[MP-Ryan]

Articles on other news sites quote Oprah as saying  “I didn’t have my eyelashes on, but I was in full Oprah Winfrey gear,”

So I think we can safely dispense with the notion that dressing-down played a role in the course of any analysis, folks.

Therefore, we are left with two alternatives why a clerk would make such a statement about affordability:
1.  Physical appearance.
2.  A statement by Oprah about her ability to afford it.

Given the lack of #2 as indicated in all the reports, we are left with only the first option.  Which means that - on a probabilistic basis at least - Ms. Winfrey was indeed subjected to racism, unintentional/implicit/systemic/casual though it may have been.

It also doesn't hurt to point out that both Switzerland (where the incident occurred) and Italy (where the shop assistant is from) have documented recent undercurrents of casual racism toward immigrants culturally and politically, specifically toward people originating in Africa and whose appearance reflects that origin.  (Not that other countries have a much better track record).

[BloodEagle]

No points for you.

A person working in a high-end establishment wouldn't risk their job over such trivialities.

This person clearly didn't consider such things. Even an overt racist thinking clearly wouldn't risk their job over such a triviality.

Except to a racist, race isn't a triviality.  History has shown this to be true specifically in cases where it cost people their (sometimes high-paying) jobs.

1a. Yes I knew someone would pull the "it's not real" card. The question is is it believable. I think it is. And I think it does, 1990 is irrelevant in this case.

Twenty-three years is an incredible amount of time for a society to change.  It is perfectly relevant to the discussion of how someone dressed like that would be treated when entering a high-class establishment as opposed to now.  As I said, art tends to mirror life; and life has changed since then.

Also, I find it believable that fey people make Swedish people racist no matter what.  This has a great deal of bearing on this incident.

2. We don't know why the clerk reached that conclusion.

I don't know. That's my main point. I lack the information to make such a judgement, and it disturbs me that others have done.

[...]

And this I also agree with. It's the certainty that bothers me. I acknowledge the possibility, it is people just making the assumption I have the real problem with. The conclusion jump is the issue, not the idea that this could be racially motivated. Putting it on the table as a possibility is perfectly okay with me.

As has been previously stated in this thread, the owner of the shop and the clerk in question have not disputed or explained further regarding any of this even when given the opportunity.

This isn't really jumping to conclusions is what I'm saying.  There are some fairly strong indicators that this specific incident was racially motivated.

--

and I don't go crying and whining to my lawyers and the media, because I don't have a massively overdeveloped persecution complex and/or a sandy vagina.

Huh.  If words can describe how wrong this is, they are lost on me.

[Apollo]

I disagree with the notion that people won't risk their jobs over this. Most people aren't paid enough or treated well enough to give a ****.

I'm a 26 year old guy. My entire wardrobe consists of jeans and t-shirts, I have an eyebrow and labret piercing, and my hair is a random neon color with frightening regularity. I work for myself, so I can get away with this. When I was looking for a new vehicle (before I'd decided to get a motorcycle), I went around to a few local BMW dealerships, because I was entertaining the idea of getting an E46 or E90 M3 and I wanted to see if any of them had one in their certified pre-owned stocks. At all three dealerships, not a single person that worked there would give me the time of day, nevermind the fact that I way paying in full with cash. Some of these people consider themselves gatekeepers of the "brand" and they look at anyone who doesn't fit with their image like pond scum, no matter what color they happen to be. Unless you can read minds, you can't know what motivates such action for certain. Arrogance, racism, laziness...all possibilities. The difference is that I actually don't care (if they don't want my business, **** 'em) and I don't go crying and whining to my lawyers and the media, because I don't have a massively overdeveloped persecution complex and/or a sandy vagina.

That's a possibility, but it seems far more likely that racism played a role in this mess. It actually fits in pretty well with that snobby attitude you just described.

Also, a black person being offended by what appears to be racism is not a "massively overdeveloped persecution complex". Most rich people would get offended when a store clerk treats them like some poor person and refuses to let them look at something because they think they can't afford it.

Let's not blame the victim.

[MP-Ryan]

and I don't go crying and whining to my lawyers and the media, because I don't have a massively overdeveloped persecution complex and/or a sandy vagina.

Huh.  If words can describe how wrong this is, they are lost on me.

Yeah, the casual misogyny in a thread about casual racism nearly broke my irony meter, too.

[Lorric]

Articles on other news sites quote Oprah as saying  “I didn’t have my eyelashes on, but I was in full Oprah Winfrey gear,”

So I think we can safely dispense with the notion that dressing-down played a role in the course of any analysis, folks.

Therefore, we are left with two alternatives why a clerk would make such a statement about affordability:
1.  Physical appearance.
2.  A statement by Oprah about her ability to afford it.

Given the lack of #2 as indicated in all the reports, we are left with only the first option.  Which means that - on a probabilistic basis at least - Ms. Winfrey was indeed subjected to racism, unintentional/implicit/systemic/casual though it may have been.

I agree.

It's a shame with something like this we can't just be laughing good-naturedly at how someone working in a shop which deals with high-end people, didn't recognise one of this planet's most recognisable faces and then didn't think they could afford the merchandise, instead of racism.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

What I'm trying to get across is that people crying racism when something isn't racism isn't helping. Using racial slurs? Definitely racism and not acceptable. Getting bad customer service? Okay, MAYBE it's racism, but private businesses have a right to serve whoever they want. We also have the right never to go there again, and to tell our friends never to go there. But there comes a point in a campaign to eradicate an idea where the extra effort required to do so either stops getting returns or swings things in the other direction. Bigotry and hatred is never going to be purged from human nature. Bad **** happens every day, all around the world. I'm not saying we should ignore it, but going out of our way to look for it isn't the right thing to do, either. It's needlessly antagonistic, especially when you have a massive audience and a bored, sensationalist media sector to cry to.

Also, this:

Yeah, the casual misogyny in a thread about casual racism nearly broke my irony meter, too.

is exactly what I'm talking about. It's a common colloquialism because everyone knows what it means. Get over it.

[karajorma]

This person clearly didn't consider such things. Even an overt racist thinking clearly wouldn't risk their job over such a triviality.

http://notalwaysright.com/category/bigotry

44 pages of why you're wrong.

[MP-Ryan]

is exactly what I'm talking about. It's a common casual misogyny because everyone knows what it means. Get over it.

FTFY.

"Sandy vagina" is no different than a myriad of other so-called common colloquialisms like "that's so gay," "that's Jewish," "I got Gyped" (which refers to Roma), etc.  The fact that you think that makes it OK nicely illustrates how casual, common language or behaviour can be regularly discriminatory and yet the people who use it fail to recognize that.  Notice that there are few of these types of "colloquialisms" associated with being a straight white male.  Ever wondered why that is?

If anything, your casually-misogynistic statement was a useful parallel to illustrate just how casual racism works.  Just like you didn't intend your comment to be derogatory to women, the clerk likely didn't intend her comment to be derogatory on the basis of race.  But that doesn't change the fact that both statements are.

If I up the irony and say "don't get your panties in a twist" will it drive home the point?

[Lorric]

This person clearly didn't consider such things. Even an overt racist thinking clearly wouldn't risk their job over such a triviality.

http://notalwaysright.com/category/bigotry

44 pages of why you're wrong.

Well, I read the first page, and that was all customers, not employees. So at best it's 43 pages... 

But thanks though. These are enjoyable, I will be reading on. 

[The E]

Lorric, could you do us a favour? While being enjoyed by it, could you please try and think about what the vast number of incidents collected there means? Because it's relevant to this issue.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

is exactly what I'm talking about. It's a common casual misogyny because everyone knows what it means. Get over it.

FTFY.

"Sandy vagina" is no different than a myriad of other so-called common colloquialisms like "that's so gay," "that's Jewish," "I got Gyped" (which refers to Roma), etc.  The fact that you think that makes it OK nicely illustrates how casual, common language or behaviour can be regularly discriminatory and yet the people who use it fail to recognize that.  Notice that there are few of these types of "colloquialisms" associated with being a straight white male.  Ever wondered why that is?

If anything, your casually-misogynistic statement was a useful parallel to illustrate just how casual racism works.  Just like you didn't intend your comment to be derogatory to women, the clerk likely didn't intend her comment to be derogatory on the basis of race.  But that doesn't change the fact that both statements are.

If I up the irony and say "don't get your panties in a twist" will it drive home the point?

Discrimination requires intent. If the clerk intended to be discriminatory based on race, then that's racist. I'm not going to argue that. But what if it was classism? People who like ostentatious, expensive things tend to look down on people they think are poor. Is classism wrong? Nationalism? No one likes Americans. Is nationalism wrong? At what point should we stop getting offended? If everything in the world offends your delicate, flowery sensibilities, you're gonna have a bad time.

[BloodEagle]

but private businesses have a right to serve whoever they want. We also have the right never to go there again, and to tell our friends never to go there.

I am fairly certain such business practices (denial of service based on race or creed) are illegal in The United States, now.

I can't speak as to whether or not that is so in other countries, however.

Discrimination requires intent. If the clerk intended to be discriminatory based on race, then that's racist. I'm not going to argue that. But what if it was classism? People who like ostentatious, expensive things tend to look down on people they think are poor. Is classism wrong? Nationalism? No one likes Americans. Is nationalism wrong? At what point should we stop getting offended? If everything in the world offends your delicate, flowery sensibilities, you're gonna have a bad time.

You must have missed the part where MP-Ryan pointed out that she was wearing nice clothing, and stuff.

At best, you could argue that it was straight up xenophobia as opposed to racism.  Which really isn't much better.

[MP-Ryan]

EDIT:  Bloodeagle ninja'd me.  What follows was a response to 20%

Actually, while the intentional act of discriminating requires some level of intent, discrimination does not.  You also appear to be in need of some self-education on implicit, casual, or systemic discrimination (all three terms cover essentially the same thing).  For example, casual racism or casual misogyny do not require intent - my last post elaborates more on that subject.

Yours is the common argument of dilution - that racism can't be that bad if classism isn't that bad (because its common), which in turn isn't that bad if discrimination on another category which is not politically charged is even more common..  It's not applicable.  (Also, your use of the term nationalism in the context you've stated is denotatively incorrect and adds no weight to your argument.)  As I've said in past threads on this subject, humans cognitively function by creating in-groups and out-groups.  The creation of those groups heuristically in cognitive process is not harmful; action or perpetuation of [ungrounded] negative stereotypes based on them is.

Furthermore, your use of phrases like "sandy vagina" and "delicate, flowery sensibilities" shows you have a poor grasp or irony, historical use of language, lack of self-awareness in how you write, or a combination of all three.

It's not about offending people.  It's about some self-awareness of how social boundaries are created and enforced through the use of everyday language and the emphasis of negative stereotypes.  Was the clerk intentionally racist?  Unlikely, but there's a stack of evidence for implicit racism at work, just like I have no doubt that you did not intend for your earlier comment to be misogynistic, even though it absolutely was.

[Lorric]

Lorric, could you do us a favour? While being enjoyed by it, could you please try and think about what the vast number of incidents collected there means? Because it's relevant to this issue.

What do they mean to you? Yes, there are lots of judgemental people out there. I took issue here with people for being judgemental. And now I am happy.

"I got Gyped" (which refers to Roma)

I like using this. I never knew it's origination, I just picked it up. I guess I'd better stop. But I like saying it... 

Also, I find it believable that fey people make Swedish people racist no matter what.  This has a great deal of bearing on this incident.

While I do not think we have any need to proceed with the rest of the conversation anymore, this line, I have no idea what it means...

[karajorma]

This person clearly didn't consider such things. Even an overt racist thinking clearly wouldn't risk their job over such a triviality.

http://notalwaysright.com/category/bigotry

44 pages of why you're wrong.

Well, I read the first page, and that was all customers, not employees. So at best it's 43 pages... 

But thanks though. These are enjoyable, I will be reading on. 

Damnit, typed it wrong since I always go to Right before Working!

http://notalwaysworking.com/category/bigotry

That there is 20+ pages of workers discriminating against a customer openly enough that someone went home and wrote up the story. Hard to believe your claim that no one would do it.

[Akalabeth Angel]

If anyone's racist in this story it's Oprah Winfrey.

Even if the woman didn't serve Oprah because of her skin colour nothing she allegedly said indicates that.

[BloodEagle]

If anyone's racist in this story it's Oprah Winfrey.

Please explain.

[Akalabeth Angel]

If anyone's racist in this story it's Oprah Winfrey.

Please explain.

I modified the post.
But basically from what the story says, Oprah went in and wasn't allowed to look at a bag.
She left feeling the reason was racism.

But what did the woman say that indicated it was a decision based on race?
Nothing from what I can tell.

So it was Oprah that internally decided it was a race-based decision when it could have been any number of reasons.


Black woman not being served by a shop DOES NOT mean without doubt that they're not serving her based on the fact she's black.


And being racist doesn't mean that you feel your race is superior either.

[Lorric]

Damnit, typed it wrong since I always go to Right before Working!

http://notalwaysworking.com/category/bigotry

That there is 20+ pages of workers discriminating against a customer openly enough that someone went home and wrote up the story. Hard to believe your claim that no one would do it.

I never made such a claim. I said someone thinking clearly, racist or not, wouldn't do it. This person, racist or not, wasn't thinking clearly. Unless the language excuse is genuine, of course.

I'll have a look at this sometime.

[Black Wolf]

Forget the racism/not racism debate. The real disgusting thing here is that there are people - any people - willing to pay $38,000 for a handbag. A few pieces of cloth and leather sewn together. A device solely designed to hold things - i.e. a task that can be performed by a paper or plastic shopping bag costing less than a cent.

I could see people justifying $500 for a bag. Maybe $1000. Hell, go crazy, spend a couple of thousand, you can afford it. But $38000? Even if she could afford it, the shop assistant should have said "You don't want that one, it's ****ing ridiculous."