Thread: Oprah, a handbag and racism claim Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025988
Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :
 
Just wondered if anyone else was perplexed by the reported incident involving Oprah Winfrey in the Swiss handbag shop.

Oprah is alleging racism. As reported in the British media, Oprah's position is that she was in a handbag shop somewhere in Switzerland when she was (repeatedly) refused when asking to view an expensive bag and instead shown less expensive bags on the grounds that she couldn't afford the expensive one (20K dollars was the price tag).

The shop is claiming it was all a misunderstanding.

It goes without saying that racism in all its ugly manifestations is abhorrent.

Obviously we cannot know all the details if the interaction between Oprah and the shop employee.

But I am inclined towards thinking maybe there was a misunderstanding.

Oprah is instantly recognisable as one of the world's richest celebrities. Why would the Swiss shop not want to sell her the most expensive bag in the place?

What language was the interaction conducted in? Could there be room for misunderstanding?

As a sophisticated European nation, is it credible that an obscene and basic form of racism would be on display in an upmarket retail establishment (or indeed any retail establishment)?

Before claiming racism, is it not incumbent on a celebrity with the power and influence of Oprah Winfrey to be absolutely sure that her claim is true? Surely the burden of proof is on her?

[ 10. August 2013, 21:46: Message edited by: would love to belong ]
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
Oprah is not neccesarily going to be as immediately recognisable to a clerk in an upscale Swiss clothes store as she would be to their American counterparts.

Of course it's credible. Upscale is upscale, not sophisticated.

[ 10. August 2013, 21:59: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Somewhere I read that The Oprah Winfrey Show was never aired in Switzerland.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
Still, employees in such stores usually can judge a client by the clothes she wears. Even when dressing down, Oprah wears high-end clothing.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Sure I believe it. Especially when the owner of the shop explained that they didn't have 'facial recognition.' Which is to say, they were going on the prospective customer's nationality (American), colour (non-white), and dress size (larger than a 10).
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
(x-post) Yes, incidences of racism are incomprehensible if you begin with the assumption that they aren't, in fact, incidences of racism.

[ 10. August 2013, 22:13: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
 
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
Make that 'instances', I have a migraine.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
It was clear in the first instance. [Biased]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
'White's only' shops have apparently begun to appear recently in Switzerland. It's said to be linked to 'concerns' about immigrants.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
What a surprise, the launderers of Nazi gold are racist.
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
I have to say I think it was all a misunderstanding. I think if they were actually being racist they wouldn't have been trying to sell her any bag at all, which apparently they were. It's all a bit unfortunate though and I can see why she'd feel victimised.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I think not selling her a bag at all would be rather too blatant! Racism now is usually more subtle than that - although telling a complete stranger that they can't afford something in your shop, when you have no idea what they can and can't afford, is hardly subtle!

Assistants in up-market boutiques need some way of protecting expensive goods while still being totally respectful towards all prospective customers.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
They refused her a look at an item they determined she could not afford. What were their clues? Her colour is the most obvious. What other factor does anyone think might be more likely?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
In the interview, Winfrey says that except for not having on false eyelashes, she was decked out in "full Oprah Winfrey" gear, or something like that, including a Donna Karan skirt (I just checked -- you can have your own Donna Karan skirt for $700-$1300 or so). Clearly she didn't look like some poor schlub who couldn't afford expensive things, so yeah, it had to have been her color.

Where I live, even if you look like that poor schlub, assistants in high-end stores don't assume you can't afford their goods, because not all rich people go around wearing expensive clothes. I generally looked like crap when I was working as a personal assistant for a wealthy couple years ago, running their errands on hot days in my car with no A/C, wearing Target clothes and no make-up, but the folks at Van Cleef & Arpels on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills were very nice to me even before I dug a nice piece of jewelry out of my ratty purse and asked to have it cleaned.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
Oh the poor little rich girl was not instantly recognised and grovelled to and given everything that she wanted as the egotistical 'celebrity' culture requires.

To be honestly fair I wouldn't recognise her if she walked in front of me and to cry racism is just ridiculous since there is a plethora of other reasons that explain why the incident occurred including the bag in question already being earmarked for another customer (and factoring in any potential language barrier it's not beyond the realms of possibility).
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
No, Sergius-Melli. The woman went into a shop and asked to look at a bag. She was told that the bag was too expensive for her, and that it would not be removed from the shelf for her to examine. She didn't demand to be recognized. She asked to be shown a bag. It was the shopkeeper who suggested that if only they'd known it was a famous black billionaire they would have certainly shown her the bag. Oprah's point was the exact opposite of the one you made: that she should not have to be recognized as Oprah Winfrey in order to be shown the bag in question.

Edited to add: Are you acquainted with any people of colour? Are there any where you live? I see you're in Wales: I hear there are a few down in Cardiff, but when I was last in the Marches it was the whitest place I'd ever been. Does it get more integrated once you cross the border?

[ 11. August 2013, 05:45: Message edited by: Amos ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Oh the poor little rich girl was not instantly recognised and grovelled to and given everything that she wanted as the egotistical 'celebrity' culture requires.

To be honestly fair I wouldn't recognise her if she walked in front of me and to cry racism is just ridiculous since there is a plethora of other reasons that explain why the incident occurred including the bag in question already being earmarked for another customer (and factoring in any potential language barrier it's not beyond the realms of possibility).
No version of the story, not by Winfrey nor by the store, suggests that the bag was earmarked for anyone.
This is the shop manager's own words.

quote:
"Mrs. Oprah said she just wanted to look at the bag, she didn't want it taken down, and because my sales assistant felt a little embarrassed about the price, she quickly said that she also had the model in other materials such as ostrich and suede, which weren't so expensive," explained Trudie Goetz, the manager of Trois Pommes.
What? a shop not wanting to sell its merchandise? Why ever is it in there then? A clerk "embarrassed" to sell what she was there to sell?
The sales clerk made a judgement that Winfrey could not afford it. On what, dear sir, did she base this on if not race?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think not selling her a bag at all would be rather too blatant! Racism now is usually more subtle than that - although telling a complete stranger that they can't afford something in your shop, when you have no idea what they can and can't afford, is hardly subtle!
It's also weird - you would expect shops to want to sell their goods, especially the over priced stuff!
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Here is comment on the rise of racism in Switzerland and it includes a reference to the Oprah incident too.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Here is comment on the rise of racism in Switzerland and it includes a reference to the Oprah incident too.
Wow. Thanks for posting that link, fletcher Christian.

Just: wow.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
In the interview, Winfrey says that except for not having on false eyelashes, she was decked out in "full Oprah Winfrey" gear, or something like that, including a Donna Karan skirt (I just checked -- you can have your own Donna Karan skirt for $700-$1300 or so). Clearly she didn't look like some poor schlub who couldn't afford expensive things, so yeah, it had to have been her color.

Where I live, even if you look like that poor schlub, assistants in high-end stores don't assume you can't afford their goods, because not all rich people go around wearing expensive clothes. I generally looked like crap when I was working as a personal assistant for a wealthy couple years ago, running their errands on hot days in my car with no A/C, wearing Target clothes and no make-up, but the folks at Van Cleef & Arpels on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills were very nice to me even before I dug a nice piece of jewelry out of my ratty purse and asked to have it cleaned.
I know some of the Rodeo Drive clerks swear by the shoes as the definitive indicator. I'm sure Oprah wasn't wearing cheap ones!
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
I can think of only two legitimate reasons for refusing to show a bit of merchandise to a prospective customer:

1. The item has a "hold" on it for some other customer (who presumably has put down a deposit to have it held).

If this is were the case, the clerk should inform the individual requesting to see the item, and be told when to return if the depositor doesn't complete the sale.

2. The clerk has grounds for suspecting that the "customer" is actually a thief who can somehow pull off a switch with a pirated mock-up of the item, or is incredibly agile and fast on her feet so as to make it out of the store with the handbag.

I know Switzerland has a low crime rate, but surely they have anti-theft technology available in their stores?

Sans technology, the clerk can simply set the handbag forth, but retain contact with it -- opening it for the customer, showing her its innards and other features, etc.

In my long-ago pre-antitheft-technology youth, I was a clerk at a high-end menswear store on 5th Avenue in NYC. We sometimes "held" items for customers; we were also trained to never let really expensive items out of sight or hands, where practicable.

Nah, I'm going with racism here.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
That there are even 20,000 k handbags is the real crime
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
That there are even 20,000 k handbags is the real crime
I suppose it depends if it's tacky.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
That there are even 20,000 k handbags is the real crime
<tangent> I believe some of these luxury items have outrageous prices because they are meticulously created one at a time by workers who are treated better than the usual for the garment industry. The manufacturers may also offer lifetime cleaning and repair services. There's lots of overpriced junk for brand victims, of course, but that particular bag might really have cost thousands of $$$ to make. </tangent>.

<2nd tangent> It may seem ridiculous to spend that much time, money and effort creating a handbag, but people invest just as much when creating works of art -- paintings, music, choreography, novels -- that have no practical use at all. </2nd tangent>
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
That there are even 20,000 k handbags is the real crime
Mebbe. I think the crime is that there are people both able and also willing to purchase such items. Nobody'd make 'em if nobody bought 'em.

Seriously: what could POSSIBLY make a handbag worth 20,000 in the currency of any developed nation?

A platinum, jewel-encrusted exterior with endangered-specie-skin innards trimmed with dodo feathers, dinosaur teeth, and fragments of Atlantean potsherds?

That the purchaser then could not carry anywhere in public for fear of theft, even if insured for 40,000 of whatever currency?

Puhleeze. I'd respect Oprah and her celebr-ilk more if, along with her Good Works, she'd shed the need to consume so ostentatiously. We all know she rolls in it. We don't need pocketbook reminders (not that we'd ever get close enough to see the %$#! thing) of her wealth.

Yecch.
 
Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
That there are even 20,000 k handbags is the real crime
Mebbe. I think the crime is that there are people both able and also willing to purchase such items. Nobody'd make 'em if nobody bought 'em.

Seriously: what could POSSIBLY make a handbag worth 20,000 in the currency of any developed nation?


A platinum, jewel-encrusted exterior with endangered-specie-skin innards trimmed with dodo feathers, dinosaur teeth, and fragments of Atlantean potsherds?

That the purchaser then could not carry anywhere in public for fear of theft, even if insured for 40,000 of whatever currency?

Puhleeze. I'd respect Oprah and her celebr-ilk more if, along with her Good Works, she'd shed the need to consume so ostentatiously. We all know she rolls in it. We don't need pocketbook reminders (not that we'd ever get close enough to see the %$#! thing) of her wealth.

Yecch.
How much did your last handbag cost then, Porridge? [Snigger] Slap me down if it's none of my business [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
How much did your last handbag cost then, Porridge? [Snigger] Slap me down if it's none of my business [Roll Eyes]
$2.99. I bought it at Goodwill. Why you ask I can't imagine. I am a nobody, making near-poverty wages at a thankless job under constant threat of being eliminated.

[ 11. August 2013, 18:27: Message edited by: Porridge ]
 
Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
How much did your last handbag cost then, Porridge? [Snigger] Slap me down if it's none of my business [Roll Eyes]
$2.99. I bought it at Goodwill. Why you ask I can't imagine. I am a nobody, making near-poverty wages at a thankless job under constant threat of being eliminated.
You're right, I shouldn't have asked. Most handbags (including expensive ones and $2.99 ones) are made by nobodies making near-poverty wages under constant threat of being eliminated.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
That there are even 20,000 k handbags is the real crime
Mebbe. I think the crime is that there are people both able and also willing to purchase such items. Nobody'd make 'em if nobody bought 'em.

Seriously: what could POSSIBLY make a handbag worth 20,000 in the currency of any developed nation?
In South Korea, ₩20,000 is about £12 or about US$18. A reasonable price for a handbag, I would've thought?
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
I would never buy a handbag for as little as £12 unless it was from a charity shop and a good make. A brand-new handbag costing £12 will be of poor quality and will not last. A handbag should be an investment IMO.

Edited to add that I personally probably wouldn't spend £20k on a handbag, but I certainly think that there are handbags worth that much. I would happily spend £2000 on a handbag if I liked it and it was well-made.

[ 11. August 2013, 19:00: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I would happily spend £2000 on a handbag if I liked it and it was well-made.
[Eek!]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I would happily spend £2000 on a handbag if I liked it and it was well-made.
[Eek!]
What's wrong with that? Many women spend £2000 on a wedding dress they'll wear only once - why shouldn't I spend £2000 on a handbag which I'll use every day?

Of course, it's very unlikely that I would ever have the means to spend £2000 on a handbag but many less useful things cost much more.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I would happily spend £2000 on a handbag if I liked it and it was well-made.
[Eek!]
What's wrong with that? Many women spend £2000 on a wedding dress they'll wear only once - why shouldn't I spend £2000 on a handbag which I'll use every day?

Of course, it's very unlikely that I would ever have the means to spend £2000 on a handbag but many less useful things cost much more.
Never said there was anything wrong with it. I just said

[Eek!]
 
Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I would happily spend £2000 on a handbag if I liked it and it was well-made.
[Eek!]
What's wrong with that? Many women spend £2000 on a wedding dress they'll wear only once - why shouldn't I spend £2000 on a handbag which I'll use every day?

Of course, it's very unlikely that I would ever have the means to spend £2000 on a handbag but many less useful things cost much more.
Jade, at the risk of you coming back at me and accusing me of sexism [Paranoid] there is absolutely nothing wrong with you spending £2K on a bag [Smile]

Tangent: can anyone tell me if you can read posts as they appear without going into each individual thread??
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Would love to belong - no, you're not being sexist. I would only say something was a sexist point of view if it actually was.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
I'd like to know how much the bags cost which the assistant did show her.

If she was shown $4.99 bags because the $20,000 was assumed to be too pricey, yes, maybe that was a racist supposition that black folks aren't going to be rich. If she was shown $5,000 ones -I'm not so sure. Whatever prejudice is displayed by mistaking a black billionaire for a mere millionaire, I doubt it is simple racism.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'd like to know how much the bags cost which the assistant did show her.

If she was shown $4.99 bags because the $20,000 was assumed to be too pricey, yes, maybe that was a racist supposition that black folks aren't going to be rich. If she was shown $5,000 ones -I'm not so sure. Whatever prejudice is displayed by mistaking a black billionaire for a mere millionaire, I doubt it is simple racism.
Have you any idea what else it could be?
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Have you any idea what else it could be?
No idea at all.

The mindset that assumes that one stupidly overpriced item might be affordable to a particular stranger, whereas an even more absurdly overpriced one wouldn't be, is a completely alien one to me. I couldn't begin to analyse it with any confidence at all.

"She's black, therefore she's probably poor", that is something I understand sufficiently well to condemn. But if the assistant was happy to show her items which presuppose that she is extremely rich, I can't claim any understanding of that whatsoever.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Eliab,

Many high-end shops will range from the mind-blowing outrageous to merely outrageous.

quote:
The broadcaster said in two U.S. interviews that a sales assistant had refused to show her the crocodile handbag, saying it was "too expensive" and steering her towards other, cheaper ones.
I'd wager the other bags shown were not £19,995, but in the 3 or 4 figure range.

Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:

The mindset that assumes that one stupidly overpriced item might be affordable to a particular stranger, whereas an even more absurdly overpriced one wouldn't be, is a completely alien one to me.
You are assessed whenever you enter a store. How on earth are you not aware?
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
It's not clear what language the discourse was had in and how Oprah approached the shopping expedition in this store. Did she greet the clerk politely as is common in Europe, and then ask about the bag, or did she do as an American might and disdain the staff and simply ask to see it before any other talking. This might be experienced as rude. I was told prior to my first European trip that people in particular countries were rude, dour and mean spirited. I found them excessively polite in most cases. Perhaps Oprah was experienced as rude; she has an excessively personal approach on TV, the likes of which is off-putting to some of the world's peoples. Further, Oprah might think she would be recognized and didn't like it that she was not. Much more information required to understand this.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
Oh, for pity's sake. Switzerland teems with tourists at every season of the year. This wasn't some pokey hole-in-the-wall corner market-cum-filling-station in a rural hamlet at the end of a dirt track, inhabited by Heidi and her grandfather.

Sales staff at high end boutiques in major Swiss cities must surely be accustomed to dealing with tourists from Tokyo to Topeka, Beirut to Beijing, and Moscow to Madagascar with all the varieties of courtesy and rudeness people from such different societies can offer.

Salespeople are generally interested in making sales, not in taking offense at strangers' ignorance of local manners.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It's not clear what language the discourse was had in and how Oprah approached the shopping expedition in this store. Did she greet the clerk politely as is common in Europe, and then ask about the bag, or did she do as an American might and disdain the staff and simply ask to see it before any other talking.
I think that last sentence is supposed to end in a question mark, since it's pure speculation.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
This might be experienced as rude.
I think the word you're looking for is "uppity".
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Here's Huffington Post's Aug. 9th article.

I think it's quite believable that what happened was racially based. But the article does mention another time that Oprah had a shopping incident. She wanted to shop at a chic Parisian store 15 min. after closing time. They said no, citing a private event. Oprah evidently wasn't happy. Maybe, in her world, that was a reasonable request. But, if they really had a private event scheduled, their refusal was reasonable, too.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Have you any idea what else it could be?
No idea at all.

The mindset that assumes that one stupidly overpriced item might be affordable to a particular stranger, whereas an even more absurdly overpriced one wouldn't be, is a completely alien one to me. I couldn't begin to analyse it with any confidence at all.

"She's black, therefore she's probably poor", that is something I understand sufficiently well to condemn. But if the assistant was happy to show her items which presuppose that she is extremely rich, I can't claim any understanding of that whatsoever.
good point, imho. I guess I'd have to agree that while racism is a very real possibility, the whole concept/ exchange is so far outside my range of experience it would be impossible for me to presuppose what was actually going on.
 
Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on :
 
Some years ago my mother asked to see some shoes she liked in a department store. The sales assistant pointed to another display of shoes that she said were "more affordable". My mother, who incidentally is a peachy cream colour just like the sales assistant, was very offended and went off to shop elsewhere. Maybe some sales assistants are just like that.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Morgan:
Some years ago my mother asked to see some shoes she liked in a department store. The sales assistant pointed to another display of shoes that she said were "more affordable". My mother, who incidentally is a peachy cream colour just like the sales assistant, was very offended and went off to shop elsewhere. Maybe some sales assistants are just like that.
Your story actually supports Oprah's story. Some shops do a quick superficial glance over a customer and determine their ability to afford the product. If your mom was dressed casually she may not have looked like she could afford those shoes.

What it seems is the same thing happened to Oprah, however she was wearing a designer outfit at the time. Her shoes, watch, jewellery, etc. would likely have been of a similar standard. So the superficial determination of her ability to afford the purse was made on her skin color, it appears.

I've been followed around department stores as apparently my dark skin makes me suspicious. In one case 4 employees were following me from table to table without offering to help or assist in any way - just giving me dirty looks. I complained to management about that. So a woman like Oprah who has probably experienced the same thing many times as well is not going to be particularly naïve about what's going on. If she sensed it was racial, I trust her judgment. She is not the kind of person who uses her race as an excuse for anything so I see no reason to discount her version of the story in the slightest.
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
The reality is, as usual, unless we know more, it's really hard to make a judgement. As is often the case on sexism/racism threads, posters fall into three categories:

1. "It must be racism, because I can't think of another explanation"

2. "It can't be racism, there must be another explanation"

3. "I'd want to know a lot more before I decide what I think"

For me, 3 is the only valid option. Just to re-quote the Huffington Post article:

quote:
"I'm very sorry about this incident," Goetz said. "And this can only happen because of a communication problem and a misunderstanding.

"The shop assistant apparently asked her (Oprah) if she would like to see the bag, but she apparently said `No, I just want to look'. And then she (Oprah) asked how much the bag costs and she (the employee) told her how much the bag was."

Goetz added that "I believe she rather said something like `we have some less expensive' – `we also have some less expensive bags' and not `it's too expensive for you.' "
That account is very different to the "Oprah asked to see the bag, and was told it was too expensive for her and that she should look at cheaper ones" narrative that is also presented.

I don't know which story is true - I'd want to know a lot more before I could make a judgement.

But it seems that despite the lack of information, we're very prone to choosing whichever account fits our preconceptions, whether it's Sergius-Melli's flat-out denial that it could have possibly been racism (of course it could have been), or lilBuddha's / Porridge's insistence that it must have been racism, because they can't think of another alternative (despite the language barrier and a misunderstanding of what was said by both women being a very viable alternative).
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
That's all very well, goperryrevs, but we aren't sitting in a court of law here, so we're probably never going to get 'all' the evidence and, even if we did, we will never know what that shop assistant actually thought, if she did think.

So, yes, it's possible that there was a linguistic misunderstanding (that's the version I heard when the story first broke) or some other kind of miscommunication, but the question is, 'Is this what discrimination looks like?' And the answer is, 'Yes'.

Maybe it wasn't about Oprah being black: maybe the assistant thought she didn't look cool enough or trendy enough to be carrying that bag. Maybe it was the combination of the two: it's OK carrying that bag if you're black, as long as you're young, slim, cool and trendy. And, yes, there is discrimination against white, middle-aged frumps as well, but that's not the point. The point is that this shop was caught doing something that looks like discrimination and they did it to a black woman, in a country that doesn't exactly have a great record in the racism stakes. The only way for them to emerge with any credit is to apologise: profusely and at length.
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Maybe it wasn't about Oprah being black: maybe the assistant thought she didn't look cool enough or trendy enough to be carrying that bag. Maybe it was the combination of the two: it's OK carrying that bag if you're black, as long as you're young, slim, cool and trendy. And, yes, there is discrimination against white, middle-aged frumps as well, but that's not the point. The point is that this shop was caught doing something that looks like discrimination and they did it to a black woman, in a country that doesn't exactly have a great record in the racism stakes. The only way for them to emerge with any credit is to apologise: profusely and at length.
Sure, or maybe the shop assistant had no problem with showing Oprah the bag in the first place, but just misunderstood, thinking that Oprah only wanted to look around, and not buy it (which is how Goetz's version of events seems to play out).

But that would make it become a "the customer is always right", with the apology being a business gesture, rather than an acknowledgement of wrongdoing.

You're right, we're not in a court of law, which means that we don't have to pass judgement either way. It's the dynamic that says that we have to come to a conclusion about what happened that I find interesting. I'm quite happy to sit on the fence. If more information were to come to light, that might sway me on one direction or the other.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You're right, we're not in a court of law, which means that we don't have to pass judgement either way. It's the dynamic that says that we have to come to a conclusion about what happened that I find interesting. I'm quite happy to sit on the fence. If more information were to come to light, that might sway me on one direction or the other.
As a general rule, I don't particularly care for people rushing to condemn stuff on the basis of press reports, but nobody is going to get sacked on the basis of what you or I think. Therefore there's no harm in saying, 'This looks like racism' (OK, it might not be, but that's certainly what it looks like) - and there is a gain to be had IMHO in reaching that degree of clarity.

Edited to clarify to what and to whom I was replying, as at top of new page.

[ 12. August 2013, 12:02: Message edited by: QLib ]
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
The trouble is, with much of this kind of prejudice, you can't know for certain what's going on in a specific case. That's just the way that it is. So someone might feel unable to say "I didn't get this specific job because of XYZ" even though we know that studies have been done where CVs are presented to recruiters - identical except for gender or a "foreign" sounding name - and the recruiters have shown a strong selection bias. Or you don't know for certain that you're getting more attention from a security guard because of your race, or perhaps even if you are getting more attention, or just imagining it. I mean, we can get some objective statistics on general trends if we look at the right data, but we can't say for certain that this specific guard on this specific day was doing this for this reason. You don't know if the person you're talking to would take a man more seriously. You don't know if your care in the hospital would be better if you were younger, or thinner, or richer. Something in your brain says that something in this situation isn't right. Something says that you're being perceived as not a member of the desirable group, and treated accordingly.

But then of course you can't prove it. You know someone's going to say "Oh come on, prove that this person is racist. It's not as though there's a WHITES ONLY sign there" or "Just what, exactly, did he say that was specifically sexist? Come on - direct quotes only." And of course you can't prove it, because you can't go back and experience the exact same situation as a different person and find out if you would have been treated differently. You may even have got it wrong - sometimes people do. But this is the face of modern prejudice. This is exactly what it looks like. Racist people don't wear a big hat with RACIST on it. In fact, they themselves probably think they aren't racist.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
Let's see: a megastar goes to a store to buy an obscenely priced piece of fluff, and the thing that is sick in our society is that a sales clerk fails to wait on her with the proper obsequiousness, presumably because the multi-billionaire is black. Yup. that seems about right...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
tclune

Yes, Oprah might have been hoping to be recognised and fawned over a little - many celebrities would be the same. But even if that didn't happen, all the assistant had to do was politely let a prospective customer inspect a handbag. I don't see what would have been obsequious about that. That's her job.

Maybe they could have lower-grade inspection copies on display if they're worried about thefts. Or a buzzer system whereby customers have to be both let in and out of the shop by the assistant.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Let's see: a megastar goes to a store to buy an obscenely priced piece of fluff, and the thing that is sick in our society is that a sales clerk fails to wait on her with the proper obsequiousness, presumably because the multi-billionaire is black. Yup. that seems about right...

--Tom Clune
Oprah is exceptionally generous and has donated millions to charities, besides promoting other charities on her shows leading them to post huge boosts in fundraising. Why can't she have a handbag or two while she's at it.

I don't see anyone calling society "sick" over this incident. She was asked in an interview if she experiences racism and she gave this as an example.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
The only way for them to emerge with any credit is to apologise: profusely and at length.
Not sure about that. This is Switzerland. The people who count probably don't care what US TV viewers think of them. Or even the US government much. They assume the customers will keep on coming. Think canonical Canadian lighthouse joke.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Let's see: a megastar goes to a store to buy an obscenely priced piece of fluff, and the thing that is sick in our society is that a sales clerk fails to wait on her with the proper obsequiousness, presumably because the multi-billionaire is black. Yup. that seems about right...

--Tom Clune
To be honest, I'm deeply uncomfortable myself about something like a handbag costing that much. But in a society in which the super rich can and do buy these things, race shouldn't come into it. And when it does it's a symptom of a disease that affects society as a whole and which is extremely damaging. It's the same basic attitude which leads to black people being stopped by the police because they "couldn't possibly" have got that nice car by legitimate means. So even if most people are unable to identify with having a five figure sum for a handbag, I bet this is a situation that a great many people can identify with and feel anger about. They'll never go to this particular shop, but they know what it's like to be in a situation where someone takes one look at them, makes an instant and completely wrong judgement on the basis of their skin colour, and treats them differently as a result.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Let's see: a megastar goes to a store to buy an obscenely priced piece of fluff, and the thing that is sick in our society is that a sales clerk fails to wait on her with the proper obsequiousness, presumably because the multi-billionaire is black. Yup. that seems about right...

--Tom Clune

 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
It's so easy for folk to default to clucking about expensive fashion accessories.

Let's get back to racism, shall we?

An excellent friend regaled us this past Sunday at the after mass coffee hour with an appalling customer service story, one that had no possible explanation, none whatsoever—to the white people who heard it.

There was no mention of race, color, nor discrimination.

But throughout the retelling, those sensitive to racism exchanged knowing glances, while the whites among the audience resorted to hypotheses of mental illness to account for the otherwise unaccountable behavior of the sales clerk in my friend's tale.

It was only when my friend casually, off-handedly, made mention of Oprah Winfrey that the penny really dropped for the whites.

[ 12. August 2013, 15:13: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Missed the time to edit and Liopleurodon said it better, and more calmly, than I would have.
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
I am not an Oprah-groupie.

But no sales assistant has any damn business telling a customer what they can or can't afford.

Period.
 
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
Indeed, no sales assistant should suggest or imply that a customer might not be able to afford something.

But I take the account of the store owner Tracy Goetz as seriously as Oprah's account, because when people are speaking in a language not native to them, there is huge scope for misunderstanding. The assistant is "mostly Italian-speaking" apparently and while obviously having some English, as an assistant in a top Zurich boutique, it may not be at all capable of nuance or subtlety. the whole thing sounds to me like a misunderstanding. In which case I feel very sorry for this poor assistant now maligned all over the place!

But this discussion is useful in reminding those of us who don't have to contend with white-on-black racism what it can feel like...
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
Of course, we don't know in this particular case. We'll never know for certain. The trouble is that whenever something which may be about racism hits the news, there are a whole bunch of people thinking "Yup. That's happened to me, or something very like it. I could have been in that shop" and the picture becomes more complicated. And then it's no longer just about this one case which may or may not be racist. It's about thousands of people who've experienced this kind of crap before. And then, when you get a load of white people saying "Oh this probably wasn't racist - just a misunderstanding. Who would even do that? I don't believe it" it sounds awfully like they're suggesting that all the people who've experienced this themselves are being hysterical and overreacting.
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Indeed, no sales assistant should suggest or imply that a customer might not be able to afford something.

But I take the account of the store owner Tracy Goetz as seriously as Oprah's account, because when people are speaking in a language not native to them, there is huge scope for misunderstanding. The assistant is "mostly Italian-speaking" apparently and while obviously having some English, as an assistant in a top Zurich boutique, it may not be at all capable of nuance or subtlety. the whole thing sounds to me like a misunderstanding. In which case I feel very sorry for this poor assistant now maligned all over the place!

But this discussion is useful in reminding those of us who don't have to contend with white-on-black racism what it can feel like...
I don't trust Tracy Goetz' version because she is friends with Tina Turner (who lives in Switzerland) and having a racist employee would probably nip that relationship in the bud. She also knows that lots of wealthy black people travel through Switzerland - African oil billionaires, foreign dignitaries, entertainers - and is terrified that her shop will be shunned by those people.

Oprah travels around the world regularly, she is not some American tourist who thinks the rest of the world speaks English. She has shopped at plenty of places where English is not the main language. And I'm sure 99% of the time, she doesn't have any problems. There is no version of the story where a language barrier leads an Italian woman to say "that is too expensive" or "let me show you something less expensive" if she meant anything other than that. Unless she was trying to say "let me know you something more expensive" - hah.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I don't trust Tracy Goetz' version because she is friends with Tina Turner (who lives in Switzerland) and having a racist employee would probably nip that relationship in the bud.
I don't understand why you think this would completely undermine Goetz's arguments. It would be presumably more expedient for her to say 'I didn't know this shop assistant was racist when I hired her, I abhor racism (some of my best friends are black) and I've now fired her'. That would close the issue. By sticking by the shop assistant, the story continues to run.
 
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :
 
quote:

The Trois Pommes sales assistant said over the weekend that she felt 'powerless' and in the grip of a 'cyclone' after Winfrey went on TV in America to make the claim.

"I wasn't sure what I should present to her when she came in on the afternoon of Saturday, July 20, so I showed her some bags from the Jennifer Aniston collection. I explained to her the bags came in different sizes and materials, like I always do.


"She looked at a frame behind me. Far above there was the 35,000 Swiss franc crocodile leather bag. I simply told her that it was like the one I held in my hand, only much more expensive, and that I could show her similar bags.

"It is absolutely not true that I declined to show her the bag on racist grounds. I even asked her if she wanted to look at the bag.

"She looked around the store again but didn't say anything else. Then she went with her companion to the lower floor. My colleague saw them to the door. They were not even in the store for five minutes."

She emphatically denied ever saying to Winfrey: 'You don't want to see this bag. It is too expensive. You cannot afford it.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2391313/Oprah-Winfrey-says-regrets-mentioning-handbag-racism-incident-Zurich.html

Sounds like she was just trying to warn Oprah that the less-expensive bag was a better deal for the money.
 
Posted by Beautiful Dreamer (# 10880) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:


Sounds like she was just trying to warn Oprah that the less-expensive bag was a better deal for the money.
...which is what a lot of people in the customer service industry would do. I've worked in retail and restaurants quite a bit and, while there is something to be said for 'upselling' items on a restaurant bill for a better tip, some people seriously do want the customer to get a good deal because good customer service can make or break many establishments. Treat customers well, they'll come back. Perhaps it's different in 'high-end' shops, but I don't see how.

I'm not saying that there wasn't racism behind it, because I don't know. I don't know how the woman spoke to Oprah, what tone she used, etc...but a language barrier very well could have caused hard feelings when none were needed.

I just think it's sad to be living in 2013 with racist ideas still out there. I'd have hoped we'd be beyond this crap by now. [Mad]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
How about a copy of the shop camera footage?
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I don't trust Tracy Goetz' version because she is friends with Tina Turner (who lives in Switzerland) and having a racist employee would probably nip that relationship in the bud.
I don't understand why you think this would completely undermine Goetz's arguments. It would be presumably more expedient for her to say 'I didn't know this shop assistant was racist when I hired her, I abhor racism (some of my best friends are black) and I've now fired her'. That would close the issue. By sticking by the shop assistant, the story continues to run.
That only makes sense if Goetz intends to fire the assistant, which apparently she does not. Perhaps the woman is one of her best sellers.

You can't say that you're shocked to discover the assistant is racist and then keep her on as an employee. So to keep her, the only thing to do is say it's a misunderstanding.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0