So all black people ARE family? They ARE a distinct and separate group in a sense that is more than skin-deep?
Arrant sophistry. No one is mad at the food network, they are mad that these comments are being made into a controversy. You are completely right in that this is not about the Food Network's sensibilities. The problem is people getting mad about nothing that incited the network to fire her rather than face the wrath of people incensed about nothing.
If you have done nothing wrong, you are doing society a disservice by apologizing.
We know no such thing. We THINK it is bad. That is purely a matter of opinion.

They get defended because there was nothing wrong with what she said or did, and no one wants to live in a society where you can lose thousands or millions of dollars and have your career ended for reasons of arbitrary & irrational mob action. Preventing such things is the whole point of civilization.
Bullshit. Speak for yourself, and stop running around asserting that you know what everyone is thinking and why. There are more grounds for generalizing blacks as criminally inclined than you have for such an assertion.

What the hell do you think you were doing there, and how is it remotely better than Deen's alleged offense, except that you are picking on a person in a group that it is fashionable to mock, attack or belittle? Right is right and wrong is wrong, whether you are rich, poor, white or black.

More nonsense. Those were more complex issues than race, and the racial elements at play in those cases were coincidental. The racism aspects arose later as part of efforts to justify slavery, but owning slavery or defending it did not make one racist, unless they were doing so on racial grounds. Likewise, abolitionists were not necessarily non-racists either. You don't have to believe in the equality of the races to believe that slavery is immoral or that the institution is economically non-viable. Washington's actions vis a vis slavery had more to do with economics than anything else. He discovered, upon marrying into a planter family, that the system was really a sort of ponzi scheme that enriched the British merchants who bought cotton, indigo & tobacco and sold the planters luxury goods (which is why the king vetoed early attempts by the Virginia House of Burgesses to outlaw slavery in the colony, which action Jefferson cited as one of the king's offenses in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence). Washington switched Mt Vernon's cash crop to wheat, which was much less labor intensive, required less capital and was more profitable. He could then afford to divest himself of lots of slaves cheaply...but did not because by custom and social propriety he had no right to make major changes to the estate, which actually belonged to his wife. His role was solely that of a caretaker, and he did not have the right to dispose of significant assets of the plantation. On the other hand, he also had a moral obligation, by the same codes of behavior to provide for the slaves and take care of them and not free any slave who lacked the means to provide for himself. He had more latitude in his will, which was why he did so that way, but it was not binding until his wife passed away as well. Just from that whole situation, you can see how many more factors were involved than simple right or wrong or the attitude towards blacks.

There were other colonial attitudes that played out in similar ways. Dr Benjamin Rush, a signer of the DoI, opposed slavery and believed that black people were no different than whites, but he was opposed to interracial marriage. He theorized that blacks looked like they did due to a disease that was hereditary. He opposed interracial marriage, because he was trying to quarantine the disease. He made significant efforts to try curing blacks as well. The mere utterance of much of his system of racial belief would drum most people out of public life in these days, but there was no malice involved, and he did, in fact, believe in racial equality. What's that on this bullshit scale of what racism is?

Speak for yourself. Ironically, I probably have a higher tolerance for whether or not a "racist" action is wrong than you...
No, the most harmful racism of all is when action is taken that harms someone solely on the basis of his race, not some greeting card bromide bullshit like this vestigial sermon. If you say something wrong or malicious about someone, it is wrong, whether or not it has anything to do with race.

If you own property, you have the right to dispose of it as you see fit. If you want to sell your house to a white, black or yellow man, that is, or should be, your natural right. Your neighbors don't have the right to exclude a black man from buying it from you, nor does any court have the right to force you to sell it to a black man if you don't want. If you don't want to serve black customers in your place of business or employer black workers, that is your prerogative. It is not right or moral, but the law should never be invoked to force either outcome. By the same token, customers have the right to shop as they wish and spend their money where they want, and can keep you in line that way. That cuts both ways, which is far more fair than arbitrary imposing laws that favor one group over another in an attempt to balance some mythical scale. It is for that reason that property rights are more important than racial speech codes or righting injustices done to people long dead by others equally dead. Adherence to the principles of life, liberty and property would have prevented integration and Jim Crow in the first place. The "separate but equal" doctrine was imposed by self-anointed "progressives," to protect blacks from competition against the more advantageous financial positions and superior educations of whites. That was the first mistake, because by putting power into play, you now must rely on the whims of those who wield it, and the fashions eventually shifted to use such powers to deny civil rights to blacks. The cycle keeps turning and victimizing blacks, when their best shot is a truly free and mobile society, where no one has the power to punish or harm others, except that they earn themselves. As far as most real harm goes, defrauding, stealing, injuring and killing people are against the law already, so adding "hate" to the nomenclature of the crime does nothing but make sanctimonious little pricks feel better about themselves. If you're going to ignore the innate, instinctive reluctance to harm another human being, as well as all social and moral conditioning, plus the knowledge of jail service, a few more years on your bid because your motivation is currently out of fashion are hardly likely to deter you (not to mention, putting people into prison for racism is a self-defeating tactic, as prison tends to racially polarize inmates out of survival necessity).

As it is, the racially-augmented college admissions has ruined the lives of many of its beneficiaries by placing them in schools where their scholastic abilities are at the bottom instead of typical, or ordinary, instead of extraordinary, causing them to often wash out. As a result of preferential admissions and racial quotas, we have blacks dropping out of MIT and Stanford, instead of getting degrees from excellent schools on the next tier down. The infamous UC Davis affirmative action program denied admission to a white male on the basis of a full class, and admitted minority students with lower scores, one of whom, Patrick Chavis, was profiled as an example of success, for the work he was doing in the ghetto...until he killed several of those poor black inner city patients and lost his license for his gross incompetence.

Meanwhile, the racial climate results in rushes to judgment and presumptions of guilt on the parts of white people, so we get the LA riots, because the ignorant presumed to pass judgement on an edited video clip of police officers following proper procedure in their apprehension of a criminal under the influence. The same notions about racism led to actual demonstrable racist actions in retaliation, such as a bunch of black thugs pulling a truck driver out of his vehicle and pounding his head with concrete or cinder blocks. A congressman, who still serves to this day, flagrantly and publicly took the side of the assailants on racial grounds and still serves in the House to this day.

The real consequences and context of racism are one where "racism" is a cultural taboo, used to intimidate and extort. A private e-mail list among prominent journalists exposed their discussions of plans to shout down any opposition to Obama by accusing his critics of racism and directly stated that they would do this as an example to intimidate potential critics or opponents. Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton use their status and influence to extort "donations" from corporations, threatening accusations of racism and racial boycotts against those who fail to comply, and use "racism" to shield themselves from any and all criticism. Long after Louis Farrakhan's mosque was the scene of police officers being lured into ambushes and murdered, and racial sensitivity being used to protect the perpetrators from justice, long after Al Sharpton advocated for Tawana Brawley's false accusations of racially-motivated assault & rape, long after he instigated riots that they were still respected political figures and credible spokesmen on racial issues.

With the vast majority of interracial incidents being ignored as they are black on white, or perpetrated by even worse-off minorities like Hispanics; with the vast majority of white on black incidents being either minor nonsense distorted and/or blown out of proportion, or outright lies and hoaxes, committed by black people to excuse their own shortcomings or gain an advantage, maybe it's time to stop worrying about who's racist and what's racist, and just concern ourselves with whether something is right or wrong, irrespective of the skin colors of victim or perpetrator.