Monday, July 1, 2013
Paula Deen and the Corporations: I Don't Get It
By Tom Kando
The corporate frenzy to dump Paula Deen has been mesmerizing - and upsetting.
One way to look at the Paula Deen scandal is socio-linguistically: language is culture. Deen used the N word. What meaning she attached to it when she used it, we’ll never know. African Americans also use the N word sometimes - towards each other, in jest, in rap music, etc. We can assume that the meanings attached to the N word by Paula Deen and by black rappers differ. But I’ll talk about this in my next post. Today, I want to discuss the abhorrent politics of this flap:
I don’t get it. By now, the dumping is almost unanimous. First to go was her show on TV’s Food Network, soon followed by all the big ones - Wal-Mart, Caesar’s, Smithfield Food, Novo Nordisk, Home Depot, Sears, K-Mart, Walgreens, Target, etc. Then, even her publishers (Random House) dropped her, as did Amazon, without whom it’s almost impossible to retail books online. A few obscure, regional companies have yet to join the stampede, but it is, as I said, practically unanimous. Some of her competitors, like chef Anthony Bourdain, are also piling on, no doubt salivating at the prospect of picking up the pieces.
The media? By and large, they have just been reporting the events. Fox is so much in the knee-jerk habit of blaming “the liberal media” for everything that it blames them for trying to lynch Paula Deen. I don’t see that. Matt Lauer’s interview was very fair. Whether on the left (MSNBC, Huffington Post), on the right (Fox), or in the middle (ABC’s The View), the media have been largely reporting the Paula Deen case, rather than condemning either side.
The public’s reaction has been different: the groundswell is clearly behind Paula, more than against her. Not just among Southern whites and conservatives. African-Americans also appear sympathetic to her - both average Joe’s interviewed on the street and leaders such as Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson.
But it is the corporate response which is the most puzzling. Terms such as “piling on,” and “herd-like behavior” come to mind.
I find it strange when Wal-Mart, Caesar’s Palace, Home Depot, Amazon and pharmaceutical conglomerates become America’s moral compass, America’s conscience. We now have companies such as Wal-Mart as our moral beacon, ready to help us navigate the racial and ethical issues raised by Paula Deen’s inappropriate utterances, ready to teach us about the evils of racism, bigotry, discrimination and injustice. Companies which would pay American workers Third World wages, would rape the environment, and would outlaw unions. Bravely, they destroy a 66-year woman, a self-made entrepreneur who managed to build a modest business ($16 million, wooptido) through incredible effort and talent.
My sarcasm is obvious, and you say: It’s all about money. Business is about business. The companies fear losing customers, so they dump Paula. Simple and easy explanation. Except it’s wrong. Public opinion is heavily tilted towards Deen. Outside her restaurants, people are lining up around the corner. Her book sales were up 1000% - until Amazon stopped selling them and Random House canceled her contracts.
So it must be the companies’ moral conscience and idealism after all. Or am I missing something? Somebody please help me understand. leave comment here
13 comments:
The corporations do care about the money. They know that the liberals, although in the minority on this issue (and many others, such as homosexual rights) are fully prepared to hold mass sitins, store blockades, boycotts, etc,, that would hurt their businesses financially. Although those who support Deen are in the majority, the corporations know the majority are passive, and will seldom "go to the streets' in support of their point of view. Consequently, the sentiment of the majority supporting Deen is irrelevant to the corporations.
The problem I have about this nonsense is a) it is not a scandal except as the leftist a that try to maintain political correctness have tried to make it so. Dean was being honest. No American Black or White has not used the """"N""""" word. By not using a disgusting word just who are we protecting? The same people who refuse to use the """"n""""" word feel free to use the "f" word with gay abandon. B) liberals caused this problem by debasing the language and by thinking that anyone who disagrees with their perspective is somehow illegitimate.
I appreciate the comments by anonymous and by Jonathan, even though I am not sure I agree with their analyses.
The Paula Deen incident is very real. A significant business woman is being destroyed, and as we watch this spectacle, the inescapable question is: is this just, or is it a crucifixion (in Ann Rice’s words, in the Los Angeles Times)?
Mon ami Tom,
The treatment of Paula Deen by the big interstate "cartels" is outrageous.
However, Martha Stewart was incarcerated while those who "mismanaged" billions of other people's money have gone free.
Millions of Americans demand that the giant corporations let Paula off the cross. The wood can be used for a good purpose.
I agree fully with Tom W.
Tom, I agree with you that the corporations have been unethical in all this, but for different reasons having nothing to do with the silly arguments liberals use about the evils of capitalist business. In fact, today, big business is clearly in bed with the literals, not the conservatives. That's why they hold sensitivity training for their employees, welcome illegal immigrants, and the list goes on and on. If they had sided with Deen, the media, big education, the democratic party and the Obama Administration would have a field day in calling them racist, and urging boycotts of their businesses. In short, all these forces would have engaged in a shake down. Much easier for the businesses to slam Deen, because for all the talk conservatives do about supporting Deen, they are not about to stop shopping at Walmart and the other businesses, and Walmart knows that. All this has nothing to do with the boogeymen of liberal paranoia. It has to do with the power of liberalism, in all its forms, to destroy anyone who refuses to be politically correct.
I AM UTTERLY MYSTIFIED HOW SO MANY SEEMINGLY SMART BUSINESS PEOPLE DON'T JUST STAND UP AND REFUTE THIS TYPE OF
NONSENSE, IN AN OUTRIGHT WAY AND GET ON WITH MORE INTELLIGENT USE OF OUR TIME AND ENERGY.WHY DO SO MANY OF US SEEM TO BE CATERING TO THE LUNATIC FRINGE RATHER LETS DIRECT OUR EFFORTS TO SOLVE SOME OF THE WORLDS REAL ISSUES. AS AN EXAMPLE LET'S RESOLVE TO HELP ELIMINATE HUNGER IN OUR WORLD INSTEAD!.
It is critical to the survival of the Democratic Party that they continue to play the race card, especially the narrative that life for Blacks in America is not much better than prior to the Civil Rights Movement. The Blacks are victims, and their savior is the Democrats and liberal policies. So they feign sympathy with Blacks by this silly concentration on offensive words, which serves to distract attention away from the real problems facing the Black community: horrible public schools, crime plaguing their communities, and fatherless families, all the results of liberal philosophy and policies.
Anonymous #2 and #4 can’t get away from their contorted paradigm. No matter what happens, it is the fault of liberals, of the media, the universities, and Obama. “Big business is now in bed with the liberals.” Their logic is tautological: “Liberal” means whatever they don’t like. To them, it’s all about labels. They think that saying “you are a liberal” is an argument.
Take Anonymous #4: Are blacks still victims in America? He would judge people on the basis of their answer to this question: If you say yes, you are called a liberal, and therefore bad.
But the question should be whether or not the statement is true. Considering the facts that black per capita income is about half that of whites, and blacks’ net worth is one tenth of whites, it is reasonable to say that African-Americans have by no means achieved equality, i.e. are still victims.
In America, ethnicity is the proxy for social class. When we want to talk about inequality, we talk about race. But the correlation between race and social class is very strong, so this’ll have to do. Whichever way you look at it, American inequality is enormous, and getting worse.
Instead of fighting over labels, you should fight over policies. I don't win an argument by just calling you "conservative," do I?
I favor progressive (a better word than “liberal”) policies because I firmly believe that they are needed to make America stronger, more prosperous, more equal, in sum better. Call me whatever you wish. But do not for a moment believe that you win an argument by saying: “Kando is a liberal,” or “Obama is a socialist.” That is meaningless.
Tom- As to your comment - “Kando is a liberal,” or “Obama is a socialist.” That is meaningless. I agree completely. I disagree with many of your policy proposals and indeed with most of what the President has proposed. But I try to get to substance. That is part of the fun of this blog.
Tom,
Please add "Like" and "Unlike" buttons to your blog comments so that I can vote "Like" for Jonathon's comments and "Unlike" for yours. Also when are you going to post something on Zimmerman/Martin so that we can get the red meat juices going?
bravely spoken, anonymous!
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!