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: Is racism really worse than sexism or homophobia or religious persecution?
Yes, I think it is, because the consequences of racism have been far greater.
Putting sexism aside for the moment, homophobia and religious intolerance are not based on genetic differences in appearance, like racism. (Homosexuality is probably not a genetic difference in the person, at this point it is most probably a phenotypical brain organization difference due to flukes in fetal brain development that may be traced to physiological or genetic differences in the mothers of homosexuals). But those are not observable; we cannot look at a photograph of a naked newborn and claim “this person will be a homosexual” or “this person will be a Protestant.”
Sexism is probably closest to racism in that respect, but I think the effects of racism are worse and more pernicious upon their victims. Those effects throughout history can be vehemently argued I am sure; in some countries sexism amounts to complete subjugation and slavery of women.
But in modern America I think if a young unskilled laborer is looking for a job, the young white woman has a better chance of finding one than the young black male, or the young black woman.
I will say, by the way, that assessment is also backed up by sociological studies and experiments in employment, with both high school graduates and college graduates; with black and white students chosen as “matched” based on school, SAT scores, GPA, height, weight, and even using resumes identical except for the name.
So yeah, in modern America I think racism is worse, being a woman doesn’t make your sexist employer assume you are a criminal that cannot be trusted, or that you are a drug user, or will explode in violence if provoked, or that you are only suitable for work where clients won’t see you, or that you are more expendable and should be preferentially assigned to more dangerous tasks (as I have seen in high voltage handling).
Juliet:
“I did not call him a name, nor did I attack his person instead of an argument. ”
*********************
Now you’re just being dishonest :
You called Paula Deen a racist (numerous times) and a “dick.”
You called me a “troll (twice),” a drinker who posts, a “straw man,” “petulant,” “childish,” and “ridiculous.”
Anyone can read them in your comments above. I don’t think you’re built for high horses.
You understand there’s a difference in refuting an argument with a personal attack and making an observation on someone’s behavior, right? You’re welcome to refer to it as “name-calling,” but never once did I respond to any argument — yours or otherwise — with an attack on the person, instead of the argument.
And you’re still behaving childishly. I am reminded of the little boys who used to pull my pigtails, when I was a girl.
Mike S:
While we all like to be solicitous of newcomers, let’s face it, Juliet can’t keep her facts straight or reply to a counter-argument with anything approaching valid argumentation. It’s always “poor, poor hurt feelings me.” Either she does more than merely assert or she gets challenged; it’s really that simple. I don’t hear Tony C whining that his poor feelings are hurt. he’s making his points and we respect that.
“Juliet can’t keep her facts straight or reply to a counter-argument with anything approaching valid argumentation.”
Mark,
Or maybe it was because she provided that 2012 video of Paula which revealed that your “50” years ago premise was flawed. Seeing Paula was her counter argument and it was a good one. Perhaps though I should believe your version of it, rather than my lying eyes and ears?
Gene,
Do you really want to press the point that by going to law school one becomes a “trained logician”? If that’s the case perhaps I should have more respect for those lawyers who graduated from Regents School of Law, or maybe I should respect John Yoo’s legal opinions more? Shall I mention those prominent trained logicians from Yale and Harvard. Perhaps the wisdom and logic of Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. Being trained in logic does not make one a better critical thinker now does it?
You guys who I like, admire and respect keep digging deeper holes for yourselves in your vain attempt to provide cover for a woman who is obviously by the evidence presented, personally racially clueless, but nonetheless understands how to hide it as a celebrity. Unfortunately, the truth about her private beliefs caught up with her. A mixture of hubris and an inability to overcome prejudgments from her youth did her in. We have reached the point of diminishing returns from this debate, since neither side will convince the other.
So what is really happening here is vying to have the last word.
So I will have my last word and end my involvement no matter what invective is hurled at me. You guys lost the argument as to whether she is a racist at heart based on the evidence at hand. You won the argument that the trial outcome might be different, but not many here disagreed with that anyway.
Finally as to the argument whether she should have suffered financial problems and loss of TV show, that was always a matter of opinion, since the networks and public are quite fickle. Phil Donahue had MSNBC’s top rated show but was fired because he opposed the 2nd Iraq War. A business decision that gives me the viewer the option to watch that network or not. I regularly watched the Sci-Fi Network, but when they dropped “Farscape” the best Sci-Fi series ever, I literally never watched that network again. That was opinion and so is whether or not Deen deserved to be fired. Opinion can always be argued but rarely resolved among two or more parties.
Au revoir to all of you on this thread and see you on another. It has been fun, but is now lapsing into tired derision, that really has little intellectual value.
Tony C:
“I am always skeptical of demands that I qualify what is obviously an opinion with “I think” or “IMO” or “I believe.” I do it to distinguish claims of fact from opinion, but I think it is obvious what I write IS just “what I think” or “my belief” when I am writing in the context of a dispute about that very thing.
If Juliet or I write that “Paula Deen is a racist” on a thread that is all about whether Paula Deen is in fact a racist, isn’t prefacing that statement with “I think” just a superfluous nicety? Not every comment in a conversation is intended to stand on its own merit in isolation.”
*****************
You’ve really outdone yourself with contradictory drivel.
Juliet in reply to mespo at 10:45 am:
“However, your response is exactly what I deserve for feeding trolls, especially trolls of the “I’m a lawyer, therefore I’m smarter than everyone who isn’t one” variety. Well played, sir, but you should be aware you’re quite predictable, as well.”
Juliet in reply to Gene at 11:11 am:
“I never called him [mespo] a troll. You should learn to read better, and I’ll work on my arguing. Deal?”
Gene reads quite well it seems. Juliet … er … misremembers. Facts seem to hurt her arguments, but she’s around for the long haul. This should be fun.
I am always skeptical of demands that I qualify what is obviously an opinion with “I think” or “IMO” or “I believe.” I do it to distinguish claims of fact from opinion, but I think it is obvious what I write IS just “what I think” or “my belief” when I am writing in the context of a dispute about that very thing.
If Juliet or I write that “Paula Deen is a racist” on a thread that is all about whether Paula Deen is in fact a racist, isn’t prefacing that statement with “I think” just a superfluous nicety? Not every comment in a conversation is intended to stand on its own merit in isolation.
“However, your response is exactly what I deserve for feeding trolls, especially trolls of the ‘I’m a lawyer, therefore I’m smarter than everyone who isn’t one’ variety.”
Maybe you should learn to write better, Juliet, in addition to learning to argue better.
There are several people of that variety, both on this thread and in my personal life. I did not call him a name, nor did I attack his person instead of an argument. I realize subtlety is often lost here, but you’ll just have to contend with that as part of the price for intelligent conversation.
However, calling someone’s comments idiotic is not any less of an ad hominem attack than is saying that person is an idiot. It’s still an attack on the person, instead of a refutation of the argument. Perhaps a refresher course in logic is in order for you.
Mike S:
“We won the debate a very long way up thread,….”
***********************
Debaters don’t decide debates; judges do. The readers can decide. Plus and regardless of the numbers, I’m happy to concede Gene’s article as the all-time comment attractor. It’s a great article.
Tony,
“[A]lthough I agree racism is a form of prejudice, racism is far worse in my mind than other forms of prejudice” is a form of special pleading. Is racism really worse than sexism or homophobia or religious persecution?
I never called him a troll. You should learn to read better, and I’ll work on my arguing. Deal?
Oh, he’s absolutely capable of handling you.
You’re just not likely to like how he does it.
As for ad hominem? “Troll” without a argument is an attack on his person, not his position.
It’s a fairly simple concept, really.
________________
Mike,
And dismissal can be a consequence of bad argument. You seem to have no problem with dismissing arguments you don’t like, so I suggest you look at what your house is made of before picking up another rock.
And I’ll start to worry about the crown when this reaches 1,800. If I lose it to Mark? There is no shame in losing to a worthy contender. Just gives me a goal to aim for.
“And dismissal can be a consequence of bad argument”
Gene,
Absolutely, and that has been the tenor of most of the arguments presented here by Mark, Bob and you. Look at the record objectively, if at this point that is possible for you three. You all have consistently used dismissal as a prime tactic and have used little evidence other that “we know better” to defend your position. As for the implication that I’m living in a “glass house”, perhaps but the truth is I’m capable of admitting I’m wrong publicly and on this thread at least Mark, Bob and you haven’t been able to give one inch though there is no logic to support the point you are making except a pronouncement of your superior logical wisdom. Gene, I don’t employ the terminology but my logic, Elaine’s logic, Tony’s logic and Blouise’s logic are equal to the logic of anyone here. They and I have all proved it time and again, without resorting to the tactic of blowing our own horns.
“But Mike we did! Maybe not logical but at least reasonable. See above.
There’s the win you’re looking for.”
Mark,
We won the debate a very long way up thread, now we’re just enjoying beating a dead horse and threatening Gene’s record. And I thought “What Makes a Good Law, What Makes a Bad Law” was guaranteed to attract comments. Even on the Turley Blog, celebrity defense and pile on seems to have great traction.
How much longer until this dead horse joins the previous record-holder at the glue factory, Mike? This is a good day for a flogging, as I’m somewhat confined to my iPad and feeling a tad feisty.
And I think Mespo is certainly capable of fighting his own battles with someone as insipid as I? Right?
Gene: You would have to be more specific for me to answer more specifically; but I think it is only a special pleading if I accept your definitions and framing, which I reject.
Shunning somebody on the content of their character and shunning them based on the color of their skin are two different things. I can see that for myself, but if you want a cite, Martin Luther King has mentioned it.
Nor do I accept your claim that I am prejudiced (because I made a decision based on reason), or that I rushed to judgment (because I believe there is overwhelming evidence of Paula Deen’s racism, in her casual use of the N-word as a derogatory term for African Americans.)
I do not claim I should be exempt from a punishment I think Paula Deen deserves; because I am not guilty of the casual denigration of a race; in general I do not claim an exemption from a rule without any reason for the exemption.
It is true that racism is a proper subset of prejudice [for readers, a ‘proper’ subset means the subset is not identical to the superset, i.e. the superset contains more than the subset], which means “prejudice” generalizes racism.
However, a claim that I should be consistent in punishing all prejudice identically to my punishment of racism is a logical fallacy. What is true of a subset is not necessarily true of its superset. For example, some birds can fly, but not all birds can fly. Non-flightless birds are a proper subset of birds, deserving of particular treatment that does not apply to all birds. For example, if one wishes to keep captive non-flightless birds (like penguins or ostriches) then a ten-foot tall open-top enclosure will suffice, but that treatment will not keep captive a flying bluejay.
Similarly, I believe a proper subset of criminals (certain types of violent criminals) should be incarcerated for life; that does not mean I believe all criminals should be incarcerated for life.
Racism is a proper subset of all possible prejudices. Treating Racism differently than prejudice is not a special pleading. To be a “special pleading” I have to claim there is an exception to a rule without providing any reason for the exception; I have to assert “Case A is different” without explaining Why.
I do not think I have claimed a rule in which all prejudice should be treated identically; if I have then I made a mistake, so point it out and I will recant that claim and correctly put the argument of which it was a part.
I believe my claim has been that there is a role in society for voluntarily executed social opprobrium, or shunning, or boycott. I think the law is not and cannot be air-tight, I see no way to outlaw racism and still preserve freedom of speech and thought, and I think the latter is of far more importance.
To me racism is essentially the result of fallacies, such as mistaking correlation for cause, parts for the whole, etc. That would merely be humorous if it did not have such negative (sometimes fatal) consequences; and what makes perpetuating and teaching those fallacies to the young are those consequences. We can do what we can to outlaw the most clear-cut of those consequences, like a discriminatory work environment, but that is not all of the consequences (for example, higher unemployment and rate of incarceration, more punitive sentencing, lower pay for the same work, less education due to greater poverty due to lessened earning power, etc).
I can’t outlaw fallacious thinking; which means even though I know racism is wrong, the best I can do in a free society is discourage the perpetuation of racism by using my freedoms of speech and market choice to impose consequences upon its expression.
That’s ad hominem and not a valid counter-argument. His response is what you deserved for making an insipid argument. Learn to argue better, Juliet. Or don’t. Your choice.
Please explain how that was ad hominem, Gene. I await, at your feet, for enlightenment. And, pray tell, who gets to decide what one “deserves” and what one doesn’t?
“You might consider that the very, very few plays begin just because you enter the scene.”
Ooooo. I like it.
You really need to learn the difference between ad hominem and insult, Juliet.
The Right to Free Speech comes with a guarantee that you’re going to feel insulted by something at some point. There’s a huge difference between saying “that’s an idiotic idea” and “you’re an idiot”. Many people cannot make the separation of self from assertion and are thus insulted when their assertions are challenged or rejected. Those people are known as “poor at argumentation”.
Just ask Bron. He gets it heavy all the time because many of the ideas he advances are those of a sociopath. Just because on has bad ideas doesn’t mean one is a bad person. It might, but usually it’s just a plain old bad idea. It used to upset him that his ideas were rejected. He would lash out and try to make things personal. He got over it. His argumentation is even improving. And it doesn’t mean we think he’s a sociopath. Well. Tony might, but by in large he’s now seen as just another productive member of the community.
We don’t suffer fools gladly around here. And if you think that’s the sole province of me and mespo, then you haven’t gotten the pleasure of being on Blouise’s bad side yet. Or Elaine’s for that matter.
You’ll either make it in the kitchen or you won’t.
Some prefer cooler climes.
______________
Smom,
Does she or does she not have training in how to argue and employ logic and legal reasoning? She better have at this point or she’s going to be in for a bumpy ride.
A martial artist may not think of themselves as a blocker or a kicker or a striker but that doesn’t mean they don’t have those skills and have trained to them.
Just because you’ve never heard it phrased that way or explicitly before doesn’t make it an incorrect observation.
Mike S:
“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. ”
**********************
But Mike we did! Maybe not logical but at least reasonable. See above.
There’s the win you’re looking for.
Juliet:
“I would suggest others ignore you both, when you’re blatantly trolling, like I do with Mespo.”
*************************
Ignore away but you can’t mistake the salutary effect the blog has on our newbie:
Let’s look at Juliet’s intellectual growth over the course of this argument from bomb throwing ideologue to more reasonable person. As you see the hammer blows of logic have caused her to “modify” her silly original thoughts into something approaching reasonable.
THEN:
6/23–8:01 am: “This wasn’t 50 years ago. Quit excusing racists.”
6/23 — 8:07 am: “No one said the earth will stop spinning, but that racist woman won’t have a show, anymore, and that’s good enough for me.”
6/25 9:45 pm: ” She’s a racist now, then and probably her whole life.”
NOW:
6/30 10:03 pm: 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.
By the way, Juliet, you’re undirected comment which I have assume was to me about not liking Obama and hence my sentiments is about as silly as the rest of your drivel. I voted for him twice, fund raised for him, and defended many of his policies on the blog — some of which I now regret.
You might consider that the very, very few plays begin just because you enter the scene.
I’m glad i could word things so you can grace me with your approval. i often have one or more of my toddlers crawling on me, so brevity is necessary for me. your nitpicking isn’t necessary. However, your response is exactly what I deserve for feeding trolls, especially trolls of the “I’m a lawyer, therefore I’m smarter than everyone who isn’t one” variety. Well played, sir, but you should be aware you’re quite predictable, as well.
I have no idea to what Obama comment you’re referring, but I wouldn’t automatically assume it was directed at you. I truly learned quickly not to bother responding to your “arguments.” And, furthermore, I’m no champion of our President. He’s a crushing disappointment. I just find it infuriating when people don’t like him based purely on race, when there are so many legitimate reasons to dislike him.
Gene, I have to run but this is the only place I have heard of attorneys referring to themselves as logicians and I know plenty of them .I asked my daughter about being a logician. She said “what”?