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
Tony C:
I always get angry with folks who aren’t intellectual honest like you. Call me crazy!
Mike S.,
A few points.
1. Mark and Gene have done an excellent job of delineating the flaws in Tony C’s reasoning. You exclaiming victory on behalf of him is, how shall we say, less than convincing.
2. I don’t know what schools you went to, but it’s rather sad that you came away with the notion that reliance on your feelings serves as an excuse for your ignorance on a topic; e.g. philosophy.
3. Per your comment: “Well not only are you employing ad hominem, but also adding a straw man to the argument. You think doing that enhances your “logic”. You imply that I characterize ALL children growing up in the 40′s, 50′s and 60′s as racists. Try to show me where I said that and you will fail because I never even implied that except in your “oh so logical mind” with your vaunted, yet non-existent objectivity.”
The only one employing a straw man here is you. I did not say you characterize children of the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s as racists. I used your litmus test for racism against you via reductio ad absurdum. You adopted the strict rules, and I simply applied them to a group of people who did use the word “nigger” in their life and yet no rational person would consider them racist; other than you by your rules. That’s a fair ball.
And finally, I grew up in the 1970’s; long after the phrase ‘catch a nigger by the toe” was out of vogue. That’s your generation; not mine.
Nal:
“There’s no proof that Ms. Jackson isn’t trying to seek justice for all her years of abuse except for Ms. Deen, who is desperately trying to hang onto her status and cash flow.”
***************
I’d allow for that too. I just won’t presume it from what I’ve seen. Let’s see her proof not her allegations.
tony c:
Gene is right, chances are a 67 year old southern woman has said the N word in her life. That was a very large target for Jackson to hit. She could have been blind and handcuffed and still hit it.
But can you call her racist without evidence as to the intent behind the usage, Bron?
I dont think George is right about that. Words have specific meaning. I know they can change meaning with time but the N word is symbol for a specific, evil concept.
from webster’s 1913 edition:
n*gger – n. A negro; — in vulgar derision or depreciation.
As in making someone less than human and that is disgusting, I dont care what George Carlin says about it.
Is Paula Deen racist? I dont know, only time will tell. But I dont think you can call her a racist based on the knowledge available today.
“If Ms. Jackson was going to lie about some unverifiable conversation, I think she would have invented something a little more damning than a single instance of N-word usage directed at persons existing only in Paula’s imagination.”
Then again, Tony, too much fabrication or embellishment has brought more than one lie down. The deployment of misinformation is always better suited by simplicity in execution and by embedding just enough truth in an assertion to make it plausible. The Devil, as they say, is in the details.
Nal: Interestingly, Ms. Jackson admits she only heard Ms. Deen use the n-word once.
I wouldn’t say “admits,” but that she “testified.” And that “once” was in a decidedly casual conversation under no stress whatsoever.
That is part of what makes me put more weight on Ms. Jackson’s recounting than Paula Deen’s vague recollections; in my experience lies are very rarely that subtle; in fact Paula admits to the content of that conversation (wanting black people dressed up like Plantation-era slaves). If Ms. Jackson was going to lie about some unverifiable conversation, I think she would have invented something a little more damning than a single instance of N-word usage directed at persons existing only in Paula’s imagination.
Mark: You resort to ad hominem attack when you cannot answer rationally. That is the problem with ad hominem attack, it is irrational (bad logic) by definition.
So I don’t mind, really, because my goal is to prevail in the rational argument, and once you resort to the irrational, and cannot be brought back to answer rationally, I think it is safe to presume you have exhausted all your rational defenses and are choosing instead to vent your anger in insults, so the rational argument is over and I have prevailed.
Nick,
A real man never tells….
AY, Deep in the closet, wearing women’s undies! I guess that makes me something else. J Edgar Hoover.
Oh and for good measure nick… You’re a sexist….probably a closet sexist…. But none the less…
Ok nick…. Without any basis… You’ve now been called a racist…. You throw out the term wop….wasp….dago….. I’m offended…. You’re a racist…
Teji, That makes you a person who believes in the “No White Food” diet. I clear you of racism, and hope your bowel movements have improved.
“Mark and Gene have done an excellent job of delineating the flaws in Tony C’s reasoning.”
In your opinion, which I thing is wrong.
“I don’t know what schools you went to, but it’s rather sad that you came away with the notion that reliance on your feelings serves as an excuse for your ignorance on a topic; e.g. philosophy.”
I got my Masters from Columbia University on a full tuition scholarship. One of my girlfriends at the time was a philosophy major and at her Gatsby like house on the Gold Coast of Long Island, she gave parties for the Philosophy Department. I met many scholars there and while tripping on mescaline used to listen to faculty males trying to score sexually by quoting Wittgenstein, who was big at the time, to students. One of the funniest things I’ve ever observed. In any event Bob I’m as well read and erudite as you are. I’ve never been interested in the intellectual pretensions of people who try to explain life. If it works for you then more power to you. This was your problem in discussing this topic here, your perception, rather smug, that you are the repository of all wisdom due to your background in philosophy.
“Try to show me where I said that and you will fail because I never even implied that except in your “oh so logical mind” with your vaunted, yet non-existent objectivity.”
You said my litmus test for racism:
“According to your rules, all those children growing up in the 40′s, 50′s and 60′s are racists for saying
Eeny, meena, mina, mo,
Catch a nigger by the toe;
If he hollers let him go,
Eena, meena, mina, mo
Reductio ad absurdum? You bet! Made possible only because you present your feelings instead of an objective moral position justifying a witch hunt.”
Actually Bob, you failed because you can nowhere find my “rules”, or my saying anything of the sort. That you imagine that I implied rules like that is unsupported by the facts of what I wrote. That makes it a “straw man” argument. You inferred and saw what you wanted to see in what I wrote, which only proves that despite your philosophical and logical bent, that you’re the one that lacks objectivity. Show I’ll send the challenge back. Show me where I said or implied that I adjudged people racists because they used the epithet “nigger” in their childhood. I clearly rejected the falsification that Deen only used that term in her childhood and the evidence (you know that little thingy lawyers are supposed to use) that was presented here backs me up. Show me the money Bob, where I said, or implied what your “straw man” asserted, or you fail.
Fear not though Bob, you have gained a new disciple in Nick, or is it that you’re the disciple based on Pope Nick’s pronouncement to our long time contributor Teji Malik:
“Teji, That makes you a person who believes in the “No White Food” diet. I clear you of racism, and hope your bowel movements have improved.”
I think that Nick cleared you of racism as well, which must bring you all sorts of comfort.
Bob Esq, Terms like “Racist,” “sexist,” “ad hominem,” “homophobe,” “liar, “are thrown around like peanuts @ a Dodgers game. If you don’t follow the pc line, or if you argue w/ certain people, it’s their default insult. Look upon is as a badge of honor, because it usually is. I’ve not yet been called “racist” but I have been called the other 4 along w/ other epithets. I’m a horrible human being.
Mike S.,
I’m sorry, but I take issue with your accusation of me using ad hominem against you.
Yes, it is true that I resorted to ad hominem while referring to Tony C. as a solipsist, but that’s simply because I have no patience for someone who refers to his own opinion, musings and post hoc rationalizations as axiomatic. It’s as childish as a kid covering his eyes and screaming “you can’t see me.”
You on the other hand, have no standing whatsoever to accuse me of resorting to ad hominem in the traditional sense of the term.
Why?
Ad hominem means “to the person” as opposed to “to the argument.” As I’ve objected to and you’ve bragged about, you form your “arguments” based on your gut feelings; leaving little to nothing to “argue” over objectively.
The reason I brought up the nursery rhyme was to point out how ridiculous your standard metric is on the use of the word “nigger.” According to your rules, all those children growing up in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s are racists for saying
Eeny, meena, mina, mo,
Catch a nigger by the toe;
If he hollers let him go,
Eena, meena, mina, mo
Reductio ad absurdum? You bet! Made possible only because you present your feelings instead of an objective moral position justifying a witch hunt.
Furthermore, I re-allege that you derive schadenfreude from Paula Deen’s fall based on your admission to relying so heavily on your feelings per your comments on this issue; if anything, her fall from grace justifies those feelings of yours, which can only feel good.
And I also re-allege that you are so consumed with exposing and proving the evils of Paula Deen that it’s hard not to conclude you’re not obsessing over the darker portions of your own shadow. Evidenced in part, to me, based on all the times I’ve seen you wisely reserve judgment in many other matters.
You can call it ad hominem, I call it an honest critique of the position you’ve presented. It’s “to the person” because you made yourself the centerpiece of your “argument.” You can’t start a fight in a pool of water and then turn around and accuse your opponent of getting you wet.
“Yes, it is true that I resorted to ad hominem while referring to Tony C. as a solipsist, but that’s simply because I have no patience for someone who refers to his own opinion, musings and post hoc rationalizations as axiomatic. It’s as childish as a kid covering his eyes and screaming “you can’t see me.””
Bob,
Ah yes. Justifying an ad hominem attack with a further ad hominem attack. That’s the ticket. Also, re-examine your own words on this topic and one might characterize them as rationalizing your beliefs as axiomatic. The truth is that you couldn’t refute Tony’s logic with anything more than your “feelings” and so
went the ad hominem route you did.
And yes Bob, you are correct I do use my feeling to assist in forming my arguments and it really is a pity that you can’t understand that and need to rely on the musings of philosophers who actually justified merely what were their “feelings” into intellectual terms to make them sound more official. That is the different standpoint from which each of us deals with life. If yours works for you fine, but mine works very well for me. My philosophy is that of the rejection of the mind-body split. I try to be in touch with the “wisdom” of my organism. This wisdom informs me intellectually and Bob this wisdom also informs my logic, which is every bit as good as yours and I’ve proven that here time and again.
“According to your rules, all those children growing up in the 40′s, 50′s and 60′s are racists for saying
Eeny, meena, mina, mo,
Catch a nigger by the toe;
If he hollers let him go,
Eena, meena, mina, mo
Reductio ad absurdum? You bet! Made possible only because you present your feelings instead of an objective moral position justifying a witch hunt.”
Well not only are you employing ad hominem, but also adding a straw man to the argument. You think doing that enhances your “logic”. You imply that I characterize ALL children growing up in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s as racists. Try to show me where I said that and you will fail because I never even implied that except in your “oh so logical mind” with your vaunted, yet non-existent objectivity. You’ve shown no objectivity here, only characterizing those who disagree with you as not being objective. By the way where I grew up we didn’t use “nigga” in that way, perhaps because it was a less racist than yours.
We used “catch a tiger by the tail”. My friends also didn’t use “nigger”, but then racism wasn’t cool where I lived, so I suppose that your growing experience was different and less PC than mine. Yes that was irony, not ad hominem. Your arguments here have been so weak that I have no need to
rely on personal attacks. Would that you could do the same.
Gene,
We know you’re already a sour kraut…. And your theories have more holes than extra sharp Swiss cheese….. Just funna ya….
Thanks Gene…
There has to be a huge market for white guilt therapy. The problem is those afflicted are in denial, so it would be a tough market to access. But, one the floodgates open, there will be shrinks everywhere administering the therapy.
mespo:
Interesting frame. Here’s another:
There’s no proof that Ms. Jackson isn’t trying to seek justice for all her years of abuse except for Ms. Deen, who is desperately trying to hang onto her status and cash flow.
Funny how the frame changes the picture.
Without the frames we have she-said v. she-said. Without the frame, who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose? Ms. Jackson might get $1.5 million which, after the attorney’s cut and taxes, may amount to $500,000. On the other hand, Ms. Deen risks substantially more, maybe tens of millions of dollars.
Interestingly, Ms. Jackson admits she only heard Ms. Deen use the n-word once. From her deposition, Ms. Jackson’s attention is not focused on Ms. Deen but on others.