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,
One person’s prejudice is another’s independent thinking.
See … I can play the semantics game too.
“It’s groups, 2 or more, and their interactions that fascinate me.”
As earlier noted, this whole thing is a fascinating study in social psychology and how the media can bias proceedings.
So is the Zimmerman case for that matter.
nick,
psych never interested me … one on one
It’s groups, 2 or more, and their interactions that fascinate me.
Juliet, Hope you stay here,too.
Why, thank you. And to that end, I have just made a more permanent account on WordPress.
Blouise,
In the broadest sense, this is about the nature of prejudice.
Prejudice knows no racial (or cultural) boundary.
Oh, and while I’m at it, thanks for arguing to the person instead of the argument, Smom.
Smom,
Ummm, arguments aren’t won on the basis of pointing out emotionalism itself, but by logic that counters that emotionalism as . . . wait for it . . . illogical and/or irrational.
As I said, logic is a demonstrable skill. Mike A’s express claiming of that skill or not is irrelevant to him demonstrating it just as claiming it is irrelevant unless the skill hasn’t been in fact demonstrated. Again, if you’re claiming that either me, Mark or Bob hasn’t demonstrated said skill, the evidence over time belies your assertion.
nick,
This thread isn’t about blacks …it’s about white’s attitudes towards blacks and white’s attitudes towards other whites concerning blacks. (The Complaint was brought by a white caucasian female)
The invisibility factor is at play here and if you know and are friends with as many blacks as you claim then you know what the invisibility factor is.
nick,
Tex is in the middle of your wife’s book and liking it. I will read it after he is done.
Psychology is the class that buried sociology and most of the psych. teachers had just fundamental knowledge, @ best. I could have gotten 6 more credits and be licensed for psych and there’s NO WAY I would have been knowledgeable enough to teach it.
“The pedestal of privilege is a precarious perch.” (Nal)
Very true
Gene,
You missed my point. It wasn’t about who started “it.” It was about the logicians’ ability to argue a case/issue dispassionately…unlike those of us who are untrained in logic and only use passions/emotions and not our intellect, judgment, and common sense to draw conclusions about an issue and to argue our position.
Mike A has not identified himself as a “highly skilled logician”. Neither has Mark. You used the same argument against the people that were for gun control……. accuse your opponents of being emotional and you win.
Blouise, I was licensed to teach high school sociology. However, no schools have it as part of their curriculum, ala civics!
Juliet Lester Neary,
I do hope you keep posting and expressing your viewpoint. You survived the onslaught of name calling with ease.
Thank you, Blouise. I have no intention of allowing anyone to run me off.
mespo has a thread that has lasted a week. It’s been one of the more interesting posts here since I started reading. How judgmental some people can be, particularly on issues of race, is mind boggling. I don’t think there are any black commenters on this thread. I wonder how many folks here have close black friends..you know folks that come over for dinner, and vise versa. If you did, you would realize just how clueless many of you are. I can tell you, the vast majority of black folk don’t give a rat’s ass about this.
There was an incident during the NCAA b-ball tournament when an analyst made an off the cuff remark, “I”m the token white guy on this panel.” The press, and I’m sure some folks here jumped on this guy. Charles Barkley had his back and ended the controversy immediately. If you don’t have any black friends, here are a few mainstream people you can count on to be honest about race. The aforementioned Charles, Michael Wilbon, James McWhorter, Glenn Loury to name a few.
“Like politics, it is not unusual for the entertainment industry to go to great expense to figure out what the public is thinking, employing statisticians and computer modeling of reactions.” (Tony C)
I keep forgetting that entertainment is her field of employment and Juliet’s mention of the Dixie Chicks helped in focusing my thoughts also. Of course you are right concerning all the studies by sociologists and the like and the impact said studies have on business models. And may I add to the list that contains the matter of habits, etc … consumer age. The younger generation has the up and coming buying power.
“Considering Paula’s age (no offense) I am not sure a long term come back is feasible.” (Tony C)
Lol …none taken
BTW … a total side note … sociologists like my sister … I kept trying to figure out where you picked up all that “example” knowledge you sprinkle throughout your posts and now I know. The field of sociology has always attracted me but I simply had no time to get a degree in it. (I have three totally worthless degrees as it is) It’s always been my “dream” job and I envy your sister.
Smom,
Chuck is an authority on forensic psychology, but when he brings that up, I don’t see him being attacked for it being “self-proclaimed”. He is what he is. We are what we are. Logic is a demonstrable skill. If you’re claiming that neither I nor Mark nor Bob nor Mike A have demonstrated that skill in abundance, then I suggest the preponderance of the evidence over time shows otherwise. Again, an appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is invalid.
Elaine,
Who “started it” is irrelevant to the emotional content nor is judgement being proffered for the logical error being pointed out. If anything, it has been pointed out more than once that showing a prejudice doesn’t automatically mean someone is a bad person. No one anyone expects you to change your mind based on ipse dixit. Logic is logic. It has rules. Whether one finds the outcome of applying logic comfortable or acceptable is not relevant to it being logically correct.
However, there is still no logical refutation about the larger point made about the nature of prejudice.
As for my argument?
I think you’d be hard pressed to show it has been anything but dispassionate.
And to some degree, it’s that very dispassion that some of you are finding unsettling. How can a guy you know isn’t a racist from your experiences with him possibly disagree on whether or not someone who said “nigger” is in fact a racist or guilty of committing a particularized harm to others based on said racism? It causes some to perhaps question what they considered a moral/ethical certainty. Most people don’t do well with uncertainty. It’s our nature.
“Who “started it” is irrelevant to the emotional content nor is judgement being proffered for the logical error being pointed out. If anything, it has been pointed out more than once that showing a prejudice doesn’t automatically mean someone is a bad person.”
Gene,
Who started it is quite relevant when the logic of the logicians argument fails. They were immediately rebutted with the 2012 Deen tape and other facts. Rather than logically rebutting the tape the response was that any “reasonable” person would see it their way. Bob even brought up a statement that I made two years ago about emotions. That he didn’t understand the point about Gestalt Philosophy then, was compounded by his failure to understand it now. The way the “logicians” framed the matter you would think it was about IQ, legal training and reading dead philosophers and the rest of us barely literate peasants should step aside in awe at their pronouncements. I’ll match the intellects of Tony C., Elaine, Blouise, Juliet and myself any day against you logicians. When Bob, or was it Mark or you, said the proof of the merit of their position was that Mike A. agreed with them, I laughed out loud. That’s no disrespect to Mike A., that is just a stupid argument to make.
The funny thing is that I agree with Elaine and others who say that they weren’t particularly interested in the Deen case, neither was I, but the thing is when someone’s wrong they’re wrong. It was the scathing reactions by Mark and Bob that set me off initially. You did try to keep it on the high road I must admit, but kept mis-characterizing the arguments put forth to force it into the frame of the court case.
The bottom line though is that you all lose because Nal is the smartest of all of us Guest Bloggers and he’s with the side of truth and justice. 🙂
Elaine, Most of the highly trained logicians here are self proclaimed. I guess it is a tool of argumentation. One bills himself as a highly skilled logician and therefore he wins. I don’t care that much about the Paula Dean case, either.