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
Gene,
I haven’t made any arguments or comments regarding the “case at bar.” I never implied or said that I thought Deen should be punished. I said nothing about her having created a discriminatory work environment. I never claimed she committed a crime. I think most of us know the difference between an actual trial and a trial by public opinion. It seems you’ve been reading all comments made on this thread in the “context” of the lawsuit. You’ve been judging those of us who expressed the opinion that we think Deen may be prejudiced against Black people/still harbor some racist feelings. You may have viewed that videotape of Deen in a different light than some of us. I believe I have a good grasp of prejudice. I don’t need to be scolded for misunderstanding the concept.
Elaine,
As it relates to claim, yes, you got that right. Whether or not she was, is, or will be a racist is largely irrelevant to the case at bar. It’s a tangential concern at best and not a crime or a tort. The question at bar is “Did she create a discriminatory work environment for her employees?” Which even if she is a racist? She might not have done. And yet we have statements here like “Paula Deen is evil, and Paula Deen deserves punishment.” Really? Because if she didn’t create a discriminatory work environment, she’s committed no crime or tort other than offend people’s sensibilities.
One form of prejudice or another is still prejudice and statements like that indicate a prejudging of Deen, not on the merits as relates to the case, but on particularized social mores. Mores, that as noble as they are, are not universally held and are not punishable by law.
Thus showing the contrast of a trial by public opinion in the media and an actual trial.
As well as pointing out that some may not have as thorough a grasp on the concept of prejudice as they think.
Again, sorry for the inconvenience.
“As it relates to claim, yes, you got that right. Whether or not she was, is, or will be a racist is largely irrelevant to the case at bar.”
Gene,
You win the point, but lose the match. Mark used the case at bar as a jumping off point to really discuss this in terms of accepting repentance and the media sensation. Tony, Juliet, Elaine, me and others are discussing those issues and not the case at bar. That is a perfectly legitimate direction for a thread to take as we have seen here time and again. Were this specifically about the case at bar then Mark would not have needed to write this which was an “apologia” for Deen.:
“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.”
Now what set me off specifically was:
“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.”
I don’t doubt that it was a lousy place to be any of those other categories, yet to compare the prejudice they felt, to the prejudice felt by Black people is from my perspective wrong. If you were Catholic you could go to the same public restrooms, eat at the same public restaurants, go to the same public schools and basically live your lives without the same fear of being lynched. I’m not discounting the pain felt by let us say Italian Americans in such a climate, but dammit it they were “White” and recognized as such. That it was common to refer to people as “Poor White Trash” or PWT was true, but they didn’t have to ride on the back of the bus and their parents came to America of their own volition. I loathe prejudice of any kind and being “ethnic” my parents and their parents suffered it, which I don’t take lightly. However, to justify Deen’s prejudice by talking of her hard background, doesn’t work for me, because she had a much easier way out than did those Black people they called “niggers”.
Now the fact is I’ve got a pretty good understanding of why those “ethnics” and PWT’s Mark speaks about held that prejudice strongly in their hearts and I sympathize with it, even as I decry it. Their place in the South and elsewhere in the country, miserable though it was, at least gave them the status of not being Black and to make life bearable they clung to that fact of status. They allowed themselves to be the foot soldiers of organizations like the Klan and gained some acceptance from the WASPS who ran things.
At least they could drink at the “White Man’s Water Fountain.” Really though is ignorance excused by also being a victim? I don’t think it is although my judgment might be less harsh and more directed to those controlling thingsw at the top of the food chain. Medgar Evers, among many others was murdered by ignorant PWT’s and yes I can understand what motivated them. Are they to be forgiven?
Deen’s 2012 video clearly shows where her sympathies lie. For an entertainment personality she committed the sin of letting her mask slip. I don’t care about the court case and I certainly don’t take pleasure in her fall from grace. However, I am also not moved to pity her plight because she brought it upon herself by not really growing much from her fifty years ago.
Mespo,
People can change habits…. They can change basic characteristics… You have to know something is wrong before can change.. Some people live in such a state of denial they never know what to change….
“You have to know something is wrong before can change”
AY,
Excellent point re: Deen’s redemption.
Bob,
And your specialty? Doing the labeling?
Looks like Mark made it his specialty.
Bob,
I don’t do deep-fried. I sauté.
Deep fried solipsist.
Tasty.
“Deep fried solipsist.
Tasty.”
Failed argument, blanket unproven assertion from a logician.
Priceless.
Gene H. 1, June 26, 2013 at 7:14 pm
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 H. 1, June 26, 2013 at 7:55 pm
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.
*****
So…you think that Deen is probably a racist. After viewing the video of Deen talking about her ancestor and her Black employee, I said I thought she still harbored some racist feelings. My opinion of Deen, according to you, is a rush to judgment and a form of prejudice akin to racism. But because you used the word “probably” you’re not guilty of what you accuse me of. Did I get that right?
Darren:
You’re right and this one could be seen coming a mile away. Hence my article. There’s more to it than indignation. It’s about cash as it usually is. Folks who can make it writing about it; litigating it; and making political hay out of it.
What is really sad is there are people out there who will try to proffer themselves as being the righteous saviors at the expense of someone like Ms. Deen. They pillory her and make her suffer just so that they can make themselves look saintly. When this happens, one has to ask who the nefarious person truly is. It’s sad how many people stone others from within their glass houses.
This whole thing about Paula Deen is getting out of hand. IT’s starting to look like the movie”The Silence” staring Richard Thomas
Tony C:
“No it isn’t prejudging, because I didn’t rush to judgment. I did what all jurors do (and I have been one), and what all scientists do, and what all people in any relationship do: At some point you have heard enough that your mind is made up, because certain damning facts cannot be undone.”
**********************
You are so full of it and I guess you forget that all of your comments are recorded here, not just your recent pronouncements of deliberation and fair play. . As they say on SportsCenter let’s recap:
I write a piece saying what a person said 50 years ago in a different time shouldn’t be used to tar them today. That’s the entire jist of the article.
Let’s see how your analysis of my argument went in your VERY FIRST comment:
Mark: When can you freely admit a mistake made decades ago without fear of reprisal?
Sometimes, never. Which is as it should be, some mistakes are unforgivable.
You assume this “mistake” (which she implicitly admits was frequent enough to not recall how often it was made or in what context) is minor, and it isn’t.
It’s obvious to anyone with a passing acquaintance with English that you’ve made up your mind (“unforgiveable”) well before anyone on the blog mentioned the 2012 video interview which you now say forms part of your basis.
Next, realizing how stupid your position was in absolutely judging someone for something said 50 years ago, you start the ad hominem attack:
Only persons can be evil, but words reflect thoughts and they reveal their evil minds by their words. The word is not evil, Paula Deen is evil, and Paula Deen deserves punishment.
When that gets totally decimated by most anyone with a functioning cortex you race around your head trying for some support for your preconceived opinion that “Southerner Bad Once; Bad Always.” Lo and behold we get a logic lesson:
“Reality is not up to a vote; either she is a life long racist or she is not, and my money is on life long racist.”
Gene H explains that despite your claimed extensive training in logic you’ve just committed about the most basic of all errors:
“That’s a false dichotomy, Tony. It doesn’t allow for people to change. It also discounts intent. Is everyone who uses a racist term a racist? No. There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad intentions. And words. Not to mention it’s a hasty generalization and a rush to judgement.”
Whoops, that won’t work either!
When you finally figure out –seemingly for the first time — that allegations are not facts and that your logic is … shal we say suspect … you frantically find some other “evidence.” This time it’s that Lisa jackson made her allegations under oath. Forgetting that Ms. Deen denied these allegations UNDER OATH in her deposition which you claim you carefully read you enlighten us that you’ve made your mind up yet again:
But for myself, I believe there is already a predominance [sic] of evidence available to make my decision to support her shunning.
After it was pointed out again that allegations –even under oath — don’t equal proof to a jury or any other thinking person you find what you consider a nugget of salvation. Let’s go to the tape. Holly doesn’t love or even like Paula. He’s coerced you say with not so much as a smell of anything approaching proof. You know, you tell us because though not a lawyer you’ve very analytical and can read people:
I do not need any more than I already have to know I do not want to ever see her again; the Hollister video just confirms my judgment.
Why don’t I trust Hollister’s judgment? His job is at stake! His boss calls him up to testify on her behalf, he is not under oath, he is on national TV, what peculiar bravery do we expect of him? Or shall we just conveniently forget that asymmetry of power? Hollister may indeed know Paula Deen better than we do; he may know, for example, she is a racist vindictive b*tch that would fire him in a second if he screws the pooch with his answer.
But no, on national TV, under bright lights, with zero protection, made a laughingstock by his boss, with an 18 year job on the line, let us all take Hollister at his word, because we know in our hearts Hollister wouldn’t let fear of reprisal get in his way.
When called out on that flight of fancy you inform us that well :
I do not demand any proof of coercion, because the coercion may be entirely in Hollister’s mind as a fear of reprisal with no explicit threat of reprisal from his boss.
It also might also just be in yours there TC. But not to worry your being often wrong has never left you in doubt about the righteousness of your cause:
That is a lie, I was not prejudiced. Until this scandal, I knew Paula Deen only as an over the top caricature of an aging Southern Belle. My opinion of her racism IS based on reason, specifically an analysis of her depositions, and the actual experience of watching her in video lie and try to defend her use of the N-word as innocuous, to claim she doesn’t know if it offends African Americans, to try and defend her usage by pointing at the usage by African Americans.
That is not prejudice (pre-judging) it is post-judging, I read the deposition first and every other sentence sets off “lying” and “avoidance” alarms, AS I DETAILED, and after that there is only Deen herself making matters worse.
You then entreat Gene H:
No it isn’t prejudging, because I didn’t rush to judgment. I did what all jurors do (and I have been one), and what all scientists do, and what all people in any relationship do: At some point you have heard enough that your mind is made up, because certain damning facts cannot be undone.
Sounds a lot like what you said at first doesn’t it? And that my friend is prejudging and rush to judgment. And denying it is intellectual fraud.
As your comments say explicitly, your mind was made up from comment one, and all your post hoc rationalizations to appear fair and balanced appeal only to those who won’t read what you said just a few clicks up stream.
BTW Tony C that’s you — fair and balanced — just like Fox News. The only difference is you like your venom from the cup on the left.
tony c:
how do you know Paula Deen is racist? Based on what you just said, I can just as easily say she isnt a racist.
Paula Deen said the N-word. she and 300 million other Americans
Paula Deen likes the look of black people in white coats and black ties. the restaurant created the look, Paula Deen didnt. Are people protesting that restaurant and its owner(s)?
Paula Deen’s brother is a jack a$$. a persons relatives should not be held against them.
Paula Deen wanted a theme wedding based on the ante-bellum south. I wont to go on a quail hunt in Georgia on a former plantation, does that make me a racist if the guides and dog handlers are black?
Paula Deen said Hollis couldnt be seen against a black background. is it racist to make a statement based on your perception? Sounds more like poor vision to me and lack of judgment.
Guilty of poor judgment? I would say so but there isnt enough evidence to convict her of racism.
Tony,
Do you have all the evidence at it relates to the case?
No.
And I’ll remind you once again, she’s not on trial for being a racist. She may very well be a racist and still not have created a discriminatory work environment. Yet that didn’t stop you from proclaiming she needed to be punished, did it?
As I said, prejudice can be based on reasons, so your conclusion being based on reasons (the evidence you’ve seen) can be reasoned and still be prejudiced.
You also don’t seem to grasp what “totality of the evidence” means either. It means “all available relevant and admissible evidence” not “all evidence possible”.
Gene: Your own provided definition says “not based on reason,” and that is an absolute lack of reason. It does not say “without a totality of evidence,” just like the standard for serious crimes is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” it is not “beyond all doubt.”
My judgment was based on reason, I provided some of it above, and that means it was NOT prejudice. Claiming it was is to Aynishly redefine the word “prejudice” to fit your narrative, which is false. I came to a conclusion. Perhaps earlier than you, but perhaps we’ve learned different lessons in dealing with people twisting and lying to hide the snakes in their head from the outside world. What I detected was a lot of slithering.
Gene: No it isn’t prejudging, because I didn’t rush to judgment. I did what all jurors do (and I have been one), and what all scientists do, and what all people in any relationship do: At some point you have heard enough that your mind is made up, because certain damning facts cannot be undone. You claim my decision was not based on “reason,” I claim you disregard reason for some unattainable fantasy of “totality of evidence” that will never be at hand (not even for the jurors, but I am not talking about the court case, I am talking about whether or not Paula Deen is a racist).
Tony,
It’s prejudging when you’re doing so on less than the totality of the evidence and are relying upon the incomplete record as presented in the media. You may not have been prejudiced before? But you are now and the rush to judgement illustrates that. However, if you object to the definition of prejudice, please feel free to contact the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary. I’m also sure that people expressing other forms of prejudice – like racism – have their reasons for being prejudiced too. And like most prejudice, those reasons are not based on a complete picture (or are based on just simple hatred or rage, neither of which apply to you).
As far as her career in television and advertising being over? I have no issue with that from a business decision standpoint alone regardless of the outcome of the trial. This whole PR disaster isn’t her first, but as far as her continued host/spokesperson job goes, it’s probably her last.
maybe she is just not too bright. What is that saying about evil and stupidity?
Gene: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience
That is a lie, I was not prejudiced. Until this scandal, I knew Paula Deen only as an over the top caricature of an aging Southern Belle. My opinion of her racism IS based on reason, specifically an analysis of her depositions, and the actual experience of watching her in video lie and try to defend her use of the N-word as innocuous, to claim she doesn’t know if it offends African Americans, to try and defend her usage by pointing at the usage by African Americans.
That is not prejudice (pre-judging) it is post-judging, I read the deposition first and every other sentence sets off “lying” and “avoidance” alarms, AS I DETAILED, and after that there is only Deen herself making matters worse.
I did not start with the presumption she was a racist, in fact I started with the deposition in order to see if it WAS a witch hunt. No, no, it wasn’t; from the first “Yes, of course” dismissal to the final tear.
I’d say Goodbye, Paula, but my only regret in being an atheist is there is no God to be with you, or ensure you get what you deserve.
Gene,
I’ve go to Home Depot…. Walmart…. Not since I learned what it has done to the American real economic infrastructure…. Not anymore…. I’ll trade at a capitalist corporation like Krogers….