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
Elaine,
I thought I was pretty clear in stating that my goal was to get people to question the larger nature of prejudice as a whole.
*would be*
Gene,
“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.”
Then…maybe you, Bob, and mespo are wrong.
Some opinions are, however, based on knowledge.
From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Third Edition):
opinion
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert.
*****
“You are also still making the same error as Mike. You assume the goal of the argument in parallel was to vanquish.”
I have assumed no such thing. That’s your interpretation of the comments that I have made so far. What is the goal of your argument? To vanquish or just to convince me, Mike, and others that our logic is flawed, that we rushed to judgment on Paula Deen, and that we are prejudiced?
Tony,
Given the Penrose conjecture, I have two words for you: quantum printing.
Maybe not impossible (very maybe), but that would technology akin to magic by our current understanding of physics.
Tony,
We are dealing with language here. In the linguistic sense, logical form is “those aspects of semantic representation that are strictly determined by grammar, abstracted from other cognitive systems” by Chomsky. An Encyclopedia of Language, p. 70. By that definition, a grammatically correct form is an example of a logical form.
Bron: I think, probably, consciousness doesnt teleport well.
I think consciousness is an effect of brain operation; as long as the brain teleports and resumes its biological function without damage, consciousness will re-assert itself. As it does for me every morning. And as it does for patients coming out of deep anesthesia.
If teleportation requires destructive scanning, it might be best to momentarily dead for the read, and revived after the write.
Nal,
Do you really think this is a Bayesian situation? Using a statistical inference tool in an Aristotelian context is seriously the wrong tool for the job. And if we get on the topic of alternate forms of logic, we’ll be here until the next century. 😀
Gene: Perhaps the confusion lies in this statement: Something can, in fact, be formally logical and factually incorrect.
Which are your words. I do not consider something “logical” if it contains a fallacy. “formally” logical, to me, means following precise forms of logic, but it does not negate the need to be fallacy free.
Likewise, I suppose a statement can take the form of a syllogism and be considered form-ally correct, but I find that terminology evaluatively misleading even if descriptively correct; because the “formally” is unnecessary, either something is a syllogism or it isn’t. So yes, something can take the form of a logical argument while being bad logic. But I think your terminology implies a flaw in formal logic that doesn’t exist.
Bron,
Or we could all be a bad dream Elaine had after eating some questionable shellfish.
Never underestimate the power of seafood.
If you’d care to take a stab at showing that argument doesn’t contain a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion, I’d sure like to see it, Tony. Or are you going to redefine the basic form of a syllogism? I used it as an example precisely because the form is the only thing valid about it and I’ll even stipulate that it is so grammatically. But that is the point. Form may appear correct but be non-functional in operation.
Bob Esq:
you exist apart from Tony C’s abstraction of you.
You are real and do exist.
Now if you stepped into a teleportation system and were teleported to San Francisco there is a good chance this Bob Esq would not be the same Bob Esq who exited at Neptune’s Waterfront Grill and Bar.
I think, probably, consciousness doesnt teleport well.
“it was Bob saying it was deductively correct (it isn’t). But Gene, it is still formally bad logic, it is a fallacy.”
For the record, I was the one who equated formal logic with deduction.
tony c:
I’ll let you deduce the answer. Age is only a number.
You can thank yourself my solipsist overlord.
Don’t forget me!
Bron: The election of 2008 proves that assertion totally incorrect.
Which young and unskilled laborers are you talking about?
Gene H.:
When it comes to Bayesian Reasoning:
absence of evidence is always evidence of absence.
Bob: Why thank you Bob.
Gene: Is there some very specific reading impairment that makes you read the word “formally” as the word “deductively”?
As I said, I was responding to Bob.
Also as I said, formally NOT correct; using a fallacy is not “formally correct.”
Grammatically correct, perhaps, but your example is not an example of “formally correct” logic. I associate the “correct” in that term with “logic,” fallacious logic is not correct.
Tony C:
“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.”
The election of 2008 proves that assertion totally incorrect.
Nick: Tony, For the record, it’s Mike Spindell, not Spinelli.
yeah, I was typing fast. Sorry to both.