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,
“Logic has rules.”
*****
And you’re getting impatient and frustrated with those of us who aren’t playing by your “logical” rules.
Prejudice is prejudging, Blouise. Words have meaning. The definition holds. Logic has rules. The Law of Identity holds true and is not emotional.
And I think you’re simply wrong as a matter of the principles upon the which the 2nd was formulated, not ahead, but we’ve had that discussion. Not to mention that the 2nd has squat to do with the issue of prejudice being larger than simple racism. But if you want to talk about emotionalism distorting arguments in that context, I’ll note that the vast majority of recorded gun crime is suicide by adults using handguns, that suicide should not be considered a crime in itself, that as a simple technology outlawing guns would be ineffective, and “think of the children!” is the very height of emotionalism in addressing a problem that has a far larger scope.
:*
May I point out you are not only a diplomat here…. But your logical skills are superior to anyone else’s…. But you knew that already..
Gene,
Didn’t want to disappoint your diplomatic approach…. Yours is and was not unexpected either… Duh…
“Better watch out with that insidious fallacio, Blouise. It’s frowned upon around these parts.” (Elaine)
Only by those who prefer pitchforks.
(BTW … Nicely done 😉 )
Gene says: You’re not talking to a bunch of concrete finishers or ophthalmologists about the logic
Neither are you, and there is a pretty good chance you are talking to people that are more heavily trained in understanding the logic of mathematical proof and statistical inference than you are, with more daily experience in doing so.
If you think I am talking to ophthalmologists, it is because I am logical enough to understand the value of making arguments accessible to laymen by avoiding the Latin and formalism, even if I lose some only impressed by Latin and formalism they do not really understand. My goal is to be understood (on occasion sidetracked by the goal of salving irritation with insult).
Gene,
Prejudice is a white privilege frame. It’s an old, emotional argument used to justify a thought process that white guilt drives anti-racism.
This is why I’m also way ahead of you on the gun issue … 😉
AY,
Scalia is perfectly capable of lighting a match. We aren’t talking about Thomas.
As for your other gibberish, it’s refreshing to see you adhere to your previous demonstration of double standards and by refreshing I mean totally expected.
_______________
Blouise,
I understand that and as stated before, just because a prejudice has reasons doesn’t make it not prejudice nor does having reasons always equate to fully reasoned.
Blouise,
“That special pleading is an insidious fallacy.”
*****
Better watch out with that insidious fallacio, Blouise. It’s frowned upon around these parts.
😉
Gene,
It’s okay … you missed the point as you missed the point of Elaine’s post.
Try this one on for size … Deen and I are the same age (she’s 2 years younger), the same race, and we grew up in the same country facing the same choices. The only marked difference was parental based. At the age of 12, I was learning that racism, no matter how benign, is meant to be fought while she, that same year, watched her granddaddy send a black woman to jail for “spanking” her.
Paula Deen’s world changed. Mine didn’t.
Duh… Equal opportunity attacking…. Some people are like onions….
Duh, The Borowitz Report is like the Onion.
Ya don’t say… But… Do you think he could do it….
AY,
Borowitz is a satirist. Just sayin’.
Everyone is welcome, Juliet.
Just FYI though, there are a very few rules to the forum:
1) The Civility Rule: you’re encouraged to attack ideas, but not people and as such ad hominem attacks are discouraged as are physical threats, incitement to violence and defamation. Public figures are held to a slightly different standard, see Sullivan v. New York Times. As this thread illustrates, there is some necessary flexibility to how this rule is applied on a situational basis. Sometimes what appears ad hominem isn’t but rather critical of a position. This is not the case with the other two rules.
2) The Anonymity Rule: Posters are allowed to post anonymously and control the amount of personal information they reveal. To reveal someone’s identity or personal information without consent is forbidden. If someone does that to you, make a complaint to one of the Guest Bloggers and we’ll look into the matter. If the claim has merit, the offender will be dealt with.
3) The No Stealing Identity Rule: If someone impersonates you (using your regular posting name or stealing your Gravatar, etc.) that is forbidden. If someone does that to you, make a complaint to one of the Guest Bloggers and we’ll look into the matter. If the claim has merit, the offender will be dealt with.
Refusing to adhere to the Civility Rule or violating the other two can get you banned by the owner. The last two especially.
Enjoy your stay.
Off topic….. But crazy if true….
Scalia arrested
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a shocking end to an illustrious legal career, police arrested Justice Antonin Scalia today as he attempted to set the Supreme Court building ablaze.
Justice Scalia, who had seemed calm and composed during the announcement of two major rulings this morning, was spotted by police minutes later outside the building, carrying a book of matches and a gallon of kerosene.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/06/scalia-arrested-trying-to-burn-down-supreme-court.html
Gene, My bride’s masters is in social psych, from UMKC.
Blouise, Thanks to Tex and I think you’ll enjoy it. There’s a lot of personal painful stuff my bride drew upon to write that book. Infertility, panic attacks, and dear family w/ addiction issues that ruined a very successful career.
Blouise, I have always worked and socialized w/ black people, I’ve said that previously. My wedding photos and family albums verify that, although I don’t sense you doubt my veracity. I never doubt yours.
I understand your point, but my point is if you’re white, and don’t REALLY know black people, any discussion on any dynamic of race is going to be limited. I get what you’re saying, but I still believe white’s discussing other whites attitudes toward black folk, absent any personal relationship w/ them, is limited. And, I see that limitation here and in other permutations of racial posts we’ve had here in the past. The NYT has a site called Blogginheads. The aforementioned Loury and McWhorter have an interesting discussion on Deen.
Can we call Tex, Charles Kuralt. We have similar souls. I too like just driving places and meeting different people, eating different food[Roadfood is a good source], experiencing different cultures. I was introduced to the Indian culture when I moved from the east coast to KC. However, in the past decade I’ve read and travelled through their reservations. They are spiritual people. I think they would have made great PI’s..they see right into your soul. We hit it off immensely. They know little of the Italian culture and some are as fascinated w/ that as I am w/ theirs. That’s when you know you got real folks. Those who ask questions, not just speak interminably like most Americans. Most Americans don’t listen, they just wait[often impatiently] to talk. Indians are direct and of few words, like myself. I’ll be happy to share any info on places I’ve been where you may be headed.
I love both sociology and psychology. Both were key to my career, although psych a bit more pertinent. My psych. is some book, but mostly street. I have book, people and street smarts. My strength is people and street smarts. Without it I would have been dead, and I’m not talking career.
Blouise,
Except for that statement being semantic nonsense, sure. Independent thinking and prejudice are not the same and to assert such is a false equivalence. Independent thought may or may not be prejudice. Prejudice is prejudice. Or are you asserting the special pleading that racism is a subset of prejudice that deserves special treatment?
That special pleading is an insidious fallacy.