as whimsical as whatever you may be ‘feeling’ today. Thus your indignation is in fact “pseudo” in the sense you demand to be taken any more seriously than someone having an inarticulate temper tantrum.
You are so consumed with proving the evil of Paula Deen, sans logical argument, that it’s hard not to conclude you’re not obsessing over the darker portions of your own shadow.
Bob,
Just asking a question? Yeah right. Tell me where did I specifically call Deen evil? As for arguing dispassinately look at your words and mine. Yours are the ones loaded with pejorative implications, not mine.
Gene,
Not ready to deal with Mark’s first two comments. He set the context of the discussion right there.
Noooooo, Mike.
It never was one and never became one. My argument was that declaring Deen a racist without a trial and vetted evidence was every bit as prejudicial as the racism you claim for her and that the trial by media is in stark contrast to the matter at bar as illustrated by some of the comments here.
See my initial comment (of substance) at June 23, 2013 at 10:43 am.
It’s built clearly on Mark’s article.
A straw man would have required that I said your “side” was saying something substantively different than what they were saying, to wit (per Tony): “The word is not evil, Paula Deen is evil, and Paula Deen deserves punishment.”
See:
prejudice /ˈprɛdʒʊdɪs/, n.,
1 : preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience
2 : chiefly Law harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgement:
The media coverage and the resultant frenzy (as illustrated here) to condemn Deen as racist is a bias that at law prejudices the proceeding every bit as much as the supposed racism may (or may not) have resulted in her creating a discriminatory work environment (or not).
It’s ironic, truly, to attack someone for racism (a form of prejudice) in the media who is in proceedings that are – if history is an example – subject to be prejudiced by the media coverage.
Some fires you don’t fight with fire.
Gene,
Hair splitting. Neither Tony, Juliet, nor I commented about the trial. That may have been your preference but not ours. As for the trial being Mark’s focus let’s look at the record:
Mark’s first comment:
“For something done 50 years ago before she ever heard of the Food Channel? . That would be like your husband leaving you now if he found out you had a boyfriend in high school who you had a fling with before you met him.
And if it was so unacceptable back then why pray tell did so many Southerners partake of it including judges, politicians, physicians, clergy? See any news reel or talk to anybody over 60 if you doubt it. Are they all bad people? All of them?
I can only guess that forgiveness and understanding aren’t a big part of your very strict world.”
Mark’s second comment:
“Tony C:
The Food Network has been deluged with Deen supporters who feel this is an overreaction. People — especially young people — make mistakes and people change. There are no unforgivable sins if you are truly contrite and make amends as best you can. Perfection is for the next world.”
The trial was quoted, but clearly the blog was not specifically about the trial from Mark’s own writing.
but it became one (straw man)
Compare:
“You do know that arguing with a solipsist is futile; don’t you?”
and
“You do know that arguing with an Aristotelian is futile; don’t you?”
I’m pretty sure focusing on the legal aspects of the debate isn’t a straw man on a legal blog, Mike, and it was indeed germane to Mark’s article although more implicitly so than explicitly since the whole issue is framed by . . . wait for it . . . a court case. Who’d have thunk pointing out the rush to judgement in that context would be a straw man? No misrepresentations were made. Differences in the dual context of the analysis (social psychology versus legal) were to show that the two contexts of analysis can be (and in this case are) incompatible.
People don’t win or lose in the marketplace of ideas. Ideas win or lose. And as I indicated to Tony, the mistake is assuming either side’s victory was salient to the point I was making that this case perfectly illustrates the contrast between the idea of trying a case in the media versus trying a case in court. The standards of evidence are different. The focus can be different as well. Note the preoccupation with whether or not Deen is in fact a racist has taken a strong hold of some while others are paying more attention to whether or not the evidence is sufficient to prove a discriminatory work environment (no matter the root of that discrimination). As I said before, Deen’s not facing charges she’s a racist at bar. That’s not a crime or a tort. The complaint is rooted in a workplace violation that may or may not be related to racism and discrimination in the workplace need not be a claim based solely upon race.
It’s not technically (or even superficially) a straw man.
It’s a totally different argument to a different point on the same subject: the Deen case and prejudice.
I’ll let Bob and Mark address the ad hominem issue depth though and offer just this: Solipsistic thought can be a logical error even though as stated by Bob saying someone is a solipsist could be considered technically ad hominem. Because of the nature of solipsism (the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist), solipsistic arguments are usually advanced by solipsists, so what appears facially to be ad hominem is also a valid criticism of a philosophical approach being taken to a problem.
Mike S.,
IMO, that 2012 tape spoke volumes about Deen’s attitude toward Black people. She should have just apologized for past transgressions and left it at that.
Elaine: One of my neighbors is a 92 year old white woman that was born and raised in Texas; she has expressed similar resentment at being lumped in with “racist old people from the South.”
Gene: And if there are no presentations, what does one talk about while sight-seeing?
Professor A: “Are we done? Did we see the Sistine Chapel?”
Professor B: “Yes, we just walked through it.”
Professor A: “We have to go back, I was thinking about something.”
A Culinary Birthright in Dispute
Paula Deen’s Words Ripple Among Southern Chefs
By JULIA MOSKIN
Published: June 25, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/dining/paula-deens-words-ripple-among-southern-chefs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Excerpt:
“It’s almost like a spoof of Southern cooking,” said Nathalie Dupree, the author of “Mastering the Art of Southern Cooking,” a cooking teacher and food historian in Charleston, S.C. Ms. Dupree, 73, said that in her childhood fried food was a once-a-week treat, that rich desserts were served even less often, and that vegetables and grains like rice and grits made up most of what was a healthy, farm-based diet.
“That is not how the people I know cook, and that is not how the people I know speak,” she said.
Ms. Dupree, who is white, is especially incensed by the notion (advanced by many of Ms. Deen’s defenders) that whites who grew up in the segregated South routinely use racist language without attaching any significance to it. “I’m beginning to take umbrage at being lumped together with people who haven’t taken the trouble to learn what is offensive and what isn’t,” she said. “It puts the whole region back again.”