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
I find that when people are willing to accept (or condemn) prejudicial behavior in one circumstance but not another to be troubling, Elaine.
Gene,
I have not discussed the judicial proceeding in any of my comments. I don’t understand why you keep evaluating my and others’ comments in the context of Deen’s court case. My questions weren’t meant to be accusatory. When you said that pointing out racism where it exists is wrong, I found that troubling.
Mr. H,
We all perceive things uniquely from our own little cocoon in this great ocean of life.
From where I’m at, there’s this term, incorrigible, that seems applicable concerning this individual and her family.
That we’re even having this conversation in this day and age is more than I can bare.
A pox on their house of ill repute.
AY,
Congratulations on behalf of your daughters semester abroad. That was the most fun I’ve had in my entire life!
I don’t disagree with much of that, Tony. However, the question remains. Does social outrage merit skewing a judicial proceeding when the ideal is a fair trial for everyone? Wouldn’t it simply be wiser to find out if Deen did in fact provide a discriminatory work place before ostracizing her and committing to a commercial boycott? Wouldn’t hard proof her alleged racism led to an actual harm be better? It would certainly be less prejudicial to the proceedings.
Gene: In circumstances where people cannot agree that there should be a law (and I am in the camp that racist beliefs per se should not be illegal) then the alternative to law is the personal choice of boycott, and voicing disapproval, the threat of boycott, and pleas for others to engage in boycott, within a public square.
Like this one.
To shorten that, public shaming and shunning are the alternatives to public force, when public force itself would be a wrong.
It would be unutterably wrong to make racist belief illegal; contrary to many assertions daily of “slippery slopes” to avoid, IMO a crime against thoughts would be a true slippery slope leading directly to a cliff, the fall from which we would never recover.
Thus the alternative is the appropriate response; commercial boycott and social ostracization are the punishments of last resort for repellent (but not illegal) behavior.
Ooo. I’d love to see Victoria Falls. “The Smoke That Thunders”. Japan is really great, but I still haven’t made it to Africa yet. I hope she has a blast, AY.
Off topic…
Daughter is coming back from Otsu, Shinga, Japan today….. A semester abroad….. Then one leaves for a month long vacation in Africa….. Victoria Falls….
“Daughter is coming back from Otsu, Shinga, Japan today….. A semester abroad….. Then one leaves for a month long vacation in Africa….. Victoria Falls….”
You’re a good and proud father AY. If you’re footing the bill your practice has picked up, if not you have a reason to be proud anyway. 🙂
Elaine,
Perhaps discussing the matter in a non-accusatory, objective manner is a way to start. However, the question remains. Does social outrage merit skewing a judicial proceeding when the ideal is a fair trial for everyone?
Gene,
Pointing out racism where it exists is wrong? So, no one should acknowledge openly that racism exists when one knows that it’s a problem? How does one address the problem of racism then if people aren’t supposed to point it out?
I think Paula should heard before judgement is made….. Not all who say racist and stupid things are really racist and stupid….
Elaine,
If prejudice in its multiple forms is a wrong, then “yes”.
Does social outrage merit skewing a judicial proceeding when the ideal is a fair trial for everyone?
Gene,
I didn’t say that you said it was wrong. You evaded my question. A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
Gene,
Sometimes sarcasm and humor are the best way to get one’s point across.
Did say it was “wrong”, Elaine. I said it can be just as prejudicial as racism itself. Which it can.
I do love your sarcasm, Elaine, but sarcasm alone isn’t a counter-argument. 😀
Gene H. 1, June 27, 2013 at 12:01 pm
1. No one said it was racist to point out racism. It can be, however, prejudicial to point out racism.
*****
Is it wrong to point out racism where it exists…even if it is “prejudicial?”
tony c:
this is something more than that. Anyway she supported Obama at least the first time he ran. I am not sure a racist would have supported Obama.
This is an assassination using public opinion to scare away business and destroy her as a human being. There is something behind this other than racism.
Things like this dont just take on a life of their own, they are pumped up.
From my point of view the very fact that she admitted to saying the N word is justification to say she probably isnt racist. She could be totally cluless, a fish doesnt know water is wet.
Bron, racists could support Obama if they were appalled by Romney/repub policies.
Gene H. 1, June 27, 2013 at 10:25 am
Sorry if pointing out that prejudice is a far broader concept than simply racism is inconvenient. And if you don’t think that observation applies to you? Then why worry about it, Elaine? I don’t recall taking any of your statements directly to task. You’re an advanced language user. I’d expect you to understand that prejudice isn’t just racism.
*****
I must get myself back to Morality U and get schooled in the finer points of prejudice. To think that I’ve lived all these many years and didn’t understand what prejudice truly encompasses. Oh, for shame! I hope I don’t flunk the course.
Tony,
But what you are threatening consequences for is neither crime nor tort.
It’s not against the law to be racist.
Laws are indeed meant to serve as a deterrent, but again, she’s not being charged with being a racist. She’s alleged to have promoted a discriminatory work environment which is a tort and- if found guilty base on the totality of the evidence – a tort for which she will face consequences.
Gene: You do not change people’s mind by simply telling them they are wrong.
But you can change people’s minds by imposing consequences for their acts. Isn’t that the point of threatening to punish people for breaking laws in the first place, to force them to consider consequences before they act to harm others, and therefore “change their mind?”