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. Â 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, Â 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. Â 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. Â 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
Smom,
“Or she can leave, Gene.”
As noted, participation is voluntary and all succeed or fail based on the merits of their arguments.
“The girl from Seattle received some rather rough treatment here . Never see her anymore.”
I rather liked her but your recollection of her stay does not comport with mine. She came. She spoke. She left. We have lots of transient participants like that. But I don’t recall anyone giving her “rather rough treatment”. That being said, free speech in the marketplace of ideas is not always a big hug-fest love in. Ideas being scrutinized is not always pretty. As noted, free speech is not for the faint of heart. There are alternatives to a hot kitchen.
“Back to logistics….. logistics is clearly a male dominated field in academia. Most recognized logicians are philosophers or mathematicians that teach at the university level. Maybe Slarti is the true logician.”
Logic is the foundation for both philosophy and mathematics. Philosophy is the foundation of law and mathematics is an indispensable pillar of science although it is in part also based on philosophy. Slarti is a true logician. So is Tony. So are me, Mark, Bob, Mike A. and Raff. While there is a marked deficiency of women in the sciences (for reasons mostly cultural), they do exist. There are a fairly large number of female attorneys though. In 2012, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistic, women constituted 31.1% of all lawyers. In 2011, according to the Census Bureau, woman made up a raw number of the population (not accounting for being in or out of the labor force) that was 50.8% of the population. Even if taking being of age to be in the work force is taken into account, that’s still probably a significant difference statistically, but consider that the composition of women in the field of law is a growing number, and it looks like that gap is narrowing. Will it ever reach parity with the population percentages? Who knows. But all of that is ancillary.
The relevant difference, Smom, is between a trained logician and untrained. Just like a fighter (or a chef or a pilot), the trained person is going to have a broader skill set and understanding of the subject than a layman or even (in general) a gifted amateur. Gender has less to do with it than training. Logic is a skill. Like all skills, some are better at it than others, but anyone can learn it. It is not, however, the sole province of men. One of the most logical people I ever met was a female mathematician I hung around with in college. Your daughter is now a trained logician, so there is anecdotal proof of that alone. That we don’t have more women from the sciences and law participating here? Is a mystery, but it isn’t a conspiracy, nor is it to say you or Elaine or Blouise is bereft of logic. You three often display excellent logic. But it isn’t a huge component of your primary fields of study. It would be unreasonable to expect you (or anyone without said training) to have the same understanding or mastery of the skill.
_____________
Mike,
Why do you keep insisting that the shape of victory is “us vs. them”?
Have you stopped to think that maybe that wasn’t the shape of victory I intended when joining this debate? Not only does the shape of victory change, it is individual.
What is the shape of my victory?
To “win” over “them”?
Or to make others think about the nature of prejudice as a whole and the wrongs (and possibly rights) of prejudging?
Defeating an opponent is not the only possible goal or even only desirable outcome in conflict.
It’s not as if you’ve never seen that exact strategy deployed here before.
Juliet:
Gene left out the last — but maybe the most — important rule: The regular commenters don’t suffer fools gladly. Ask anyone including Gene and myself who have been here longer than most and who got the same critical analysis of our thoughts. You don’t like our style? So be it.
The deep end is always open if you want to swim in it.
The person who thinks I’m a fool does so at his peril. Longevity doesn’t make one smarter or more logical, as you prove, over and over. What I do see is if anyone disagrees with you or Gene, the personal attacks begin, immediately and viciously. It’s uncivilized and unwarranted. Therefore, it’s hypocritical to lecture newcomers on their alleged lack of civility.
Don’t like my style? Too bad. I’m not going anywhere.
Gene H ,
Thank you for the notice.
The supreme courts decision on the Voting Rights act got my gourd.
The words Race and Racism, were thrown about, argued, evaluated, measured, and decided upon. The point I’m attempting is the Court never defined Race. They never introduced the modern scientific understanding, research, evidence of what race is significant of today. Which IMO (and science) is insignificant in evaluating individual worth. One hundred fifty years ago it was accepted in law a black person was 3/5 human. … Yes we did fight a civil war to change that.
What I see lacking in modern day Race talk, is a “Civil” discussion, a National Civil discussion of its definition in modern scientific terms.
The supreme court could have WACKED from the highest legal mountain this ignorant, malignant, false, understanding of Race that has plagued civilization for X number of years. ….
We need leadership, discussion, and the acknowledgement that Race as a determining factor of individual worth is Bulloney. The Supreme court fell on its face, and as far as I can tell, No One Noticed.
…Regards to Racist figuring the math out on their own, Yes and excellent.
A ruling in Law stating what Race is, what its significance is, would supply quasi non committed racists with a reason to change their mind. The facts that insignificant phenotypes and alleles do not determine worth should be trumpeted over and over. The prejudiced, ignorant wall our past society built to divide races will begin to crumble and dissipate in the light of modern scientific true definition of Race.
Mr and Ms Supreme court, “Tear down this wall”
OOPs you folks just ignored it, and it is not going away.
Blouise and I welcomed you, Juliet.
It was noted and appreciated, Swarthmore mom. I figured out pretty quickly which folks are interested in a lively discussion of he issues, and which are interested in stroking their own egos.
Have I already mentioned I think Paula Deen is a racist, and that racism is perpetuated, in no small part, by those who excuse it? If I haven’t, there it is.
Or she can leave, Gene. The girl from Seattle received some rather rough treatment here . Never see her anymore. Back to logistics….. logistics is clearly a male dominated field in academia. Most recognized logicians are philosophers or mathematicians that teach at the university level. Maybe Slarti is the true logician.
“Or she can leave, Gene. The girl from Seattle received some rather rough treatment here . Never see her anymore. Back to logistics….. logistics is clearly a male dominated field in academia.”
SwM,
Thanks for saying what I’m not physically equipped to say 🙂 , but have been thinking about all through this thread.
It’s uncivil to tell people what the rules of a forum are, Juliet?
Then by that logic, the Constitution is uncivil as well.
You’ll either sink or swim here like everyone else: on the merits of your arguments (such as they are). Or like some you’ll simply flounder. Enjoy your swim.
Juliet,
Speaking of trolling . . .
If one feels like an idiot, that is their reaction upon exposure to something they haven’t encountered before that challenges their worldview or when what they considered a brilliant statement is met with less than stellar reviews. One is not responsible for others reactions. They are responsible for their own reactions. Speaking of which, is it your normal reaction to attack people who’ve welcomed you to a forum? Free speech is not for the faint of heart nor is there any sort of compulsory participation. Now I say to your ad hominem what I said to that above:
Do you have anything relevant to add to this discussion? Watching exercises in futility are entertaining to a point, but they add nothing of substance. They may make you feel better, they make me laugh (although sometimes it is a sad laugh), but they don’t advance the topic.
The topic is racism, prejudice and Paula Deen.
The only thing preventing you from participating in a meaningful fashion is you.
I’ve written all I care to write on the subject. However, you keep straying from the topic, with your uncivil lectures on civility. Or are you somehow exempt from the rules?
If what I’ve been given is a welcome, I’d hate to see what a shunning looks like.
“Speaking of which, is it your normal reaction to attack people who’ve welcomed you to a forum? Free speech is not for the faint of heart nor is there any sort of compulsory participation. Now I say to your ad hominem what I said to that above:
Do you have anything relevant to add to this discussion? Watching exercises in futility are entertaining to a point, but they add nothing of substance.”
Gene,
This was nonsense and a complete misreading of Juliet’s original comments here and the reaction to it that she received. It is also patronizing and therefore annoying as has been Mark’s response to her. Juliet has been outspoken and verbal in her reactions, but hardly faint of heart, nor complaining about the fact she was attacked. She has shown on this thread the ability to defend herself well and yet has been me with dismissal. She is hardly your typical you know what (not naming names) who comes on here guns blazing. Also, whether you reject it or not she has backed up her statements with evidence. I’m not saying this because on this topic Juliet and I agree. I state it because she has easily fit into the type of rough give and take we engage in here. From my perspective has held her own in the debate. She was not welcomed to the forum, but immediately set upon. I don’t say this in criticism of Mark’s reaction, but to the point that “welcome” is hardly the term to use. As to the relevancy of the points she has added to this discussion, that is in the eyes of the beholder. I and others think her points are quite relevant.
The interesting thing Gene is that some here see you and I as joined at the hip because we are obviously friends both off and on blog. They don’t realize that you and I answer to a “higher authority” which is our ethics, morality and logic. We disagree on this strongly as we have on other topics before and will on other topics after. That doesn’t affect the fact we like each other, but we each have our own unique perspectives. I think you, Mark, Bob and Mike A. are wrong on this issue, or at best discussing another issue entirely. Then again you feel the same about me, Tony, Elaine, Nal, Blouise and Juliet. In reviewing all the cooments above in preparing to write this I realized that Raff is on the good side of the issue, that makes our count 4 GB’s to 3. You guys better work on getting Chuck involved, or you will lose the GB vote, as you’re losing the commentor vote and the overall debate. BTW if this keeps going on your comment record is toast. 🙂
JulietN:
Funny that in your ignoring you always respond. Like I said you’re predictable.
raff:
I want to commend Mark that in the 700 plus comments, no math whatsoever!
”
*********************
I like to think that’s the story of my life.
JulietN:
it was you who championed the morality of the free market. I just showed you a counter-example. We lawyers aren’t always right, and I might be wrong here. The point is that you are certain and like I said only the fool is certain. Concede a little doubt and we’re on the same page.
By the way, welcome aboard; no one was trying to run you off. To the contrary, challenging your half-baked ideas has brought you aboard as it does most folks who want to learn here.
It’s Hell to be manipulated by those nasty lawyers who provided you an income ain’t it?
“challenging your half-baked ideas has brought you aboard as it does most folks who want to learn here.”
Mark,
I’m sure you warmed the cockles of Juliet’s heart with that warm and welcoming statement, which basically told her her ideas were silly, but that if she joined the crew you and others would teach her to be logical. The problem is that on this specific issue, I and many others consider your ideas to be “half baked” and Julia’s to be not only perceptive, but also presented in a quite civil manner. The original attacks upon her were certainly not welcoming and from my perspective not persuasive, but defensive. In any event I’m just doing my best to help you overcome Gene’s record for comments. In that regard, a little advice for you. Attack Tony C. some more, because Tony will never quit and I have found in most instances his thoughts to be quite informative. As in this thread for instance. 🙂
P.S.: This is why the charges by some about the unity of thought by the Guest Bloggers being lock step and rigid is absurd. As I said before, we are metaphoric “cats” whose positions are rarely predictable on any given subject. I consider that a sign of independent thought. Actually there are clearly three GB’s on your side and three on the other. So the battle for the GB “intellectual championship” of this debate looks to Larry and Chuck. 🙂
nick,
If you’ve got a problem with my logic? As I’ve said all along. Prove me wrong. Use logic and avoid logical fallacies. Use evidence and cites. You thinking I’m not benevolent is irrelevant to the argument. Learning to argue better is a skill you can learn. Good luck.
Control freak? Just not getting it, are you? Sorry, but speaking of logical fallacies, you still haven’t figured out what ad hominem means. Obviously you haven’t since you resorted to ad hominem again just above. You’ll figure it out eventually. Or not. We’re all pulling for you.
___________
AY,
So now you’re making up attacks on other people? Good luck with that.
Telling Smom that:
“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.”
Is not an attack on her person. It’s an attack on her claim.
I’m sure if Smom thinks she needs your help, she’ll ask for it, but I wouldn’t be holding my breath on that one if I were you. In the meantime, you might want to consider that she’s a grown woman capable of speaking for herself.
_______________
Do either you have anything relevant to add to this discussion? Watching your mutual exercises in futility are entertaining to a point, but they add nothing of substance. They may make you feel better, they make me laugh (although sometimes it is a sad laugh), but they don’t advance the topic.
The topic is racism, prejudice and Paula Deen.
The only thing preventing you from participating in a meaningful fashion is yourselves.
You and Mespo are the most egregious offenders of the “civility rule.” You’re a tiny bit less blatant, but a frequent offender, nonetheless. Whether you call someone an idiot, or merely imply it, the result is the same. You are the one who looks ridiculous, when someone you’ve insulted reacts to your ad hom attacks with what I’ll call an ad hom defense..
I would suggest others ignore you both, when you’re blatantly trolling, like I do with Mespo.
Gene,
You are a bully.,,, evidenced by your attack on swm…
Gene,
I really don’t care… You are the fool that most of the off blog community feels you are …..that’s enough for me,….
Saying someone is “not benevolent” is a personal attack?? Whoa big fella!! Unless you are known as, Benevolent Gene, or have numerous people calling you “benevolent”, it not an ad hominem. Just trying to distract that Elaine and others have called you on you role as judge, jury and executioner, on all things logical. This has shown, to even your friends, the controlling of all things logic. Until control freaks get help the problem does not go away or even stay the same. It just gets worse.
This is beginning to look like the Jake Kilrain / John Sullivan fight in 1889.
Bare-knuckle, 75 rounds
I guess that is one way to get the numbers up, fight it out to the last. 🙂
AY,
Still trying to manufacture some sympathy for an ad hominem attack on you that only happened in your mind? How’s that workin’ out, sport? If you’re going to make shit up about being attacked, you should go all out. Make it zombies or alien hookers or a bunch of dwarfs wearing Richard Nixon masks. Maybe zombie alien dwarf hookers who look like Nixon. Aim big.
If you have a problem with the definition of “gibberish”, then I suggest you take it up with the people here: http://oxforddictionaries.com/
And I didn’t realize 12 year old ice cream was a thing.
Thanks for the information.
Please continue to embarrass yourself though. I don’t mind at all. I think it’s funny. Not “ha ha” funny. More like “awwwwww” funny. Poor AY.
You started it drooling fool…. You don’t understand what any of the definitions men…. Pity the fool… I support the ADA…. Fully… I see I should be kind…. Even though you have some form of Tourette’s…..
David Blauw,
Good points all. “To change the fundamental ignorance that keeps racism alive, I promote wide exposition of the established true scientific definition of race today.” This is a wise strategy. It gives the information required for the racist to “do the math” themselves.
Tony,
You do realize you just made a special pleading, right? And that the relative safety of sulfuric acid and citric acid is contextual?
Oooo. More ad hominem drivel. Out of ice cream?
Seriously, get a f*cking grip. You’re embarrassing yourself, AY. Not that I care, but you might when your lil’ fit passes. Then again, you might just be used to embarrassing yourself by now, so maybe not.