Posted on 06/21/2013 2:06:31 PM PDT by drewh
Celebrity chef Paula Deen was today sacked from her job at the Food Network despite begging the public for forgiveness over her past use of racial slurs in a heavily-edited video apology.
A Food Network spokesman issued this statement today: 'Food Network will not renew Paula Deen's contract when it expires at the end of this month.' It came just hours after she released the 45-second video in which she says: 'I want to apologize to everybody for the wrong I have done. I want to learn and grow from this.
'Inappropriate, hurtful language is totally, totally unacceptable. I have made plenty of mistakes along the way but I beg you, my children, my fans, my team, my partners, I beg for your forgiveness. 'Please forgive me for the mistakes that I've made.'
The 66-year-old was due to appear on the Today show this morning to to answer questions from Matt Lauer about the racial slurs - but she pulled out just before the show started. Later that day she announced on her Twitter page that she would be releasing a video statement soon. After the initial video was released another, longer one was then posted on YouTube and was taken down soon after.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
She did say that MO te a lot, all the time, during breaks etc. I assumed part of the uproar over her “racist” remarks was because of this.
Hey, First Lady cook your books, your looks and your knowledge of who’s supposedly the President of the United States of America. Grow a garden, tell us how to eat, and vacation at Our expense- just, leave Paula Deen on our side of your plantation.
This is an awful thing. Someone tells the truth, and they are punished for it. That is my takeaway.
Tonight after seeing your discussion of early slavery in Connecticut and Virginia, I thought I would look up slavery in New York. Here is what I found (caution, it is from Wikipedia). See: Link
Slavery in New York began when the Dutch West India Company imported 11 African slaves to New Amsterdam in 1626, with the first slave auction being held in New Amsterdam in 1655. ...
I found mention in the Wikipedia article of the Dutch West India Company which imported slaves to New York and mentioned the company's stations in Angola.
While the majority of shipments went to the Dutch colonies in the Caribbean, a number of slaves were not imported directly from the company's stations in Angola to New Netherlands to clear the forests, lay the roads, and provide other public services to the colony.
By the way, the John Casor legal case in Virginia that declared him in servitude for the rest of his life was in 1655. Slavery of Africans in New York/New Amsterdam had been practices since 1626. I would not be surprised, however, if there were slaves in Virginia earlier than Casor.
Liberal or not, she told the truth and got fired. No a person in this country that has not said the same thing. Blacks call each other that word all the time. It’s a bad of honor for them. Da be tinking it be cool.
I despise PC feel-gooders. They make me sick to my stomach
I also despise the Jesse Jackson-coined phrase “African-American”. What in the hell is wrong with calling yourself an American? Most blacks have been in this country a hell a hell of alot longer than my Scottish family and I damn sure don’t call myself a “scottish-american”. Show me in the Constitution where it says no one can use that particular word to describe someone with black skin, green skin, white skin? A word is a word. This is a free country. OK for blacks to say it every other word out of their mouths, but not white people? I don’t play that crap. You don’t want to be an American get the hell out of the country and make room for someone that wants to be a American. Saying the word negro would have even gotten her fired. That term, with the correct term for any person of african decent, is also a baaaaaaaaaaaaad word. Colored?? Forgot about. You must bow down to them and call them “African-American” or have your life ruined. Liberalism is a mental disease.
If Lincoln were alive today he would be the Grand Dragon of the KKK. He has to be the most racist of all presidents. He wanted to ship them all back to Africa, said many times that the black man was inferior to the white man. But the great Lincoln is now the great hero to all democrats and RINOs. I just wish the South had not ran out of men to fight the war. A Southern victory and the murdering Lincoln would have been hanged from the highest tree, with the psychopath Sherman right beside him.
Years ago before WWII we lived in a very ethnic diverse neighborhood. The children all had their own call out for the different nationalities and no doubt were influenced by parents talk. My brother and I being of Russian parents were often referred to as Bolsheviks. There were names for Jews, for Portuguese, especially for Germans, for Africans, for Italians, for Pollocks, for Mexicans. The most frequent for Scandinavians was ‘dumb’. As I recall the children didn’t think about the nicknames. When the time came we all went to WWII with good memories of our childhood activities without regret or rancor.
“[Michelle Obama] probably ate more than any other guest I ever had on the show! She kept eating even during commercials. Know what [the Obamas’] favorite foods are? Hot wings.”
Well, it was racist of her to point that out!/s;)
Who does she think she is - Mel Brooks?
Long before Johnson owned a slave, the original "nigars" we repurchased and owned by someone (as far as I know we don't know whom), but we do know that in VA they did not have political rights, and in 1638 there was a slave auction in VA---to my knowledge no "indentured servant" auction ever occurred, because indentures were not regarded under English (borrowing from Roman) law defined as "movable property" as were VA slaves. So it is clear that at least in some (I would say, most) cases, "nigars" arrived with the presumption of servitude. Again, treatment gives clues as to STATUS, butt not PRACTICE. That is, any freeman at any time prior to the institutionalization of slavery in the mid1600s could free EITHER a slave or indenture. Some did, many did not.
iIn 1640, a slave was branded according to VA legal records. This did NOT occur with free men who had voluntarily signed indenture contracts. It is true that terms of indenture could be extended for a variety of reasons, sometimes effectively for life. But even then indentures were not viewed as disposable property. Indentures were NOT routinely chained, ESP. After arrival at destination. (Again, you can find exceptions for criminals placed into indenture in lieu of jail---but even these had time limits on their service.)
Someone bought and owned the 1619 "nigars" and someone bought "slaves" (all black) in 1638. Laws differed by colony---we have a black man apparently srvng in the MD legislature in 1640 or so.
In short, anyone thinking Johnson represented typical status of most blacks in the south prior to 1650 is making a serious mistake. There were actual blacks TREATED as indentures---but to my knowledge none ever signed a contract, nor were the signatures (or witness testimony) of black indentures ever recognized (whites were), but the majority were not freed or the numbers of free men of color would have exploded between 1620 and 1660, but instead salve numbers grew.
Thanks. Now I know more about slaves than I ever thought I would.
Only in your lunatic dreams.
He has to be the most racist of all presidents.
Nope, that would be Wilson.
He wanted to ship them all back to Africa, said many times that the black man was inferior to the white man.
Only fractionally true.
But the great Lincoln is now the great hero to all democrats and RINOs.
And thinking conservatives.
I just wish the South had not ran out of men to fight the war. A Southern victory and the murdering Lincoln would have been hanged from the highest tree, with the psychopath Sherman right beside him.
It never could have happened, and thank God it didn't happen. The slaverocrasy's Confederacy of Evil would have been an indelible stain upon our continent. Thank God it died.
“And thinking conservatives”
Lincoln was a big government socialist. Now why in the world do you think conservatives would care for the politics of the man who took all control from the states and centralized everything in Washington, DC. And why would would they care for a man that gave them the unconstitutional income tax?
Wow, you said it best, great post!
Only in your lunatic dreams.
Now why in the world do you think conservatives would care for the politics of the man who took all control from the states and centralized everything in Washington, DC.
Because true conservatives recognize the untruth of your words.
And why would would they care for a man that gave them the unconstitutional income tax?
Now that one is a bit stickier. It's true that Lincoln gave us the income tax. It's interesting to note that prior to the war the way that the government received its revenues was through tariffs - that is, taxing goods as they came into our ports. But the democrats in the south never wanted to pay their fair share and always opposed tariffs. Democrats, then as today, wanted their cake and to eat it, too.
It's also interesting to note that the confeds imposed their own "federal" income tax, on top of quotas, rationing, and state seizure of private industry, to pay for their war. Good for the goose, eh?
Thinking conservatives recognize the need for some federal revenue but seek to limit it to essentials and with plenty of oversight. Freedom ain't free. You're probably one of those who excuses himself to the bathroom when the pass the hat to pay for the party.
A Dutch slave trader exchanged his cargo of Africans for food in 1619. The Africans became indentured servants, similar in legal position to many poor Englishmen who traded several years of labor in exchange for passage to America.
My post 204 mentioned slavery in New York that began in 1626. I did find a more accurate description of slavery in New York, probably the source for the Wikipedia link I posted in 204. Here is the more accurate link that says essentially the same thing: More accurate source.
Spain established settlements/colonies within what is now the continental US earlier than England or Holland established their colonies. Here is a site that mentions slavery in Florida as early as 1565[Link]:
Four and a half centuries ago, St. Augustine was the hub of the slave trade in Spanish colonial Florida, a distinction that continued through the early 1800s.
The slave trade was part of the capital city's economy from its founding in 1565, when Spanish explorer and founder Pedro Menendez de Aviles included black slaves among the New World's first Spanish settlers.
"The Spanish Crown was one of the largest slaveholders, workers on the defense works," said St. Augustine historian Susan R. Parker. And, though many of the records from that period are lost, documents from the Catholic Church reveal slavery's deep roots in North Florida's history.
In 1606, one year before the founding of Jamestown, Va., the first documented slave birth was recorded in St. Augustine. Agustin was baptized in the Catholic faith. He was the son of Agustin and Francisca, both listed as slaves in church baptismal records.
There already was slavery among the native peoples before Europeans arrived. For example, in Mexico and Central America [Link] and in New Mexico where Indians were made slaves and had slaves themselves [Link 2]:
According to the reports of the first Europeans to visit the New World, slavery was almost universal in what is now Mexico and Central America. Theoretically, with the arrival of Europeans, that should have changed.
Yes, I’ve studied these laws for years in different contexts. See Fogel, “Without Consent or Contract,” David Brion David, “History of Slavery in the Western World.” The major issue is the terminology of “slave” that disappeared in Europe and was replaced with these other categories, but the law did not catch up with the terms until the mid-1600s. Until the early 1700s, there was NO presumed racial slavery in the US, but I do think the evidence shows considerable more leeway in calling blacks “slaves” rather than servants or indentures.
There really is no reason to offend people randomly with a hateful slur. It’s not that hard to be better than that.
Best post here. Most people here are not very caring. I would be wholly insulted if I heard an ethnic slur on any group. I don’t believe in it. Everyone is allowed to joke about their own group. It is hateful to use slurs and someone public should never even think them. Who cares where you were brought up.
However, some here have good points about how some people don’t suffer as much backlash against their speech as others. Clinton, Byrd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.