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
Like I said fool… You speak the true foolish language… You are a fool… And you don’t know the difference….. Your logic is like crap… You are as much a logician as I am a used car salesman…. One you can do the other you struggle like a monkey…..
Gene: Would Deen being found innocent of creating a discriminatory work place change how you feel about her “need to be punished”?
No, I think she should be shunned and denied her exalted income for her racism by those of us that believe such shunning will help contain racism and reduce its harm.
The case is a separate matter for me; I don’t know if she is guilty, or Jackson is entirely truthful, or Bubba is the real culprit. I will let the jury parse that out.
I am convinced she is a racist, and should be punished for that. And although I agree racism is a form of prejudice, racism is far worse in my mind than other forms of prejudice. Lemon juice and sulphuric acid are two forms of acid, only one of them is safe to sip.
On Ramsay: All those shows are competitions, and the contestants all sign waivers out the wazoo before they ever appear on camera. The rage and cursing is all a performance for the cameras, to heighten the drama and consequences of screwing up. I would be surprised if there is any hole in that contract that lets them sue for anything.
Graham Elliot once introduced him (on MasterChef) as, “The man that put the ‘F’ in cooking.”
The tip controversy is common; many places “split tips” or “pool tips” and split them up evenly, or by some formula between the front of the house (dining room) and back of the house (kitchen help and line workers).
So the waiters are not the only ones that get tips. Busboys get a share, cooks get a share (dishwashers don’t dammit), and it is legal to count tips as contributory to minimum wage.
Waiters are not particularly happy about splitting tips, but some owners make it mandatory, and I have heard of waiters being fired by owners for concealing tips (like only contributing half the tip to the pool). I haven’t heard of anybody being sued over it, I don’t know who the “tip” belongs to, really, the owner or the waiter, or if the owner has the right to make tip splitting a condition of employment.
The homophobic claim that gays are freaks of nature is being disproved. IMO it will be understood as a natural hereditary design within our genes and in a shiny future of human civilization being gay will be as significant as “what sign are you”.
The rallying, organization, and truthfulness of argument in support of GLBT rights has been amazing and successful.
The commons have been swayed. I see no way this genie (and genius) goes back in the bottle.
The definition of Race from one hundred years ago has been exploded and exposed for idiocy. The foundation of this one hundred yr old definition no longer exists. Homosexuals are not freaks of nature, Gay slurs are an exposure of the slurrers ignorance.
Racial slurs are the same.
I see the most important barrier to destroy, is this idiot perception of the concept of race as it was understood 100 years ago.
Ask any Racist what he/she bases their ignorant spiteful comments on. I’m sure they will come up with concepts from 100 years ago that have been destroyed by modern scientific study. To change the fundamental ignorance that keeps racism alive, I promote wide exposition of the established true scientific definition of race today. Race is meaningless to a human beings ability to be full equal human beings. Any argument to the contrary is ignorant at least, evil, or worse than evil at most.
Let’s assumed you strolled, Tony.
You’ve also admitted that the media can actually prejudice proceedings.
Walking to prejudice and running to prejudice gets you to the same spot.
It also doesn’t change that you (as you admit) don’t know either intent or specific harm.
Prejudice in any other framework is still prejudice. Does that automatically make the prejudiced bad? Their intent bad? Does it always create a specific harm? No. But it still it what it is. The Law of Identity isn’t going anywhere.
What we currently have is allegations yet to be examined in a procedural manner in which both parties have a vested interest.
Would Deen being found innocent of creating a discriminatory work place change how you feel about her “need to be punished”?
As for your second post, as I said it comes down to your definitions. I do not think I “rushed” to call her a racist, I strolled there. At some point the question is easy to answer; I believe she is a casual user of the N-word by her own admission. She uses racist tactics to avoid responsibility, she admits to using it but “can’t remember” any instances of using it; she tries to make it seem common; she tries to make it seem distant; she tries to make it an isolated circumstance under stress; she tries to dilute her racism by classing it with more acceptable appelations like “redneck”; she tries to license her use of the word because blacks use the word to each other (despite undoubtedly knowing that being black is the license); she tries to plead that she cannot read minds and doesn’t know for sure if anybody is offended by her use of the word; and in the end she claims equivalence by saying she thinks blacks feel the same prejudices as whites feel (so the scales have been balanced).
I do not think I rushed to judgment. I think I reached a conclusion based on the evidence for Paula Deen being a racist.
Tony,
A discriminatory work environment is a special kind of bad work environment. It may or may not be hostile. It can be perfectly passive. But a hostile work environment need not be based in prejudice. With the Ramsey example, from what I’ve seen how he acts on TV? It’s got to be in part an act. If not, I’d be really surprised he doesn’t get both sued and his ass kicked on a fairly regular basis. As it is, I’ve read a couple of times of him being sued for breaking deals with suppliers and taking advantage of his workforce (something to do with tips and overtime if I recall). But I’m thinking that he plays it up a bit for TV.
Gene: Well I was talking about racism, but I believe sexism, absolutist religious fundamentalism and homophobia are all ills that should be punished within the options available to us. I personally have boycotted Chick-Fil-A on those grounds. I was not a regular customer but I was an occasional customer, and will never be again.
Is some form of prejudice necessary to create a hostile work environment? I honestly do not know the law on that point, it seems to me Gordon Ramsey on Hell’s Kitchen creates a hostile work environment (all for show with contestants that know full well what they are signing up for) without resorting to prejudicial statements. If that were a real-life boss calling his employees “f*cking Idiots” would that be a “hostile work environment”?
Tony,
Also note, the thrust of my parallel argument wasn’t that Deen is undeserving of the social and economic fallout of her statements (and her generally poor handling of the matter as far as that goes). It’s that rushing to call her a definitive racist is a form of prejudice albeit more visible in a larger framework.
Tony,
Isn’t racism a form of prejudice? Isn’t the court case rooted in prejudice even though it’s only so tangentially as motive to creating an alleged discriminatory work place? Isn’t prejudice of any sort the larger issue? What about homophobia? Sexism? Religious discrimination? Are they not problems and forms of prejudice?
Prejudice, in and of itself as an inclusive set, is a larger problem in both parallel lines of argument.
Gene: there would be no story here but for the court case.
True, but that doesn’t mean it is framed by the court case, it would not even have to mean the story had anything to do with the court case.
For example, suppose there was a court case involving Donald Trump refusing to pay a contractor (it wouldn’t be the first time) and in his testimony he gets angry at the attorney questioning him and uses the N-word. Reporters get hold of that and he digs himself in deeper.
We could still have a story about celebrity racism, initially exposed by a court case, but the court case (say a breach of contract) has nothing to do with the racism; it doesn’t frame the racism debate.
In fact something similar has happened here; the issue of whether Paula Deen is a racist, as you yourself have noted, does not mean she has created a hostile work environment, and such an environment can be created without the ingredient of racism.
As it hypothetically would be with Trump, it applies to Deen, testimony in the court case revealed a heretofore unknown (to me) side of Deen. I have long thought she was an artificial personality probably exaggerating her accent (as my mother frequently heavily exaggerated her Brooklyn accent when far from Brooklyn, for reasons I have never known and sometimes to my embarrassment). But until reading her Matrix Slo-Mo Bullet Dodging testimony I did not suspect she was a full-on racist, I was not motivated to seek out more information on Paula Deen, or watch her interviews.
The court case raised a different question, for me, and it is not framed by the court case, just exposed by it. The court case question is whether she is responsible for a hostile workplace, and although it appears to me the workplace was indeed hostile, that may well be down to Bubba much more than Paula; I don’t know.
The independent question raised is whether Paula Deen is still a racist. Friendly or not, does she consider blacks an inferior race to whites? That is not a question to be tried in court, it isn’t an illegal practice. But between her testimony under oath, previous interviews brought to my attention and subsequent dodge-and-weave interviews, I think the answer is yes, she is. She may not be a hateful racist, I think she’s a garden variety, demeaning, insulting white supremacist. And I think that attitude causes harm to society, and should be punished within the options available to us.
Apparently you don’t know what the word “gibberish” means, AY.
gibberish /ˈdʒɪb(ə)rɪʃ/, n.,
unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense:
How can a person be “gibberish”, AY? I’d like you to explain that. English works better when you know how to actually use it.
If I wanted to make it personal? There would be no room for doubt. You certainly wouldn’t be required to manufacture offense and/or outrage. I’d gladly provide it in explicit terms.
Run along.
Golly gee…. I’m sorry… Didn’t realize gibberish was to a statement….but double standards are to the person…. Maybe I have those reversed…. But buckwheat…. Read what you wrote…. It was personal…. But hey…. You see it as you see it….the rules are at your disposal…. And as a matter of fact… You dispose of most of them when it’s to your advantage…
raff,
Aye. It has been a few months since we’ve had anything approach 1,000. Mark did an excellent job.
__________
AY,
Sorry if the truth is simply inconvenient to the narrative you want to create about being attacked. It’s not my fault you cannot differentiate between yourself and your statements. Is your sense of identity so weak you cannot tell the difference? Or perhaps it’s teh drain bamage? But if it makes you feel better? Seriously, venting is good for you. I wouldn’t want you to spontaneously combust even though we’re not friends anymore. Don’t you have someone who cares to complain to about how victimized you are by the entire world?
Mike S.: “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.”
Mike,
My critique of your argument had nothing to do Gestalt; it had to do with your meandering from one feeling to the next and presenting it as if it were an argument. Your over reliance on feelings and your almost exhibitionist urge to rely on personal anecdotes to justify said feelings, as opposed to furthering the argument which you left dangling in mid air, is quite annoying in a Grandpa Simpson kind of way. (“so I tied an onion to my belt; which was the style at the time.” etc.)
Arguing is reason giving.
Reasons are justifications or support for claims.
Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving.
The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or command.
When you make a claim and then attempt to support that claim by telling us how you feel or providing anecdotes to explain why you feel that way, you’re not making an argument. You’re not attempting to win the assent of your audience, you’re actually looking to win the assent of yourself; since the rest of us don’t go through life based on how Mike Spindell feels.
And this is where I object to the absence of any objective moral criteria.
See how Gestalt has nothing to do with it?
Mike S.: “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.”
It was tongue in cheek; but I do I consider M. Appleton to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. Come to think of it, it was a lot like the arguments you make; only I wasn’t trying to win the assent of an audience; just providing another justification why I’m satisfied with my reasoning here. Whadda ya know, I won my own assent. I’m so proud.
Mike and Gene,
I want to commend Mark that in the 700 plus comments, no math whatsoever! 🙂
Well golly gene whiz buckwheat…. When everyone’s in toto to your demands, do you stop the personal attacks…. Or do you just keep them going so everyone will know you are the master baiter? Or is that debater…. You got up early to attack some folks…. I didn’t attack you until you started it out Gomer….. I was kinda defending myself…. But there are some like you that will take attention anywhere they can get it…. Maybe the light will shine on you….. And you’ll get lucky and quit picking on folks….. Yes, Ernest T. Bass I do have a right to defend myself…. Especially when you started it…. Look up sequence…. Already defined for you…. And if you’re too stoopid to comprehend what you read… That’s not my problem….
Oh yeah! That’s it, Mike. 🙄
Well, Mark has more than thirteen hundred comments to garner before I have to defend the crown, so I think I’ll rest easy at this point. 😀
Gene,
This is 719 and counting. He’s a comin for ya Sparky. Some of those master logicians have devious minds and Bob has it in for you for an argument you two had years ago. As for that thread of yours remember it had Tony C. playing a prominent role. All the elements are there and this thread is a week old. Just sayin………:)
Mike,
If you want to think this entire story isn’t framed by a court case?
Then that’s simply a refusal to acknowledge the reality of the statement previously made: there would be no story here but for the court case.
And still, if you’re having a problem understanding that arguing in parallel isn’t a “mischaracterization”?
Then maybe that’s a lesson that can only be learned and not taught as well.
Gene,
I defer to your logical wizardry in the sense of it being legerdemain.
You see you don’t know the back story here. Mark was jealous of your status of have the longest thread of any guest blogger and your contributions will soon topple you from your throne. Well played Mark and done with a wry, ironic touch.
Really.
Still struggling with the idea of an argument in parallel, I guess.
Some have even gone to great care to point out the criticisms of particular statements was not a blanket criticism of all statements nor of the people making them. Again, while not uniform, some have taken great care to not pass judgement while discussing the matter of prejudice as a larger concept, Mike.
But your grouping everyone making that point together as a uniform whole sure is interesting. It couldn’t be a manifestation of the idea that anyone not joining the PC wagontrain is ipso facto wrong? Why . . . that would be prejudicial based on a PC meme. Who’d have thought acting like the Thought Police was a bad idea. Why . . . that would be some of those on your very “side”. Yet that doesn’t bring any cognitive dissonance about one of the very distinctions made: you’ll never convince someone they are wrong by telling them, only they can change their mind.
The arguments – from either “side” (which is a misnomer when dealing with a parallel structure) – speak for themselves.
The insistence that there is any winner or loser other than good and bad logic seems futile.
But as for weakness? Agreement is not required.
The arguments stand as they are.
Either you find one or the other persuasive.