So, if I acknowledge that $38,000

[TDale313]

Seems, to me, like a pretty obscene amount of money to spend on a handbag... Will someone explain to me what precisely they think Oprah (who did not buy the bag, and apparently just asked to see it, without knowing the price) did wrong in this situation? I'm not an Oprah fan, but there seems to be a lot of painting of her as a poster child for conspicuous consumption over this event. Is it the fact that, unlike the clueless and probably racist shopkeeper, we know she actually could have afforded the bag? (to say the least.) Does it make her treatment in the store ok because we feel it's an inappropriate item to have shown any interest in, however casual? Honestly not sure I get it.

[JI7]

1. there seems to be this need to lecture about these things when it's a minority woman

expensive handbags and other crap people buy that can be very expensive and not really needed has been going on for a long time now.

but because it's oprah we get lectures about people going hungry and other crap.

the reaction to the story has for sure had a lot to do with racism.

[Warpy]

2. She did nothing wrong except be black, female and wealthy

That's enough for some people out there.

[BainsBane]

5. Exactly

She can afford something they can't, which pisses them off. Someone actually told me it was okay for Jennifer Aniston to buy expensive handbags but not Oprah.

[TDale313]

6. How exactly did they explain that one?

[BainsBane]

7. So as not to misrepresent

the other person's argument, I will quote.

The link I posted shows all the model bags and their prices. The line starts at $1875 and the top price for a so called "Jennifer" bag is $2990. None of the "Jennifer" bags are in the same league as the $35,000 purse Oprah expressed interest in.

I said: Well, then she didn't buy that bag at all
If the line is named for her, she profits from them. I guess that makes Jen a okay around here, while Oprah is dirt for actually wanting to LOOK at an expensive bag at a store. That will teach her to stay in her place.

The other poster responded:

You are making an assumption. We don't know if the purse was named after her because she popularized the purse by wearing it. We don't know if she makes any money on it at all on it. That is quite a leap on your part. And let's say she does for a moment, what does Aniston do with the profits? Who knows, Aniston has given millions of dollars to many causes including victims of Katrina and in Haiti.

What is different about Oprah is that she has set herself on a perch as a spiritual and moral leader on her show. She has lectured her audiences about the pain of poverty, and her personal integrity. Yet she lives her life as a 1%'er, numb to the fact that she is now part of the problem.

Sure she earned the money and the Koch Brothers, Lloyd Blankfein and the Wall Street banksters all say they have earned theirs too.

The problem is that their is so much income discrepancy that our country is literally falling apart.

Yes, Oprah and her purse are the problem.

I replied:
So you're saying you think Aniston has a line of handbags named for her
and doesn't profit form them? That would truly be a first, and that would make her a complete idiot. Even the most vapid celebrities generally have managers that don't let that happen.

Oprah is a problem but Aniston isn't? Fascinating conclusion on your part. How is it that you've decided that Aniston's multi-million dollar income doesn't qualify her as a 1%er? Do you realize that the mean annual income of the top 1% is $1.3 million http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Aniston earns well above that. What exactly is the difference between Jen and Oprah? Oprah is a well known philanthropist. I have never heard of Jennifer's contributions, but I'll take your word for it. And if she carries one of those $200k Birkin bags, would that be okay? In fact, here is an article devoted to "the many bags of Jennifer." http://www.purseblog.com/celebrities/of-jennifer-aniston.html
I guess expensive handbags just go better with certain skin completions.

There is always this approach, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023442624
That involves the absence of consumption.
For some DUers, moral rectitude means buying cheap products made in Chinese sweatshops that pay non-living wages, thereby subsidizing an economic model based on low wages for the many.

Income inequality is indeed a serious problem, but why you and others have decided that Oprah's nerve in wanting to LOOK at an expensive bag is responsible for global inequality is nothing short of bizarre. You clearly don't have a problem with people being rich or buying expensive handbags, given your admiration for Aniston. To pretend that Oprah is somehow more responsible than Aniston is really a function of nothing but your own personal views about the two women. For some reason you favor a talentless and unremarkable "actress" to a black woman born to poverty who just became wealthy and too uppity for your liking. You feel you can peer inside Oprah's soul and see what she thinks. I myself don't care much for either of these celebrities (or any, for that matter), but your exaltation of Aniston and demonization of Oprah is intellectually and morally inconsistent.

The other poster did not respond further.

[JI7]

18. it's so obvious

trying to excuse and pretend Aniston is different .

reminds me of the crap we heard during the zimmerman trial. how people would never have said the things said about trayvon if he was white. or the pathetic excuses for zimmerman if he was black .

[TDale313]

22. so, to paraphrase,

They like Jennifer Aniston, but Oprah? Not so much.

[BainsBane]

23. Evidently

[PoliticAverse]

3. Oprah has indicated she wouldn't have bought a $38,000 bag. So it appears the clerk was correct

in suggesting a cheaper bag was more appropriate.

[Cleita]

4. Lets put it this way. Most of us women

know the price range of the stores we patronize. Most of us just window shop the pricey stores. We go in when we intend to buy something and that means we know we can afford to shop at that particular store. So did Oprah.

[limpyhobbler]

8. The $38,000 price tag is the most important part of the story. It's immoral to pay that for a purse.

So if she is being painted as a poster child for conspicuous consumption, that's fine by me.

There is so much racism in the world, and here in our own country. It's in our our criminal justice system, in our economy, in our culture. It's devastating really, for millions of people, and I sympathize greatly and personally identify with the struggle to cope with it.

For some reason I don't really give a shit about Oprah though. She can take care of her self. The $38,000 price tag pisses me off more than Oprah getting bad customer service.

That price tag is by far the most shocking and offensive thing about the story.

[BainsBane]

9. She didn't buy the purse

racism is indeed profound in this society, and it is evident throughout this discussion of Oprah's having the audacity to ask to look at a handbag.

[limpyhobbler]

10. But she could have. The price tag itself is offensive.

I don't feel bad for her at all. She could have bought the whole store.

Many of us face racism and don't have $38,000 pillows to cry on about it.

Many people face that kind of prejudice every time they go into a store. She seems so outraged by it, it must not happen to her very often because she lives such a sheltered life.


I think she comes across like a whiny rich snob in this story, complaining because somebody wouldn't let her look at a $38,000 purse.

Seems mentally divorced from the actual problems of racism in this society.

Oprah had her feelings hurt.

[BainsBane]

11. as opposed to you

who knows all about the experience of racism, which is why you feel compelled to dismiss it.

[JI7]

14. she wasn't born wealthy, she worked for her money, she has had life experience

of being a black woman who was not famous and wealthy.

but even after she got fame we are now seeing how she is judged different than others who are wealthy.

[limpyhobbler]

17. Yeah ok. You have a good point.

But keep it in perspective.

Racism is every day. She doesn't face the kind of casual racism a normal American person faces.

That's why she is so shocked by it.

I've gotten bad customer service because of my race maybe 1000 times in my life. It's a shitty part of life. The fact that she is shocked by it shows how out of touch she is.

But hey you have a good point too. I see your side of it.

She's rich, but she's still black, and this shows that there is racism. But since I already knew that, I'm not shocked by it. However the $38,000 price tag does shock and offend me.

[JI7]

20. she didn't seem shocked by it to me

[rrneck]

13. Maybe they're all assholes, just for different reasons.

The shopkeeper was a racist. Oprah's a talk show host with wealth beyond anything anybody deserves who makes a living on television. Whoever made a 38k purse is a thief. The media is a bunch of assholes for blowing it all out of proportion and diverting attention away from real news. And I'm an asshole for pontificating about it on an anonymous message board and calling people assholes. So there.

[TDale313]

16. Ok, best answer yet.

and yeah, I suppose I fall into the asshole catagory too, for starting yet another thread on this.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. She did nothing wrong except to...

innocently be the excuse for frustrated rage.

We know there is conspicuous consumption in the world just as there is poverty and starvation. We also know that this will always be the case no matter how much we complain.

However, sometimes strange turns are taken, such as the suggestion that it is tolerable for a rich white woman to think about a ridiculously expansive handbag, but out of place for a wealthy woman of color to look at the same bag. Is this racism in that a black woman has no business being able to get such an item, or extreme reverse racism that a black woman should respect the history and plight of her people and refuse to acknowledge such an item?

Either way, it's pretty damn stupid. BTW, any comments on Beyonce's accessory purchases?

Is anyone even sure what her reason for looking at the thing was? She didn't buy for some reason-- could that reason simply be "This isn't worth it." Could her reason for even looking at it be "What the hell could make that thing worth that money?" She herself might have thought it bizarre and was just curious. A woman of her means certainly has been around high priced goods for a while and her curiosity might not yet be dulled.

She is, after all, no stranger to curious expenses, having once given a car to each of her audience members.

(Maybe it should have been to only black audience members.)

[TDale313]

19. As far as I know,

The saleswoman wouldn't even show it to her. Oprah didn't find the price out till later, at which point she stated that she would not have bought the bag for that price.

[TreasonousBastard]

21. That's pretty much what I heard...

although I didn't spend much time on the story.

Still leaves a lot of questions open, though, if anyone really cares.

[Soundman]

24. Unbelievable.

Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the purse isn't really for sale? It isn't uncommon to have the one item on display that brings in the customers but isn't really for sale. Or perhaps the clerk had other purses for sale that would bring her a better commission?

Here is an idea, visit the Columbus Ohio craigslist rants and raves section. There you can find all the racism you ever wanted and more. It isn't hiding in the depths of interpretation. It is overt, ugly and presents an opportunity for you to actually confront it head on. Warning it is not for the feint of heart, and I mean that. http://columbus.craigslist.org/rnr/ you were warned, I was surprised when I stumbled upon it. Which leads me to a question, when do racist remarks become hate speech? And are racist remarks covered under the 1st amendment? I was going to make this an op because I am totally pissed off at these fuming scum bags. Anyway.......

For those who may not be aware, Oprah has spent a fortune in Africa doing wonderful works! I doubt anyone who does that is in the market for a purse that costs 38k.

[Paladin]

25. Carl Icahn diddled with Apple stock yesterday, and made $50 million.

How about it, Outrage Junkies?