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
That’s the whole trick Bron, he’s just making it up as he goes along; like an 8th grader faking his way though a book report for a book he never read.
Thank you Carnac the Magnificent .
“my philosophy is a coherent collection of individual arguments I find self-evident or compelling;”
Said the solipsist; who then went on to argue that the square root of negative one is now a real number and then went on to discuss how he figured out how to divide by zero.
tony c:
so what is the basis of your philosophy of life? you should be able to articulate it in a sentence or 2.
Bob says: But alas, you know better; don’t you?
I think differently, and justify my positions differently, and I think it is better, whether you do or not. I reject some of Aristotle’s logic because it has holes in it, assumptions which are not true or consistent. For the same reason I reject Rousseau’s logic, it is inconsistent and over the top, as I have demonstrated in this forum before.
Unlike you, I have no reverence for any philosophers, just as you have no reverence for those philosophers with whom you disagree. I just revere fewer than you. Instead my philosophy is a coherent collection of individual arguments I find self-evident or compelling; because I am mentally capable and emotionally stable enough that I do not need to peek out from behind Aristotle to justify my belief system.
********
It is not me missing the point, it is you. Morality is not about “Choice and free will” because Morality can exclude choice and free will. Yes, it may be a “choice” to act morally or immorally, but that is not what Morality is about: What is moral or immoral is not a choice of the individual.
This is also about you missing the transition; from law to “The same [majority rule] theory applies to Morality, a different topic from law.
What is “moral” is purely a matter of our collective judgment. At one extreme we encode it in law, which is why I led with that, to illustrated that even in the extreme it is up to a super-majority. But the same principle of majority determination still applies to cultural rules and assessments of morality that do not reach the extreme of warranting law, or which would contradict other laws the majority does not want contradicted (like freedom of speech).
You’ve missed the point that these are similar. Perhaps that is my fault for not writing to a fifth-grade level. My sympathies for your lack of reading comprehension.
1000 and counting!
(I don’t see my remark made earlier, maybe I am missing it) Maybe her giving money to “Black” causes was simply a function of a reaction formation and actually more proof of her racism (?)
What if Paula Deen focused all her charitable activities towards rescuing dogs from being destroyed in animal shelters; buying and running a farm dedicated to providing a furever home for all those forsaken dogs?
Moral or immoral?
Nal: “That’s what morality does, it obligates.
I have defined morality as a code of values and my reasoning as to why I think racism violates those values.”
I asked you to justify your position.
Allow me to reiterate from my last post to Tony:
Accordingly, when I ask “by what moral authority can you claim that said person can be used as a means to an end in fulfillment of your political goal?” I’m asking by what reasoning are you forcing your proposed moral obligation on the individual; and how are you doing it without using said person as a means to an end?
So when Nal said “Those in a position of privilege have an extra responsibility to reflect the values of our egalitarian society.” I asked him to justify his assertion. There is no law, that I know of, supporting his position. Accordingly, what is his ethical/moral argument; i.e. by what moral authority is he making his assertion. Is it immoral for a person to exercise their free will to do something else with their wealth than promote Nal’s particular political agenda? No. So where’s the (moral) obligation?
General pronouncements as to what you think morality is and how racism is immoral is non-responsive.
Tony: “By the same moral authority that obligates anybody in society to act within the bounds of behavior set by that society, the same moral authority that lets a society impose obligations on its citizens, from routine taxes to potentially lethal military service.”
Baby steps. There are two grounds of obligation. All duties are either juridical duties or ethical/moral duties. Juridical duties are legal duties that may be promulgated by external legislation; ethical/moral duties are those for which such legislation is not possible.
Accordingly, when I ask “by what moral authority can you claim that said person can be used as a means to an end in fulfillment of your political goal?” I’m asking by what reasoning are you forcing your proposed moral obligation on the individual; and how are you doing it without using said person as a means to an end?
So when Nal said “Those in a position of privilege have an extra responsibility to reflect the values of our egalitarian society.” I asked him to justify his assertion. There is no law, that I know of, supporting his position. Accordingly, what is his ethical/moral argument; i.e. by what moral authority is he making his assertion. Is it immoral for a person to exercise their free will to do something else with their wealth than promote Nal’s particular political agenda? No. So where’s the (moral) obligation?
Your response focused solely on juridical duty; as here:
Tony: “That authority is the will of the people, typically as discerned by some majority or super-majority, which is how we do it here in America: As much as idealists might wish otherwise, the entire Constitution and every law of the land is technically up to a super-majority vote of citizens, indirectly but inevitably. Nothing is sacrosanct. If 75% of citizens were agitated enough, for long enough, the entire Bill of Rights could be repealed. It continues to exist because that is our collective will.”
Correct but irrelevant. I informed Nal he could make his obligation legal by installing a socialist or communist government.
Tony: “The same theory applies to Nal’s claim, “Those in a position of privilege have an extra responsibility to reflect the values of our egalitarian society.” It is Nal’s right to take that position and act upon it within the law. He needs no moral authority other than his own conscience to take action within the law.”
See how you completely missed the point??
Tony: Bob says: Morality is about choice and free will; …” No it isn’t. If that were true, rich autocratic dictators would be moral; they have the most choice and free will of anybody. But aren’t they the least moral because they deny choice and free will to so many others?”
I see, so morality has little to do with the quality of choice per the exercise of our free will and everything to do with the quantity and power of said choice? Quantitative over qualitative in a discipline dedicated to such questions as “what is quality?” You are a riot Norton.
Tony: “Under that frame, racist white supremacists are the least moral, because their prejudice is to deny choice and free will, exercised to the extent they are able, to a majority of the world’s population.”
Glimmer of hope, but you followed with this:
Tony: “But I think “choice and free will” is a flawed place to start for morality. Don’t some moral behaviors require a person to exercise self-restraint? Isn’t that a brake on “choice” and “free will”?
No, that’s an exercise of the will.
“The classical treatment of the ethical importance of will is to be found in the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, in Books III (chapters 1-5), and Book VII (chapters 1-10). These discussions have been a major influence in the development of ethical and legal thinking in western civilization.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_%28philosophy%29
But alas, you know better; don’t you?
Tony: “For example I think it is normal human nature to covet, but it is our sense of morality that prevents us from stealing objects left unguarded, even if we know we could get away with the theft.”
No, that’s you exercising your will to act in an ethical manner. That’s you, choosing virtue over vice.
Tony: “Putting aside … morality is a demand for self-restraint, fairness, and often a self-imposed loss to effect a greater gain for others.”
Among other things, yes. But how does it not begin with choice and free will? Your argument; not mine.
Tony: “For an example of the final point, I think Snowden’s revelation of NSA secrets was driven by his feeling of moral obligation to reveal the truth, even though that would personally cost him dearly.”
And that is an example of what? How does it support your original assertion that morality has nothing to do with choice and free will?
Tony: “A second example would be a soldier choosing to risk their own life to save a fellow soldier from certain death. Such choices are driven by a feeling of moral obligation; that it is the right thing to do, regardless of the personal consequences.”
Sure, that’s a moral decision. But what is your example supposedly supporting?
Finally Tony, Mike S. has already expressed his disdain for anything philosophical and confesses his ignorance of the subject. Accordingly, you’d be better off seeking advice from a monkey throwing its own feces at the subject.
mespo:
I disagree 100%, morality should have as its purpose the promotion of individual human life and not in some other realm but on earth.
The Aztecs were the same sort of savages as the Spanish priests.
I dont get it, 51% cannot say that 49% has to die.
Morality is simply the ruling consensus of society attempting to promote good (happiness) and discourage bad (unhappiness) with rules. It has never been an objective philosophy in any meaningful way and where common principles exist they merely spring from our human intuitions as social animals. For example, the ban on murder seems to be a common feature of human morality. Saying anything more is mere supposition contrary to the historical record. The Aztecs thought themselves quite moral conducting human sacrifice; as did all the participants of the Inquisition except maybe the victims. The Victorians thought themselves very moral in publicly requiring young men and women to to remain apart sexually until the wedding day. To most modern day Americans homosexuality has lost its moral umbridge; fifty years ago it was the moral scourge of society.
Morality changes and evolves with the society it serves. That’s the very definition of subjectivity. It’s like all human rules of conduct: we make ’em; we keep ’em; we break ’em; we benefit; or we suffer.
Devolving and descending toward 1000 comments.
Bron: As I told him, derision is not an argument. Neither is assertion; and to the extent Bob agrees with your Aynish belief system you are both dictatorial; as a tiny minority in your beliefs you would restrict the actions of a super majority without their consent or vote and forever prohibit them from a wide swath of laws.
The Aynish are no better than fascists or Communists, they simply do not believe in Majority Rule or Democracy, because the truth is the majority of people really do believe corporations have to be regulated or, as they have proven time and again, they will engage in predatory, coercive, immoral, deceptive acts in the name of profit.
Bob, Esq.:
That’s what morality does, it obligates.
I have defined morality as a code of values and my reasoning as to why I think racism violates those values. In an egalitarian society those values are manifest.
Mike S, Thanks for your statement and enjoy your vacation. 🙂
Mike S: Thanks.
tony c:
“Bob: And only in your ad hominem, authoritarian world does your insult count as a refutation of the logic I provide for my position.”
Bob, Esq is so far from being an authoritarian, a totalitarian or dictator, it is beyond laughable for you to say that. Bob is the most freedom loving person on this blog and he understands the nature of and necessity for human liberty and he understands logic.
Paula Deen Accuser Speaks Out: This Was Never About the N-Word
By Tony Maglio
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/paula-deen-accuser-speaks-never-n-word-195925844.html
Excerpt:
The woman who set the Paula Deen racial scandal into motion has spoken out for the first time since it broke last month, telling CNN that her lawsuit “has never been about the N-word.”
Lisa Jackson, former manager at one of the celebrity chef’s restaurants in Georgia, provided the statement to CNN through her lawyer, Matthew Billips. She is suing Deen and her brother, Bubba Hier, alleging they committed numerous acts of violence, discrimination and racism that resulted in the end of her five-year employment at Lady & Sons and Bubba’s Seafood and Oyster House restaurants.
Jackson said that the lawsuit was intended “to address Ms. Deen’s patterns of disrespect and degradation of people that she deems to be inferior.”
“I may be a white woman, but I could no longer tolerate her abuse of power as a business owner, nor her condonation of Mr. Hier’s despicable behavior on a day-to-day basis,” the statement provided to CNN’s Don Lemon continued. “I am what I am, and I am a human being that cares about all races, and that is why I feel it is important to be the voice for those who are too afraid to use theirs.”
Bob: And only in your ad hominem, authoritarian world does your insult count as a refutation of the logic I provide for my position. Laughing at my position does not refute it, claiming I am lost does not make me lost, derision is not an argument. Such tactics are for those without any logic of their own, for those that can only parrot others and insist they are right, for those whose strongest argument is stamping their foot.
Obviously I do distinguish between moral and legal; I do not claim all that is legal is moral, or vice versa.
My claim is a logical claim: If “moral” acts do not include “all” acts that one can choose of their own free will, then morality restricts choice and free will, therefore choice and free will are the wrong place to start.
If I subscribe to an argument of Aristotle, I will use it. But Aristotle was just a man, not a god, and not inherently right, as is every other philosopher since. The arguments are all that count, not their antiquity or origin or the fame of their framer. If you have an argument, borrowed or otherwise, put it forth. Lacking that evidence of rational understanding I will presume you have nothing but your emotionalism and mistaken reverence for ideas you embrace without really understanding. But freedom of unreasoned belief is your right, so carry on.