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
When you start spouting expertise about how trials work, how judges react, etc, that opens it up to cross examination. Anyone who has ever worked a trial knows that. You once showed your COMPLETE ignorance and disdain about PI’s prepping witnesses for trial. Something I, and any PI who works litigation, has done on a routine basis. You said that “would never happen.”In a perfect world, I interview the witness, then when the trial comes up, I sit down w/ the witness and attorney and we prep them. I’m a good team player, had to be to be successful. But, as we all know it’s not a perfect world, particularly in criminal prosecutions. I would say I prepped probably half the witnesses maybe more, just introducing them to the prosecutor as they walked into the courtroom. The Public Defender PI’s and attorneys were pretty much the same in that regard. In civil trials the stakes of the case determined the prep. I estimate I would prep ~20% of the witnesses[after interviewing them previously, of course]. However, large malpractice, wrongful death, etc., almost w/o exception the attorney would do the prep, sometimes w/ me, sometimes solo. They would ask my opinion if me being there would add anything. If I thought so, I would say yes, and vice versa. My clients knew I was really honest. A lot of ham n’ eggers would always say they should be there to bill time. I was in the different category, I was working 80 weeks and my honesty was called upon to say “yes I should be there,” knowing I had a million other things to do and would love to say “no.” You made your grossly uninformed comment about prepping witnesses early in out discussions here, that told me a lot.
I am not one bit obsessed about your personal life and asking your trial experience would fit into the category of professional life, Something virtually everyone here speaks about freely. I KNOW you’re not CIA!
Juliet,
There is a tactic – the mask of anger (often a form of hyperbole, but not always) – and then there is actual anger. Most here are pretty adept at distinguishing the two as both have distinctive (but sometimes subtle) differences in the patterns which they present. One of those differences is the mask of anger is almost always aimed at topic and/or circumstance. Actual anger is almost always directed at people, not their statements. hat being said, this is communication by artifice. As such it is even more prone to misinterpretations as it has none of the auditory or visual ques we all rely on in direct communication (which is in itself still imperfect). The truth is that no human is ever certain of anothers emotional state, but as social creatures, we are as a whole pretty good at reading them. And as you note, you’re new and still learning your way around. There’s a lot of shared history going on here that isn’t going to be readily apparent to you. Some you’ll pick up along the way, some not, but it does inform dialogue as such shared history always does.
Fair enough, Gene.
Juliet N, Firstly, thank you for you service. The “gentle nudging” was exactly the way ID dealt w/ me. It’s my preferred way of dealing w/ people. And, that’s why I did well as a PI, you get more w/ sugar than vinegar.
nick,
Ever hear of the word “confidentiality”? You’ve always had this bizarre fascination with the details of my life. You better just get used to the idea that you’re not going to get all of them and that the decisions as to which ones you get are up to me.
And I don’t denigrate the profession of P.I.s., nick. I never said there was anything wrong with your profession. Calm down.
You could keep up on your ad hominem rage and whining about getting your nose tweaked to prove a point about rules having consequences or you could learn the lesson already. We’re all pulling for you to put your anger aside. But it is your choice.
Past jibes aside, may I just remark — as an outsider who really knows nothing about any of you — that many of you seem to read anger into posts which may or may not be angry. It is easy to mistake passion for ire on the inner tubes.
Just a thought.
Ever tried a case? How many? I’ve worked on thousands of trials, both civil and criminal. You love to denigrate my being a PI. Ask any litigator about the value of PI’s. They sometimes win the case. They also sometimes lose the case, but they don’t last 3 years, much less the 30 years I did. Any litigator will tell you that..ANY LITIGATOR!
Juliet N., look @ the comment from Gene @ 2:20, of which I don’t have a clue to what he’s referring, as an example of what you’ll have to deal w/ as long ass someone doesn’t step up and deal w/ him. He arbitrarily deleted my comments trying to “teach me the rules.” It may happen again. He’s agitated. He’s being challenged by many people but I’m his nemesis. You see, control freaks and I are like oil and water.
nick,
And what makes you qualified to evaluate that? Your P.I. license?
Any attorney not well equipped with logic and legal reasoning is going to be trounced in court. Why? Because the other side is (ideally) doing the same thing you are: making every argument from every possible position before deciding on tactics before the judge and/or jury. If you ever want to see an attorney get in trouble with a judge? Watch one make an ipse dixit argument and see how long they retain the seat of their pants. I saw that happen once. It wasn’t pretty. One of those things that made all the other attorneys in the courtroom utter “daaaaaamn” under the breaths.
I have always clicked best w/ Northwestern Law School grads. I don’t know why. Harvard attorneys can kiss my ass right downtown. No personal offense to any Crimson barristers here..I’m sure you’re the exception.
Mike,
Depends. Do you really want to start off with the false equivalence that all educations and all students are of equal quality?
_____________
nick,
It has been made abundantly clear that whether you stay or not is your choice. As is following or refusing to follow the rules, one of which may result in choice being removed vis a vis staying. Both choices have consequences. We’re all hoping you still make the right ones.
Saying “going to law school” is like saying “going to a ballgame.” There are Little League to MLB. All law schools are different. I’ve worked w/ rookie attorneys from @ least 30-40 different law schools. I never saw any “trained logicians” I just saw young men/women struggling to be a real attorney, not a law school student. They are night and day. Some schools were much more practical training grounds, others a blend of practical and theory, some just theory.
JulietN, There was a wise old man who was know as Idealist. He was a frequent commenter from Sweden, although American born and raised. ID, as he was known was an iconoclast. many condescended to him here. He recently died and you can read the comments of sorrow in the archives if you care to, they’re about a week or so ago. When I first got here I butted heads w/ the folks. Some here see themselves elevated above the common commenters. They’ll deny it but I can see you’re sharp enough to pick them out. What ID did for me, and many people here, is welcome them. So, allow me to welcome you and I truly hope you stay. You got the toughness I love in a woman. My mother was tough, my sisters are/were tough, my daughter is tough and so is my wife. No coincidences there.
At one time I’ve butted heads w/ just about everyone here. I didn’t come here to make friends..got plently. I came here to discuss interesting topics and this is the right place. You’ve already experienced the Sgt @ Arms rule master. I’ll just leave it @ that. Mespo[Mark] is someone I have come to respect. If you stick around I believe you’ll come to that same conclusion. New folks are not hardly ever welcomed here, I’ve taken that over from the dearly departed ID. There’s a pecking order here no matter how much some will deny it. I can see in your toughness you don’t buy pecking orders. Bravo! There are not enough women here and virtually no minorities. ID helped me navigate through this jungle, and I will be happy to do the same. Make no mistake, we probably will butt heads if you hopefully stay. ID and I did a few times. I’ve been called “mean spirited,” “ass kisser” [incredibly by the same person], a liar, sexist, homophobe, stupid. and others too many to mention. Oddly enough, many of the invective by the same people who use the ad hominem meme as often as they use the word “the.” Juliet, you’re a tough woman and may not need any help. I just don’t want you driven off as so many people have been.
Thank you, Nick. That was very kind of you. I did read the tribute and comments about your friend. I’m so sorry for your loss and, given the circumstances, mine.
I’m sure we’ll all butt heads and, to me, it’s all in good fun. I’m semi housebound, so this is what passes for my social life. I have an extraordinarily thick hide — life, love and a stint in the Army — so it truly takes a master to insult me, properly.
That being said, I’m happy to explain if I’ve been unclear. I’m also happy to retract if I’ve been wrong, and to apologize if I’ve been undeservedly rude. Prompts to that end need not be with a caning to the backside. A gentle nudge to the arm will work much better.
That’s the beauty of mastery. It looks like work but isn’t.
You’re adorable when you try so hard.
So are you, sweet pea. 🙂
nick,
If it’s like most of Elaine’s family gatherings, it’s only going to make you hungry. You should have heard about her daughter’s wedding reception. It makes me hungry just writing about it.
Elaine, Hope you had a nice family reunion. The food, I always need to know the food.
Mike,
You neglect one thing: because I dismissed Juliet does not mean I dismissed the others. You’re also still stuck on the paradigm that “my victory” requires “your side” to “lose”. Argument in parallel doesn’t always work that way. I was arguing to a different point than you were. That is was a point that makes the commonly held position “on your side” on Deen vis a vis racism uncomfortable or seeming at odds with an otherwise perfectly valid point is not a point aimed at your shape of victory.
____________
Elaine,
You’ll notice that here there is often disparity of opinion on all manner of things, including SCOTUS decisions. Opinions, however, are neither logic nor fact simply be merit of being opinions. Neither are all wrong nor all right.
I never asserted universal correctness. Something can, in fact, be formally logical and factually incorrect. Consider:
All UFOs are beige.
All telephones are beige.
Therefore all telephones are UFOs.
Formally logical. Factual nonsense. Or to paraphrase Ian Ketterling, “Logic is a system in which you can go wrong with certainty.” It’s a tool. Not all users – as you note – use the tool with equal skill or to equal results. You can build a house with a hammer. You can also build picture frame, break rocks with it or use it as a paperweight.
You are also still making the same error as Mike. You assume the goal of the argument in parallel was to vanquish. It wasn’t. It was to make “your side” and the audience consider the issue of prejudice in a different light. The goal was prompt thought, not change minds, because as noted by extension, no one expressing prejudice has ever come to the conclusion it was wrong by being told it was wrong. They need to do the math themselves. Changing your opinion was not and is not my goal. Getting you to examine them is though.
I think it worked pretty well.
Except for Mike. 😀
______________
Tony,
No one was questioning your opinion. The absolutist nature of your statement was questioned though which as were several other statements made by you re-qualified after making them. And still, the question remains vis a vis special pleading:
“[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?
______________
Mark,
In re: Equine Height
Shoot low, Sheriff. They may be riding Shetlands.
“Shoot low, Sheriff. They may be riding Shetlands”
Be careful about shooting too low, Mark. You might hit your buddy, by accident.
Gene,
“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.”
*****
One trained in logic may have a broader skill set than those who lack that training. That doesn’t mean that the trained logicians are always right…always take the correct position on issues…are able to convince those who are not logicians of the errors in their thinking.
The justices of the Supreme Court are all trained logicians. Yet, all nine rarely come to a unanimous decision when ruling on cases. Just because people are trained logicians–it doesn’t mean they will all reach the same opinion/position on a subject.
Mark: You’ve really outdone yourself with contradictory drivel.
Don’t worry, you are still the champ.
Mark or Gene: Hm, I posted something a few minutes ago that hasn’t not yet appeared; but other comments have. Can you check if I got caught in a filter?
Oh, and I’m not arguing with Deen. Therefore, no ad hominem. What law school did you attend? I’m unimpressed.