I love handbags

[BainsBane]

I have a beautiful handbag I bought for myself for a milestone birthday nearly two years ago. Here it is.




It's a Brahmin bag, not close to Oprah's price range, but then I don't have Oprah's money. Being me and liking a bargain, I used a coupon during Macy's Friends and Family sale.


I don't give a shit about cutting-edge electronics or fancy cars, but I love a nice handbag. So does Oprah. Our sense of what a nice bag is varies greatly in accordance with our incomes.

Know what else? I would like another bag, and just might buy one sometime in the next year.
Maybe this one if I can swing it.



The money I spent on that bag or might spend in the future could be spent on feeding starving children in Africa. I don't feed starving children in Africa; Oprah does. I contribute a bit from each paycheck to the local food shelf, not nearly what Oprah contributes either in dollars, obviously, or I suspect in percentage of income.

We all spend money on stuff we absolutely don't have to. That money you may spend on beer and cigarettes or computer stuff could feed lots of starving people. Starving children across the world would love to have access to the food scraps so insignificant to you that they go in the garbage. They would consider your consumption every bit as disgusting as you consider Oprah's.

None of that changes the fact that Oprah is a black woman, and no matter how much money she has and what she can afford, she will always be black. Because of that, she is subject to being treated as inferior, like every other person with black and brown skin on this planet. Some have gone to great lengths to dismiss, explain away, and every justify racism. White privilege hinges on denying racism. Yeah, I know you don't feel more privileged that Oprah because it most ways you aren't, but you will never hear a story of a white celebrity being told she can't afford something. Nor will people on this site complain about Angelina Jolie's expensive clothes or Jay Leno's many, many cars. They are white, and no one questions their right to acquire stuff. Oprah, however, is another story.

[BainsBane]

1. This is the very bag Oprah wanted to look at

Yet oddly, we don't see people complaining that Jennifer Aniston carries a $38,000 handbag. I wonder why?

[yourout]

2. Sorry.....not looking at the handbag.

[Egalitarian Thug]

14. Seriously? n/t

[NuclearDem]

96. Oh you're such a MAN

[Ms. Toad]

3. Perhaps because the purchase of that bag

wasn't tied to an internationally publicized incident.

Would you haven known it, but for this incident?

[BainsBane]

6. because no shop clerk tells white women they can't afford expensive bags

But this image comes from yesterday's Daily Mail, so clearly it has gotten press coverage. We know how much DUers just love the Daily Mail.

[Ms. Toad]

16. Just a guess -

something in the image or the story linked it to Oprah's interest in the bag.

Clearly Oprah's race was what precipitated the shopkeeper's inexcusable behavior.

But your comment about Jennifer Anniston suggested that no one cares about or comments on Jennifer Anniston spending her money the same way. My point is that looking at that bag in a press picture, I would have priced it at $100 (and that is being overly generous). So looking at a picture of her carrying what looks to me to be at most a $100 bag, it would not occur to me that she spent $38,000 on it. It isn't that the same people don't think it is outrageous - it is that the price tag of her bag was not part of an internationally pubicized incident.

[BainsBane]

138. I tend to agree that it looks like an ordinary bag

I wouldn't guess $100 because it's leather. There has for at least a decade been a lot of press about the Birkin bag carried by celebrities. They cost as much as $225,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkin_bag

[Ms. Toad]

177. The coverage must have been in media I don't read/listen to.

But spending that much on a bag is obscene, regardless of the race of the person forking over the money.

[RebelOne]

17. I am one DUer that likes the Daily Mail.

There is a lot of juicy reporting there and many of the stories are ahead of even our national headlines.

[BainsBane]

55. Just be aware it's a right-wing tabloid

[WinkyDink]

86. I think I can detect Right-Wing sentiments.

[Little Star]

174. I like The Daily Mail....

I check it out a few times a week. I never thought of it as a right-wing tabloid. I see it sorta like CNN, neither left or right. They have some things sooner than many others.

But yes, like I do with all serious stories from any paper, I look to see what everyone else is saying. The small stuff, not so much.

[BainsBane]

195. well, it is, really.

Ask a British member on this board about the publication. They are very familiar with it.

[WinkyDink]

85. I read it...daily!

[Liberal_in_LA]

133. i like it also

[pipi_k]

53. The hell they don't

Not in those exact words, anyway

Here's what a shop clerk says to two white women who have stepped in to browse the racks

After looking both women up and down for about 30 seconds, the clerk comes over to the white women and, without being asked, points to a set of stairs and says, "The bargain basement is over that way"

I was one of those white women. It was embarrassing as hell

[WinkyDink]

87. The only reply in that case was, "That would be for you on your salary, Shopgirl."

[Tuesday Afternoon]

89. ^^^^ this happens ^^^^ daily ^^^^ clerks -just- know ^^^^

not denying the racism mind you

just saying

-it happens-

and has nothing to do with any color except green

[lunasun]

128. Then how come they didnt know O had $$$ ??

if they' know '... and it has nothing to do with any color except green............

[Tuesday Afternoon]

178. Yes, I agree it doesn't -

That is what does not make sense. I really can't understand what or why it happened except for the racism. I just know that the above does happen and is not rare.

[BainsBane]

95. So do you believe Oprah's treatment had nothing to do with race?

[pipi_k]

102. Here's what I believe...

I believe that I don't know exactly why she was treated however she was treated because:

1. I wasn't there

2. I don't have some secret pipeline into that shop clerk's mind.

It's just as possible that Oprah was dressed rather casually, causing the shop clerk to judge her buying power based on her clothing.

It's also just as possible that there may have been some slight communication problem between Oprah and the Italian clerk.

I was thinking earlier of how different this whole thing could be based on different sets of information.

The story could have said, "Buyer denied merchandise purchase in Swiss shop". People would have wondered, WTF??? Classism, maybe?

The story could have said, "Famous woman denied purchase of costly purse in Swiss shop" and people would have been jumping up and down yelling "SEXISM!!!"

But the story is that a black woman was denied access to an expensive purse and now everyone is absolutely positive it was "RACISM!!!111"

Because, yeah...every single unfortunate thing involving a white and non-white person must always be about "racism". How boring life would life be if people couldn't accuse others besides themselves of being racists?



Like I said...I wasn't there. I guess everybody who's convinced they know exactly what happened and why, WAS there. In a little shop in Switzerland.

right.

[BainsBane]

108. Sexism, in buying a handbag?

I'm not convinced. Nor do I think it likely Oprah was wearing the kind of clothing that would make it appear like she couldn't afford a bag.

[pipi_k]

187. The reference to

sexism...or the insistence by some here that sexism was the cause is based on very real things I've seen on this site for a number of years.

If something involves a woman being denied something, the same crowd over and over again will yell "sexism!!!". It's their agenda, you know? Finding sexism around every corner, likely to prove to themselves what victims they are. Which isn't to say that sexism does not exist. Just that it's not around every corner.

Same with accusations of racism. Racism does exist. But it's not present in every single negative interaction between white and non-white persons.

Sometimes it's just interaction on a human level.

It's disturbing how many people think they can judge what was in someone else's mind based on limited information.

OK...now if Oprah and a white woman were both in that store at the same time, dressed exactly alike, and both wanted to see the real expensive purses and the clerk would not allow Oprah to see the purse but allowed the white woman to see it, then yes...there is a very strong and valid reason for thinking racism was involved.

Actually, I would rather say "stereotyping". Because wouldn't actual racism involve telling Oprah that her kind is not welcome in that shop?

[duffyduff]

115. We're supposed to take pity on a billionaire

when there are people who are suffering all over this country.

Oprah always was a drama queen. Unfortunately, many people here take the bait.

[tblue37]

192. She said she was dressed as usual--in designer clothes.

Her hair and makeup were done, but she did not have her false eyelashes on.

I can believe that language issues might have been at least part of the problem, but I also suspect that an intelligent black woman of a certain age has enough experience with racist snubs to recognize one when she experiences it.

Denying outright, as so many do, that it could have been racism is too much like whitesplaining. You aren't denying it outright, of course, but many are, and even those who aren't doing so seem to be overinvested in coming up with other explanations.

Here's my reaction to Oprah's take on the incident.

1. I trust her intelligence and experience--plus the fact that since she was there and I was not, I assume she picked up on nuances that a stark recital of the incident and the words spoken cannot convey.

2. When I see a movie or read a book in which a child or an animal is abused, I react with almost the same degree of horror as I do when I learn of real life events of that sort. Yes, I know fiction is not real, but I also know that what I am reading or seeing in a movie is a representation of something that DOES go on all the time all over the world, so for me the fictional representation stands as a painful reminder of that horrifying reality, and I cannot bear to think of it, so my reaction is almost as strong as it is when I hear of such things in real life.

Similarly, even if Oprah was mistaken in her interpretation of the incident (mind you, I rather doubt that she was--for the reasons I explain earlier in this post), what she says she experienced happens ALL THE TIME to black women and to all other people who are not members of the dominant race. If in fact she was being hypersensitive--which, again, I rather doubt--she would have gotten that way after a lifetime of endless racist snubs and insults, day after day, year after year, no matter what she did, no matter what she accomplished.

Therefore, regardless of how one interprets the incident, we should take it as a reminder of what DOES go one all the time, using it as a spur to fight against such discrimination in any way we can, instead of dismissing her sense of what she experienced and trying to whitesplain it into nothing.

[PotatoChip]

194. +1

[RedCappedBandit]

233. "enough experience with racist snubs to recognize one"

This is what people who have never experienced racism just don't get.

[lumberjack_jeff]

216. When I shop for a car, I wear the raggediest clothes I own.

I don't want to be harangued by a salesman. When I'm ready to buy, they'll learn quickly or I'll move on to another dealership/salesman.

The act of "shopping" is something I will never understand. The fact that the sales clerks have this kind of power over one's sense of self-worth suggests that the purpose is something other than simply procuring items one wants or needs.

[pipi_k]

223. Years ago...

I was going with a guy who knew a guy who made some interesting furnishings that would probably be more suitable for a place like NYC, not the city where we were.

Anyway, we worked in the shop from time to time...it was located in a mall-type setting in the downtown area. All sorts of people came through, including people who dressed rather rattily.

My BF at the time would get snooty and haughty with these people and virtually chase them out of the shop. I told him that he shouldn't judge people by the way they dress. They could be legitimate customers.

He just laughed at me.

In truth, as I found out sometime later, he was an elitist asshole who thought the price of items was an indicator of a person's worth, and always talked about his family back home like they were closely connected to famous people and lived on what he called "the estate". No shit. He really called it that.

Some years later I found out from someone that "the estate" was really an ordinary ranch style home near a lake.

[lumberjack_jeff]

224. I know lots of people like that.

It's one of the downsides of being in the boatbuilding business.

[ZombieHorde]

122. "because no shop clerk tells white women they can't afford expensive bags"

That's a solid rebuttal.

[pnwmom]

235. My mother and I are white and when I was in high school

a store told my mother their boots were too expensive for us. This was just a shoe store in a shopping mall, with products like you'd see at Macy's.

No reason that I could see -- it wasn't our clothes, either.

Very weird.

[avaistheone1]

141. Not true. Any shop in the same league as the shop being discussed

either would ignore or not serve a white woman who they felt could not afford the mercandise they are selling.

I have gone into a number of these types of shops and it is an uncomfortable experience. If they do not feel you are one of their target clients you receive a very icy reception at best regardless of your color.

[BainsBane]

143. Honestly, I wouldn't even go in such a shop

that's how awkward I would feel. I could never afford the bag and would see no point of even looking. Peering in the window would be enough. It does sound like these clerks are idiots though. I'm guessing they work on commission, which would mean they should want to sell bags. Rich people wear jeans and t-shirts too.

I don't for a second believe Oprah was dressed in clothing that might indicate she couldn't afford the bag. The NPR story said she wasn't wearing her false eyelashes, so looked different and wasn't recognized.

[avaistheone1]

149. Evidently, Oprah show is not broadcast there.

So she is not known and is not a celebrity in that country.

[bettyellen]

186. If you nicely tell them you're "just browsing today" they usually respond very kindly and let you be

Sometimes if they aren't too busy they'll show you new arrivals and stunning things just to practice their spiel. The Fendi people had an awesome time outfitting my lovely niece from head to toe, just for kicks. It was alot of fun. I had taken her there because she wants to be in the business, but was afraid to go in places like that. So I showed her if you're kind, upbeat and upfront about just looking- clerks are just fine with it.

[pnwmom]

234. A shoe store clerk once told my mother and me that we couldn't afford their boots.

So it does happen.

And it feels very very weird, especially when you know that the shoe store is just a regular shoe store with prices like you'd see at Macy's. And it wasn't because of how we were dressed, or our race. We never figured it out -- and I've never forgotten how embarrassing it was.

My husband and I were also turned away by a salesman once, when we went into a store that sold art posters. It was crazy because Seattle is full of people with much more money than we have who don't dress the part. I'm sure we weren't the only people they'd ever turned away.

[CurtEastPoint]

4. If that is a bag that sells for $38K, someone got taken.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. I really do not see 38K there and I love my handbags.

Last edited Sat Aug 10, 2013, 10:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Maybe it is gold lined or something

on edit:

not arguing the racism involved but, where I come from the snobs don't care what color you are. They already know you can't afford it and they don't care what color you are. maybe it is a local/regional thing but, I think people can smell money or rather the lack/look of it.

[duffyduff]

110. And you KNOW it cost pennies to make

Oprah whined about being "mistreated," and I have NO sympathy for somebody who is filthy rich.

[ZombieHorde]

243. I agree.

No piece of leather is worth that much. Just because someone shaped it into the form of an ugly purse doesn't mean it's suddenly worth thousands.

[burnodo]

5. 38.000?!?!

Think of all the money she could save going to Target and spending $45 for virtually the same thing. By the way, that orange bag

[BainsBane]

8. Fail

Try signing online from a Etch a sketch you can buy at Target and let us know how that works out for you.

[burnodo]

10. really?

whats worth $38K ? Seriously! Tell me!

[BainsBane]

12. No, not to me

but then I'm not a billionaire. There is no fucking way I'd be caught dead with a Target bag. (Well, I have a cloth sac from Target I use for the dog poo when walking the dog). First off, a $45 bag is going to be made of plastic. Now, I would get a Big Buddha bag on sale for around that price, also synthetic but a lot nicer than what you find at Target.

[burnodo]

15. Well, Target was just a generic reference.

Kohls?

[BainsBane]

66. No

[dflprincess]

124. One of my favorite purses came from Target

It was my everyday purse, lasted for years and broke my heart when the strap broke.

And, I've had more expensive bags that didn't last nearly as long as that one did.

[lumberjack_jeff]

218. "There is no fucking way I'd be caught dead with a Target bag."

Can you imagine the shame?

The understood purpose of a bag is to carry stuff. If the Target bag brings such revulsion then the real purpose of the bag is entirely ostentation; a mechanism to communicate your net worth to people you meet.

[Cleita]

41. A homeless family could live a year on that.

This is not about Oprah, but the fact that there are pricey trinkets out there that ultra rich women can buy. It doesn't matter if it's her Jennifer or Princess Kate. It points to the unequal distribution of wealth in our society. The bag is the problem, not the person who can afford to wear it.

[roguevalley]

71. that is the average retirement pension income of a teacher where I live after nearly

30 years of working like a peon. If my house crapped money, I would not buy a bag that spendy. I would have a hard time looking in the mirror. But the rich, they are different.

[pipi_k]

184. Not rich by any means, but...

along the same lines about spending money when so many poor people have nothing...

Sometimes when I'm sitting here during lunch and one of those infomercial things comes on the TV showing poor kids in some foreign country, I almost choke on my cup of soup and tuna sandwich.

How much would some starving kid in Africa appreciate my lunch? It would probably be like a feast to him.

How much would my little home seem like a palace to him?

I feel guilty and ashamed, almost.

I'm not sure I could handle great wealth.

[roguevalley]

197. ditto, my angel

[BainsBane]

135. By buying cheap imported products made in sweatshops

Last edited Sun Aug 11, 2013, 06:30 AM - Edit history (1)

one subsidizes the system of production and wages that creates homelessness. If I were wealthy, I would refuse to subsidize poverty by buying the kinds of products people here find acceptable. That doesn't require buying a $38k purse, but it does mean not buying the $50 purses people consider themselves virtuous for purchasing.

In your analysis, buying cheap stuff is a virtue. If that's the case, we should all shop at Walmart. I myself choose not to.

The problem is not what Oprah or another rich person buys. The problem is an economic system that generates rampant inequality. Outsourcing of jobs to sweatshops overseas is probably the greatest factor contributing to that inequality. Most of us subsidize that deindustrialization and outsourcing every time we buy something.

The other point is that Oprah's sin was not in buying a bag but in having the nerve to ask to LOOK at it. Evidently people here, like that shop clerk, believe that is simply not acceptable.

[Cleita]

185. I guess we shouldn't buy food either because it's harvested by cheap immigrant labor.

And I don't shop at big box stores, but discount stores that carry the same designer labels as the big department stores like Neiman Marcus, but usually for a third less. Those labels are made in the same factories overseas that make the cheap stuff.

Epic fail here in your analogy, my dear.

[bettyellen]

188. Well, as soon as you look for a big price break- you're helping ensure lower wages or

Very often, leaving quality assurance people jobless. They may use the same factories, and some of the same materials (but often grade B stuff) but your zippers and hardware will be crappier quality, and the craftsmanship does go down. So, there's that.

[BainsBane]

204. You are clearly uninformed on the point

cheap versions of designer labels are made me made in overseas factories, but those high end bags are made by hand, typically in Europe. That is part of the reason they are so expensive. Even this bag that comes in at under $4000 is made in Italy. http://www.bergdorfgoodman.com/p/Tom-Ford-Medium-Kidskin-Natalia-Bag/prod79100008/?ecid=BGCIGoogleProductAds&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=prod79100008skuBLACK
You can be sure a $38k bag is Italian made as well.

You keep making absurd points by saying " in that analogy"or "in that reasoning" that make zero sense in the context of the discussion. You clearly have not made an effort to understand my points, probably because it requires reflecting on your own role in promoting economic inequality, which you steadfastly refuse to do.

You refuse to acknowledge the nature of the economy and that promoting consumption of cheap products actually creates low wages and poverty. Your primary point seems to be to finger wag at others, while showing no willingness to examine your own role in perpetuating poverty and low wages, or to even think seriously about the problem of economic inequality. People love to wag their fingers at others. What they don't do is accept any responsibility for their own role in the economic system. This is all about what you like and what you think is acceptable according to YOUR standards. You can buy anything you want, regardless of where it is made and who suffers in the manufacturing of that product but Oprah committed a mortal sin by having the nerve to ask to look at something YOU think is too expensive. This isn't about poverty or low wages, it's about your tastes and what you think is acceptable. Plenty of people on this planet would consider the consumption of you, me, and the average DUer to be every bit as disgusting as you consider Oprah's. You refuse to reflect on that because it's all about what you think is too expensive. Navel gazing is not thoughtful political analysis.

[lumberjack_jeff]

217. You are suggesting that the Target bag won't carry and contain purse-stuffing?

The worth of those bags is entirely tied to their perceived value by passers-by. Their value is entirely dependent on other women knowing how much it cost.

A Corvette has no practical functional advantage over the Honda Civic, but it at least does try to justify the price difference by going faster.

[pipi_k]

225. Oh yeah!

The worth of those bags is entirely tied to their perceived value by passers-by. Their value is entirely dependent on other women knowing how much it cost.

Hadn't thought about it before, but yeah...

It's like some stupid little exclusive club, instead of a secret handshake or decoder ring, they have the purses or shoes or whatever that both set them apart from, and above, the peasants and let others in the club know that they are one of them.

[Zorra]

13. I have several purses. I like them as well. But I've never paid over $44 for a purse, and

the $44 purse was a steel net lined purse I use when traveling, usually in crime infested third world countries.

Paying $38,000 for a purse is silly, and obscene in my opinion.

But that's just me, I like to think that if I had that much money to spend on a purse, I'd use it for paying for health care for some sick child instead.

[BainsBane]

20. Sounds like you are wasting money having several purses you don't need

rather than contributing that money to charity. And what makes you think you have the right to travel when people are starving around the world?

See my point? It's relative. You spend money you don't need to, as do I. Oprah donates a great deal to charity. People work very hard to deny the importance of race in this issue and society more broadly.

[Cleita]

46. By that reasoning you shouldn't have a purse at all.

Back in 1950 when my mom bought me my first purse, she had to pay a luxury tax on it. Yes, up until I believe 1970 purses were considered luxuries even if made from cloth.

[BainsBane]

83. So it's okay for someone to buy five cheap purses

for the same price as one good one? Is that what you're saying? Better to buy lots of cheap purses made from low wage labor made in China than one good one made by craftspeople in Europe? Or consumption is acceptable as long as it fits within your budget? Maybe I'm just confused, but I'm not following you objection here.

[Cleita]

88. You haven't really followed the issue here.

I'm not surprised you haven't followed what I'm trying to say.

[BainsBane]

91. Thanks for taking the time to explain

very thoughtful of you. I read your OP. I found it okay. I found many of the responses deeply troubling. There is a great deal of racism at work, and people are working hard to avoid the issue while some are intent to legitimate it when directed toward those with wealth.

That you see the issue differently doesn't mean I don't understand it. I did not understand your point in that last particular post, and rather than engaging in a discussion on that point, you rely on personal attack.

[Zorra]

69. Here's the thing...I like Oprah and am very disturbed about the racism she experienced

in Switzerland.

The whole $38,000 materialism thing, no,sorry, that's just weird no matter who does it, but I'm not going to go into a long discourse about my life here to justify the $4.99 I spend for the functional Versace knockoff I buy at the second hand store.

[BainsBane]

92. Obviously to normal people that kind of expense is inconceivable

but I don't see anything inherently superior about buying goods made in Chinese sweatshops vs. items crafted by European artisans paid a living wage. You and I can afford the first but not the latter. I myself see no value in a designer label, so a knock off is worthless to me. When it comes to my own spending choices, I want a well made purse that will last.

What it comes to conspicuous consumption, I think the real problem is not how a billionaire might choose to spend her money but that there is so much income inequality in the first place, especially in this country.

[BuelahWitch]

58. That is one FUGLY bag

I wouldn't pay $38 for it. I guess they're paying for the designer label, which I've always thought is stupid. If you're going to drop 38 grand on something, at least get something PRETTY.

[BainsBane]

60. Well, you wouldn't buy it

That certainly means a black woman has no right to want to look at it. Case solved.

[BuelahWitch]

65. I have no problem with Oprah looking at a FUGLY bag

And hope you don't throw out your back playing that game of Twister with my words, honey.

[BainsBane]

70. You made the comment

You chose to express what you considered to be most important in this controversy, which evidently is your own taste.

[Skittles]

105. hey you didn't accuse me of being racist, BB

you simply threatened to kick my ass

[BainsBane]

159. You want me to kick her ass too?

I don't believe I've accused anyone of being racist.

[PADemD]

117. For $38,000, I could buy a nice car.

I bought my current purse on the sale rack at Kmart for $9.

[JI7]

139. you wouldn't give it to the poor instead ?

[PADemD]

144. My car is 11 years old.

[JI7]

147. so is mines, but unlike some other poor we still have a car

[lumberjack_jeff]

220. I'd carry the car around on my arm to show people that I can afford a $38,000 car.

The guys might also be impressed that I can curl 3000# one-handed.

[BainsBane]

152. I can't imagine why anyone needs a car that expensive

Last edited Sun Aug 11, 2013, 06:59 AM - Edit history (2)

I've always bought used cars. Some see things differently. We all have our preferences. I would put a sizable down payment on a house with that kind of money. To each her own.

I don't happen to believe purchasing goods produced in offshore sweatshops makes someone superior to another person who purchases a more expensive bag made by artisans who earn a living wage. I certainly don't see a reason to condemn someone for having the nerve to ask to LOOK at an expensive bag, which is after all what Oprah did. She likely didn't know the price, but she certainly knew regardless of its cost, she could afford it.

[tabbycat31]

219. I would have some left over after buying the car I want

Then again expensive cars have never been my taste.

I'd bank the rest for the next car.

[greytdemocrat]

72. Anyone paying 38 Large for that thing...

Should have their head examined.

[Blaukraut]

76. You see, it's not how WE perceive that bag. The wealthy recognize the price..uh designer!

They couldn't give a shit less about what we peons think of their pricey toys and gadgets. They're not trying to impress us. They're trying to impress their peers.

[BainsBane]

154. Maybe she just thought it was pretty

I don't see how Oprah needs to impress anyone at this point.

[BuelahWitch]

78. Agreed

[BainsBane]

155. This is definitely the way to go, much better for the economy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023442624

Better yet, stash it off shore and don't pay taxes on it.

[Beacool]

121. The bag was designed for Jennifer Aniston (it's called the "Jennifer") and it doesn't cost $38,000.

The one that was at the store in Zurich is made of crocodile skin. The one Jennifer is carrying retails for a tad less than $3,000.

[avaistheone1]

151. It depends

I did some quick research on the bag this evening. Tom Ford produced a handful of "Jennifer" design bags of different sizes and colors. Some of the smaller bags start at $1875. The top larger bag in the Jennifer collection is - as you stated a tad under $3000.

http://www.neimanmarcus.com/category.jsp?itemId=cat43890738&parentId=cat43890733&masterId=cat43890732&ecid=NMALRoGj7akNVsTg&CS_003=5630585

[Ilsa]

127. OMG. What a fugly bag.

At any price. I wouldn't pay $25 for it.

And zippers are dreadful. One's skin rakes across the metal when getting into or out of the bag.

I don't particularly like the colors of those handbags in the OP, but I definitely like them better than Aniston's bag.

[BuelahWitch]

131. I remember my junior high classmates in the '70s wore bags like Aniston's

Thought they were fugly then, still do. I guess it would be fine if you were running pony express or something, otherwise...

[BainsBane]

136. Looks like a basic bag to me, not ugly but not particularly noteworthy.

Zippers keep stuff secure. I've had bags that result in the entire contents being dumped out on the floor of a movie theater. I like a zipper closure. I've never had a problem with my skin rubbing on the zipper.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

134. Does that bag come with $37,925 in cash in it?

[calimary]

183. Thirty-eight THOUSAND dollars - for that???

Maybe $380, TOPS, if it's really high-quality leather or something, maybe. Or a designer label or some such. But JEEEEZ...

[BainsBane]

200. I'm told that one is actually closer to $3000

but I haven't verified that myself.

[calimary]

201. Sheesh - still WAY too high.

[BainsBane]

205. The one advantage is that it's made in Italy as opposed to a Chinese sweatshop

and therefore buying it doesn't subsidize the system of outsourcing to low wage sweatshops that characterizes the modern economy.

[Katashi_itto]

199. Bag..theres a bag? That's Anniston...Oooo

Ok...back to the subject....Ummm

Oh I happen to have a bag..this is what I take with me when I go practice meditation at the Zen Temple



Anniston.....Anniston...

[AndyA]

206. Seriously? It's UGLY!

Looks like something you'd buy at a garage sale or thrift shop. Clunky zipper, ugly brown color. I thought Oprah had better taste than that...Anniston, well...I'd expect it from her.

[BainsBane]

210. I guess it's a different version of the bag

Some posted the actual one down below.

[lunamagica]

226. Is that it? I'm no handbag expert, but it looks rather ordinary....dare I say it...ugly. nt

[senseandsensibility]

7. What is the second one?

And how much was the first one? I love it. I know, I'm kinda missing the point, but I am a handbag lover like you. Also not even in the same universe as Oprah, but still I love bags and clothes. So that being said, I really would like answers to my questions, although I could google the first one.

[BainsBane]

9. I got it for about $260 after the coupon

I think he retailed for $325.

[RebelOne]

19. No way would I pay $260 for a purse even with a coupon.

I may pay that for a pair of boots, but haven't yet.

[BainsBane]

24. Yes, I see avoiding the issue is incredibly important to some

I have no doubt you spend money on stuff I never would. What you spend your money on is your business, and what Oprah spends her money on is hers. The difference is the prevalence of racism means that despise her incredible wealth and fame, 1) Oprah is subject to be treated like any other black person in being denied service, and 2) then a subject of outrage by people online who don't believe a black woman should be able to afford something that they as white people cannot. The idea that Oprah can subverts what they see s the natural order. It's an outrage. Jennifer Aniston and Jay Leno don't warrant a mention.

[roguevalley]

74. no one is avoiding the issue. they are discussing another one. Paying 40K for a

purse in this world BY ANYONE is fucked up, red, white or blue.

[BainsBane]

137. See, I don't think what's fucked is what people buy

but that inequality is such that some people have so much and others so little. In this country, the primary factor contributing to poverty is outsourcing of jobs to sweatshops that produce the cheap bags folks here find an acceptable purchase. Every time we buy those cheap products, we contribute to poverty here at home. Most of us don't have much if any option because we can't afford to purchase goods produced at fair wages. But if I were rich the first thing I would do is stop buying the sweatshop goods that people here seem to find acceptable purchases.

[BainsBane]

11. The second one is also a Brahmin

currently for sale on their website. It retails for $395. That color is unlikely to still be available by the time I can buy a new bag. They change the colors seasonally. Pecan, the brown one, is a standard color they always do in various models.

[senseandsensibility]

21. I just did some shopping and found a cute cross-body Brahmin on Dillard's site

It's a beautiful blue color, and under two hundred dollars. It's on my wish list. I would rather buy a bag like this every three or four years (or less) than a bunch of cheap ones.

[BainsBane]

29. That's my view

Lord and Taylor has a red Brahmin shopper on sale for $122 right now, or they did as of last week.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. What kind of moron doesn't realize that Oprah can afford whatever she wants?

That's the real question.

[BainsBane]

26. They know she can afford it

and they hate it. The idea that a black woman can buy something they can't subverts the natural order as they see it.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. ...In Manhattan?

You might be right. But it's probably just as much that she's from Chicago. They hate that.

[BainsBane]

42. What?

This whole controversy is about racism. People are bending over backward to avoid the subject.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. I haven't really been paying attention to the story, to be honest.

I knew someone who lived in the same building as Oprah, once. A long time ago. So I have anecdotal minor opinions about her that aren't really related to anything else, although I'm not a fan of her show. I'm not not a fan, either, although I do notice that every time she recommends some middlebrow book it becomes culturally inefuckinscapable.

Neither here nor there. But you're probably right about the racism, although the question that comes to mind is, was this someone who knew who she was, or not. Not that it matters.

[BainsBane]

52. Obviously the clerk didn't know her

Anyone who knows who Oprah is knows she can afford anything. I mistook your first comment as being about DU. I realize now it was about the clerk. The woman saw Oprah and assumed she couldn't afford the bag because she was black. Oprah twice asked to see the bag and the clerk refused to show it to her because she insisted it was too expensive.

I'm not even sure when this happened, but it came up during the interviews for the film the Butler that Oprah and Forrest Wittaker are currently doing a press junket for.

[Beacool]

125. A "moron" that has no clue who she is.

The whole world is not aware of Oprah. In Switzerland they didn't air her talk show.

[Warren DeMontague]

126. Serious question: Did the event take place in Switzerland? I'm asking because I missed the story.

If that's the case, okay, it makes a bit more sense. I thought it was NYC.

Because honestly I've never watched her show in my entire life, but I still know who she is.

[Beacool]

129. She was in Zurich for Tina Turner's wedding.

It's apparently a snobbish place because on other sites people commented that they were also treated poorly by salespeople over there. The purse she wanted to see was a crocodile bag originally designed by Tom Ford for Jennifer Aniston (it's called the "Jennifer&quot .

[Warren DeMontague]

130. Oh, okay. That makes a bit more sense.

Not cool, but at least not as much of a head scratcher.

[R B Garr]

22. Good post. And that $38,000 is probably not even close to her daily interest earned on her fortune

Wasn't it reported that Romney earned $50,000 per day? I doubt he or his wife were ever told they can't afford something while out shopping. Can you imagine what Queen Anne's outrage would look like?

[Bonobo]

23. Spending $38,000 on a handbag is sickening no matter what color you are. nt

[BainsBane]

25. By all means, post your outrage about Jennifer Aniston

Is having fifty cars sickening? Or is that okay?

You realize Oprah did't actually buy that bag. Aniston did.

[Bonobo]

56. It's not outrage.

But I do think it is sickening.

Because it is.

[BainsBane]

62. What is most sickening

is people who justify racism against someone who is wealthy or whom they don't happen to like.

[Bonobo]

63. That's fine.

You really know me well so your judgment of me as a person means SO much.

People are complex.

But choosing to spend $38,000 on a bag is not a complex issue.

It is an easy one to judge and find sickening.

[Bonobo]

68. I agree rape and rape apology is sickening.

What does that have to do with handbags? Or me?

Why does my offering an opinion on the subject of handbag purchases justify you attacking me in this personal way?

[BainsBane]

80. Okay, let me try again

Billionaires have lots of money. They spend that money. There is one billionaire (that I'm aware of) who is an African American woman. She was considering spending her money on a handbag. Why astounds me is that so many people think their views of whether or not that is an appropriate purchase is more important than the fact she was subject to racism--that a black woman no matter how wealthy still risks being treated like any other African American.

The point of the OP is that we all spend money in unnecessary ways. I am quite certain you spend money on things I would consider frivolous and vice versa. That isn't an issue for public debate. The point of this whole story was racism, yet in typical fashion, many white people go to great lengths to the importance of racism and some (and here I do not mean you) display their own racism in the process. What you consider a disgusting purchase is, in my view, irrelevant in the context of the larger issue of racism.

Now if one also wants to talk about class, it seems to me to be be far less important what rich people choose to spend their money on that the fact that there is so much income inequality in the first place. I don't see why a purse is any worse than a huge number of cars or anything else rich people spend their money on.

[Bonobo]

81. I wish your attempt at talking to me about my post

had not begun with implying that I am a fan of rape.

I think you owe me an apology.

[BainsBane]

84. I apologize for raising the issue here out of context

and will self delete.

[BainsBane]

67. Seems to me what is far more problematic

is not how a wealthy black woman chooses to spend her money, but that there is so much income inequality in the first place.

[avaistheone1]

148. Aniston bought a much less expensive bag, not the the $35,000 bag Oprah was interested in.

The bag Tom Ford named for Jennifer Aniston ranges from $1890 to $2990 a small fraction of the bag Oprah wanted.



http://www.neimanmarcus.com/category.jsp?itemId=cat43890738&parentId=cat43890733&masterId=cat43890732&ecid=NMALRoGj7akNVsTg&CS_003=5630585

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Better than spending 4 Million to lock a pot smoker in a room until he drinks his own urine.

Congratulations on your purchase, taxpayers!

[snappyturtle]

38. +1 nt

[sufrommich]

27. I'm too rough on purses to ever spend

more than 40 dollars on one,the coolest purses I've ever owned I've found at thrift shops.Although I'm not crazy about the brown purse you bought,I do like the Orange one.

[BainsBane]

35. Well, that is the chief reason to get a good bag

Years ago I learned the cheap ones aren't worth it. Mine wears like armor. I've fallen flat on my face carrying it, dropped it on the pavement, spilled stuff on it, yet it still looks like new.

[sufrommich]

43. That must have been some party!

[pipi_k]

73. Same here

Rough on bags I mean

So I buy canvas bags on sale at places like Sportsmans Guide

The one I'm using now held a laptop computer which was given away to a friend. I kept the bag, which is now my purse

[Skittles]

31. to each their own

I find both those bags absolutely hideous

[BainsBane]

32. Scheduling Skittles for an ass kicking

[tammywammy]

34. You're not the only one. n/t

[Cleita]

50. They are. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

90. truly.

and even the one Aniston is carrying that Oprah wanted to see is no prize either but, is slightly less ugly but for 38K No Way!

[BainsBane]

161. Why don't you show us a handbag that meets your discerning taste then?

[pipi_k]

104. I do too....

which only goes to show that "designer" crap isn't always what it's cracked up to be.

I can look hideous for far less money with my OD Green, Khaki, and black canvas bags.

[BainsBane]

160. Yeah, they aren't designer

Imagine my having the nerve to buy a bag without getting permission from the peanut gallery. What's wrong with me.

[pipi_k]

182. so they're not

designer.

I've still seen some designer bags that looked similar and they were hideous

Designer clothing

Designer shoes

Some designer stuff is truly hideous, and that was my point.

[BainsBane]

208. They are made by a family owned business

a company that has made bags in MA since 1881. They carry no designer label. The brand has built up a reputation for quality because they've been making good bags for over 120 years.

[pipi_k]

215. Cool, but...

they still look like some designer bags I've seen.

And designer stuff can be hideous.

That's my only point.

[theHandpuppet]

36. Simply not true

"Nor will people on this site complain about Angelina Jolie's expensive clothes or Jay Leno's many, many cars. They are white, and no one questions their right to acquire stuff. Oprah, however, is another story"

There have been many posts made on DU about the conspicuous consumption of the uber wealthy. Please don't make blanket statements like that unless you've first done your homework.

[BainsBane]

39. I'm here enough to know what outrages people

the steadfast denial of the role of race in this is fascinating.

[theHandpuppet]

49. So you admit you made an uniformed statement?

And anyone who deny the role of race in what happened to Oprah is ignorant. However, that doesn't give you license to simply make stuff up.

[R B Garr]

51. I think the main difference here is that Oprah was denied the potential purchase

because she was presumed to be unable to afford it, presumably because of the way she looked. She's black, so apparently that was enough for the store clerk to think the purchase was beyond her means. So she didn't actually spend it.

[theHandpuppet]

54. That has nothing to do with my post

I know exactly why Oprah was questioned about the purse -- outright racism. But to say there has never been outrage expressed on DU about the conspicuous consumption of the uber-wealthy who are white is simply not true.

[R B Garr]

61. I see, sort of, but the conspicuous consumption of the uber-wealthy is really a sidebar

that really doesn't have anything to do with the OP. The main point of the OP, as I see it, was that none of the uber-wealthy she mentioned have ever been accused of not being able to afford something because of the way they looked. It wasn't so much a statement about conspicuous consumption; in fact, BainsBane explains her own items that could be viewed as conspicuous consumption to some, so that aspect was more than acknowledged.

[Ms. Toad]

82. I'll agree it is a sidebar discussion -

to the disgusting racism of the main discussiton.

But it was the point of the OP. That complaints about the uber-wealthy spending money are only made when the uber-wealthy are white.

That is simply not true.

[theHandpuppet]

94. Exactly.

I wasn't the one who made that statement; I only challenged it as false.

[R B Garr]

97. I think you mean when they are non-white, because this is what she said:

"They are white, and no one questions their right to acquire stuff. Oprah, however, is another story."

However, I do see your and HandPuppet's larger point that is being made that there are plenty of people here who do abhor the conspicuous consumption, and they have said so in many ways before this incident. This OP just took it to another level that transcended that aspect, being that Oprah was being held to a different standard than her fellow rich white folks. I do see your point, though.

[theHandpuppet]

93. My post was made in repsonse to a very specific statement

That statement was false. Don't try broadening an argument I wasn't making.

[R B Garr]

100. Okay, but you took one sentence and basically changed the intention of the entire OP

when the entire OP, even the title, (I love handbags) was about BainsBane's own conspicuous consumption of handbags. So it seemed like you were trying to broaden an argument that really wasn't an accurate depiction of the main point(s). I do see your larger point, though, about the conspicuous comsumption, but not so much as something deliberately false in the OP.

[BainsBane]

166. Thank you for clarifying my post

I appreciate it.

[R B Garr]

198. Sure! I just thought it was very brave of you to post this personal insight into your tastes

as a segue to your other points, so I figured you had your flame suit on, lol. It's very easy for people to get defensive about expensive tastes, but I agree that we all have our personal consumption desires which will always seem irrational to some.

[BainsBane]

165. I did not say there had never been outrage about conspicuous consumption

but I said there is a double standard, as is evident in a post near the end of this thread where someone steadfastly defends Jennifer Aniston's many handbag purchases over Oprah's nerve in wanting to LOOK at a very expensive bag. People are angry that she had the nerve to ask to look at an expensive bag, that she likely didn't know the price, yet I have never once seen a thread about the $200,000 Birkin bags carried by a number of celebrities. Perhaps you can prove me wrong on that count.

[BainsBane]

59. People have been denying the role of race

That is the entire point of the comments about Oprah's conspicuous consumption. I am not making stuff up. You don't even appear to have bothered to read the threads in question.

Feel free to point me to previous threads about Jennifer Aniston's $38,000 purse. Evidently there have been hundreds I've missed.

[roguevalley]

77. actually, I am curious now. what number is the post where they deny race here. Thanks.

[BainsBane]

98. I repost one in the African American group (without link or reference to the poster's name)

In a thread titled: "Why does a discussion of racism (as it relates to black Americans) always dissolve . . ."

It's funny you would questions whether people deny racism around here. You should really read some of the other threads in that group.

[BainsBane]

209. another post is number 202

in this thread. Not that you see fit to acknowledge the evidence you so insisted I couldn't provide.

[roguevalley]

75. where is the denial? Jeez, point to the number on the thread

[BainsBane]

162. I already gave you that information

and told you where to look for references in other threads. Since the idea that people denying racism comes as such a revelation to you, I suggested you read through the African American group to see their take on that issue. Since then, there has since been another response in this very thread, number 106 most notably. Up above, early in this thread, people do indeed question whether her treatment had to do with race. Then throughout the entire discussion there is the continual insistence that Oprah has the nerve to want to look at an expensive bag, and that she's a greedy 1 percenter who doesn't behave in ways DUers think appropriate, which apparently requires buying cheap bags produced in foreign sweatshops that pay substandard wages, as the virtuous on this site do.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. Yeah, and the finger-wag and the armchair quarterback are central moves in the exercise regimen.

Still, whatever. Oprah's richer than Croesus, and she can do what she wants with her money.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. I buy my shirts at Costco and rarely pay more than 35 bucks for a pair of shoes.

Still, if Oprah wants to spend 38K on a purse, that's her business.

[Bonobo]

57. It IS her business.

But on a discussion board, it is MY business to share my own opinion.

In my opinion, it is sickening to spend that kind of money on a bag.

[Warren DeMontague]

111. It'd have to be one hell of a bag, I tell you what.

I mean, I could probably make a 5 page list of things I would want it to do for me... and to me...
before I'd even consider the price range.

[BainsBane]

163. The $200,000 Birkin bag carried by other celebrities

is obviously more expensive and received a great deal of press attention. Mind you Oprah's sin was in asking to LOOK at an expensive bag, which we might assume she didn't know the price of. She obviously, however, knew that whatever it cost, she could afford it. I found a reference to her actually buying a $395 Tory Burch bag. Someone below insisted Jennifer Aniston's carrying several $3000-$15,000 bags was okay because she gave money to Katrina and Haiti, in contrast to Oprah, who is a greedy one percenter. I Still haven't been able to find a strain of logic in that one.

[Warren DeMontague]

169. If I was as rich as Oprah, I'm sure I'd find questionable stuff to spend ridiculous sums o money on.

It just probably wouldn't be a handbag.

[BainsBane]

170. Do you know how to fly it?

I'm sure I'd find ways to spend money too. As the OP demonstrates, I do that quite well already on a far more modest income.

[Warren DeMontague]

171. Heh. No. I flew a Cessna once for about 10 minutes. Seemed fairly intuitive but it freaked me out.

Still, something like that Virgin Galactic deal I think pretty much flies itself. Just punch the button and you're suborbital for 15-30 minutes, although the exceptionally wealthy people who will be taking that trip will also be paying for a highly trained pilot to do the button-pushing.

[BainsBane]

172. You could also take all the lessons you would need

and afford the airtime for practice if you were a billionaire.

[pnwest]

44. Yah. What you said! 'Zakly! Everyone spends

Money on shit they don't need. Oprah's luxuries budget just happens to be bigger than most folks. So what? I just spent $5 on on a stupid coffee mug I don't need, instead of giving it to the guy with the sign at the parking lot exit. Bet all of those indignant people have done same.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. If I had 38K to burn I'd buy a professional espresso machine and one of those crazy massage chairs

but to each his or her own.

[Cleita]

48. I bought the only purse I own at a discount store five years ago.

It's Calvin Klein and cost me $15. It still looks good.

[bravenak]

79. That top one, the dark brown is sicc!

I want it for myself.
Oprah should be able to do with her money what she pleases , when she pleases. It's her money! She's done plenty for the black community and is always on hand to shell out her cash for a good cause. I mean doesn't the woman build schools in Africa to educate girls?
That clerk lost out on a big sale with a fat commission. I would have used high pressure tactics to make her spend more. Get out the wine and show her my best stuff! Get money!

[antigone382]

99. I dismiss neither the racism directed at Oprah nor the horror of global class disparity.

And as a matter of fact I have questioned the over the top purchases of the fabulously wealthy, including the white ones; I recall years ago hearing about an $8,000 pair of cargo pants owned by Jennifer Anniston and being deeply resentful. I do indeed question the right of any individual to hold that degree of wealth, and I question it very deeply and very broadly. The extreme degree of consumerism that engrosses society at present is a very great evil, one that is perpetuating poverty and environmental destruction on a scale that portends disaster. I do believe quite strongly that the global elites (which encompasses all of us in the core nations, myself included) have an obligation to deeply consider what we buy--where it comes from, how it is produced, who produces it, and what will become of it after we are done with it. We have a duty to consider how we earn our living, how much we take in in terms of global resources, and how much we put out. First World Privilege is the great invisible privilege of our time, and I do believe it evident in the purchase of fancy handbags while people starve. I apologize if that offends you, but it is my honest opinion.

To clarify, my resentment is not directed at any wealthy individuals themselves, but at a system that allows the accumulation of this kind of wealth. Neither does an individual's capacity for charity absolve the problem as I see it. The fates of billions who live on what a single dollar a day can provide (and that is adjusting for exchange values in their individual countries) should not rest on the charitable impulses of individual billionaires. For every Oprah there is at least one Koch Brother, and probably more. I am not convinced that such a class should exist.

You seem to ignore that being at a class level where even a lower end hand bag is a possibility for you is also a privilege--and not one that I have really known for most of my life. I have lived without running water; I have rationed rice in order to feed my dogs; I have gone without medical care to the extent that I have likely caused myself permanent physical damage prior to the age of thirty, because I had no other choice. I have also been lucky enough to travel to some of the poorest countries of the world--not on my own dime, and not for vacations, but either working (as a nanny in Jamaica) or doing service projects (on an appropriate technology project in Honduras). I have also been lectured by the wealthy for even *seeming* to judge them on million dollar home renovations while I battled the decay of my mother's rotting home without a functioning toilet. Was that not privilege? Will you really tell me I have no right to resent seeing amounts of money that could have changed my life spent on trinkets?

Now, to apply this to my own choices, I will say this: I obtain all of my clothes (except underwear and socks) for free or secondhand. I have lived in a tent for two months, and just recently upgraded to a camper available to me through an Americorps position on local agriculture which I am working for minimum wage (I still feel guilty about having regular access to heated water). I suppose my purchase of coffee and sugar are luxuries, but I minimize my use of both and only purchase either if I know them to be ethically sourced. I spent a year debating the purchase of a cell phone, but the utility of the device in potential times of need outweighed my misgivings about its production. I still question whether that was the right choice. I do invest in high quality shoes, jackets, and tools, because I need these things to be functional. Overall, I believe in an ethic wherein a purchase derived from exploitation, a purchase which does not serve some higher good, and/or a purchase that does not need to be made is wrong. To believe this I do not need to negate the reality of Oprah's pain and humiliation in her treatment by a racist shopgirl. But there are multiple dimensions of privilege and oppression in this story, and you ought not deny the way a tale of a $38,000 accessory touches on the poor.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

103. this post deserves its own OP.

it is the responsibility of each individual to think and weigh the consequences of their actions for the greater good. that we fall short is because we are human and fallible but, at least we do so with afore thought and measure out how it affects our world and all those that encompass it.

[antigone382]

112. I don't know about that...it's just something I rattled out.

This particular subject is very distressing for me. I've been pretty horribly humiliated by a lot of people who had a lot more money than me for daring to question their use of that money...specifically whether the greenwashing of a mansion was really a sustainable choice; just slap up enough solar panels to power your flat screens so you don't have to think about it...meanwhile I'm scraping together to some day build some kind of house where the floors won't rot out and I might have running water most of the time and maybe I'll even be able to build it so it turns out modest and efficient...

I was told once I didn't have the right to resent fabulous wealth, and I won't be told that again.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

116. I don't resent it but, as another human being on the face of this earth I can look and watch and say

What The Fuck are They Thinking ...

just as others judge me for my mistakes and question my intent and motivations.

It is human nature and part of our make up as social creatures to commune, empathize and commiserate and to feel joy and wonderment at kindness and beauty.

[BainsBane]

107. No, I don't deny that a bag is a privilege at a lower income level

I address that point by noting that what many here consider common purchases would seem obscene in parts of the world. Some see Oprah's considering an expensive handbag as an outage, while some see my handbag as an unnecessary expense, while proclaiming their superiority in purchasing a cheaper bag (made, incidentally, in a Chinese sweatshop), while that bag would be out of reach to you. There are also people who would consider your wardrobe to be a luxury.

I share your concern for the system of inequality that is so pervasive. I am less upset by the fact that wealthy people spend their money on expenses that seem outrageous to me than the fact there is so much inequality in the first place. I am more fortunate economically than you, and less fortunate than some others on this site. What is clear to me, however, is that many here look at guidelines of acceptable consumption ONLY from their own perspective.

Part of this discussion is also a means of avoiding a discussion of racism. There is no white privilege because of Oprah or Beyonce is a common meme in US society. Or as someone actually said to me today, Oprah could not have been subject to racism because the President is black. Racism also has a strong class nexus. It keeps more people of color in poverty by denying them economic opportunities through discrimination and a range of structural factors.

[antigone382]

120. My point is that we need to point out how obscene our own purchases are globally.

In a context of rapidly declining resources, it does matter in absolute terms. As a first worlder I would hardly claim to be there yet, but I'm making my way with every fiber of my being, because nobody else should have to live the way I have had to live--or the very much worse ways that the majority of people on this planet have to live. I agree with you that many posters do not get beyond their perspectives as Americans in what they perceive as acceptable levels of consumption, or even as acceptable solutions to our economic problems. If pointing out the insanity of our consumption levels starts with the handbag choices of the wealthy, then that is one starting point for a conversation about resource consumption. If that particular starting point also causes people to question whether anybody should have the disposable income to purchase such a handbag in the first place, then that is also an acceptable starting point for a conversation about class.

At the same time, this incident should ALSO be a starting point for a conversation about the reality and the pervasiveness of racial discrimination. I empathize very much with Oprah's experience of humiliation based on her race. I also don't know how anyone could have even a cursory familiarity with the demographics of poverty or the criminal "justice" system and conclude that a few wealthy people of color negate the overall picture of racial oppression.

ALL of these conversations need to happen desperately, and my goal is to follow, support, and contribute to them however they arise.

[BainsBane]

156. There is also the issue that our economy is now based entirely on consumption

Since so much manufacturing has moved overseas--which is why jobs are now scarcer and lower paying--consumption actually drives the American economy. I agree for most of us as individuals we would be far better off consuming less. I don't think that would fare well for the American economy as a whole, however. Low wages impedes consumption, which is partly responsible for the ongoing economic slowdown. I don't know what the solution is, but I fear the whole problem is more complicated than we may be acknowledging.

[antigone382]

179. Yes, and that is precisely the problem.

Our entire economy is based on the the exploitation of people and resources on a global scale, for products of which 90% will be in a landfill within a year. Our "economy" thrives on despoiling the people and landbases of which the economy is made. It is an absolutely, profoundly insane premise, yet one that is embraced at the highest levels of international economic decision-making.

To explain a little better where I'm coming from: much of my inspiration comes from folks like Wendell Berry, Vandana Shiva, and Enei Begaye. I live in Appalachia; I see vast landscapes destroyed in the interest of powering "the economy"; people beholden to the work that is poisoning their air and water supply because it puts food on their plate and keeps the wheels of a modern, energy and resource intensive system going. I can only imagine how much worse it is in Nigeria, the Congo, the Middle East, or any other place outside the U.S. where residents are unlucky enough to have materials we think we need in the ground beneath their feet.

I don't want to be a "doomer," as humans have proven to be incredibly resilient. Nevertheless, given climate change, biodiversity decline, population growth, the increasing scarcity of cheap fossil fuel sources (and let's just throw in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch because it's horrific even if it isn't necessarily a major player in ecosystems change), I believe we are reaching a significant turning point. As first-worlders, the set of people who use a vastly larger proportion of resources, we each have to make the conscious decision to profoundly change our purchasing habits, and where possible our livelihood strategies. We simply have to return to systems of consumption that are principally derived from our own local ecologies and communities. We should not have the privilege to destroy the world in the quest to preserve an unsustainable system. Put more shortly, I reject the notion that the economy can exist outside of the ecology or above the majority of the people within it.

I realize this is a bit of a derailment from the subject of a purse. It is quite possible the purse was made by well-made craftspeople out of ethically derived materials using sustainable methods, and that's why it was $38,000. Even so, I don't think an economic model where sustainable goods are only possible to the extent that they are financially out of reach of the vast majority of people on the planet is a very sustainable system to begin with.

[BainsBane]

212. It's not a derailment.

It's right on point. I very much appreciate your very thoughtful posts here. I hope to see you post more about this where it can receive the discussion it deserves. What I especially appreciate is that you acknowledge that this isn't about evil rich people but that we all have a role in play in improving the economy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

222. +1000

My philosophy toward spending money is exemplified by the book "your money or your life".

Understand how much you are selling the hours of your life for (you're not renting those hours, you are selling them), be aware of how many of those hours are spending with each choice, and be sure that those choices are in alignment with your values.

If a person buys $35,000 (or even $350) purse entirely because "There is no fucking way I'd be caught dead with a Target bag" without knowing how many hours of your life they sold to pay for it... suffice to say, I don't hold neither their thinking skills nor their values in high regard.

They invented the phrase "white girls problems" to describe exactly this OP.

My solution to the "Target? Yuck!" problem is to steal the price tag from the fancy purse and attach it to the affordable one so that your family need not bear the shame.

[flvegan]

101. Didn't Beyonce buy a Bugatti Veyron? That's $1 million plus.

I think she also bought a jet. That's a $kajillion or something. She's black, right?

Isn't this more about one idiot with poor judgment rather than a statement about race?

Full disclosure: I wear $250 custom made Timberland shoes and a really nice TAG Heuer watch so I have no hate for folks that like nice things.

[BainsBane]

167. Who is the idiot?

Oprah for wanting to LOOK at a bag that DUers don't think she has a right to? Or the clerk who refused to show her the bag?

[flvegan]

181. The clerk, of course.

Oprah (and anyone else) has the right to want to look at whatever she wants. To complete the thought/statement, that's also regardless of what DUers think.

So I suppose the idiot(s) is/are (in no particular order) the clerk in question; and, the DUers that don't think Oprah had a right to want to look at a particular handbag.

[BainsBane]

211. I agree

I had to ask because around here you never know.

[duffyduff]

106. If this were Ann Romney you'd be complaining about it

Oprah gets a pass because what, she is a liberal or something, and her "good works" are highly questionable.

I don't make excuses for the excesses of the tiny elite of the top one percent, who are getting richer at OUR expense.

You shouldn't either.

[BainsBane]

109. Oprah isn't running for President

I complained about Mitt Romney because he was a candidate. I never gave a damn about Ann Romney. Also a story about Ann Romney doesn't provide people an opportunity to deny racism, which I happen to see as the fundamental issue in this discussion.

[duffyduff]

113. You aren't making sense, but then again your original post doesn't, either

The issue is the elite and somebody whose ego is so monstrous she tries to pretend she is Rosa Parks and create an international incident.

I have NO respect for Oprah Winfrey, never have, and I never will.

She's an idiot to have made an utter ass out of herself over something this petty.

[BainsBane]

118. That's the issue if you are determined to deny racism

Denying racism is essential to maintaining white privilege. You may not understand my point, but I understand you perfectly.

[lunasun]

132. huh? interviewer asked her_MSM picked up the story

"she tries to pretend she is Rosa Parks and create an international incident." really???


In fairness, it was King who first raised the issue of race. He asked her whether at her rarefied place in the culture, she still experienced racism.

Indeed she has: “The higher up you go in the chain of capitalism,” she said, “people don’t expect you to be sitting at certain board tables. I sense it, and you know it.”

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-oprah-winfey-20130809,0,1778726.story

[BainsBane]

142. Do you hate Jennifer Aniston too?

Or all the celebrities who own bags far more expensive than $38,000? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkin_bag

[abelenkpe]

114. Carried the same bag since 1990

It is particularly awesome.

Recently had someone exclaim "I love your vintage handbag!"
I slunk away away before they realized I was vintage as well.

[BainsBane]

119. Has to be a good bag to last that long

[Beacool]

123. These are the handbags that Oprah was looking at.

The orange one on the left is $38K because it's made of crocodile skin. The lady holding them is the owner of the store and claims to be a friend of Tina Turner, who lives in Zurich. She apologized for her salelady's behavior, but claimed that it was a misunderstanding due to the language barrier.

[BainsBane]

140. There is a picture above with Jennifer Aniston carrying that same bag

in post number 1. People don't seem to realize celebrities own far more expensive bags. Birkin bags can cost as much as $225,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkin_bag

[LisaL]

145. Jeniffer's bag doesn't look the same. It doesn't appear to be made of crocodile skin.

[BainsBane]

146. Could be. I came across it on the Daily Mail through a google image search

Perhaps it's the same model made from different material?

[avaistheone1]

150. I found the whole line of bags Tom Ford named for Jennifer Aniston.

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.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3443424

[BainsBane]

153. 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.

[avaistheone1]

157. 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.

[BainsBane]

158. So you're saying you think Aniston has a line of handbags named for her

Last edited Sun Aug 11, 2013, 06:05 AM - Edit history (2)

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.

[Beacool]

189. It's not the same, it's regular leather.

Those can be found for less than $3K.

[Beacool]

190. Yeah, but the one Jennifer is wearing doesn't cost as much.

The really pricey one is made of crocodile skin.

[knitter4democracy]

193. Oprah should just go to ebags.com and invest the rest.

For crying out loud.

[snooper2]

221. Everything in that picture is tacky from her shoes to the bags to her pants

LOL...

That Jacket would be good to lay on when I'm working under my truck though

[Beacool]

232. I don't mind the jacket, but the pants got to go.

[hobbit709]

164. The bigger the bag, the harder it is to find any one specific item in it.

[BainsBane]

168. definitely

the bottomless pit bags are the worst. I got one several years ago that is incredibly beautiful, supple leather, but it's so impractical in the very way you describe that I never use it. The worst is no exterior pocket. If I can't put my keys and cell phone in an outside pocket, I'm lost.

[JustAnotherGen]

173. BainsBane

Hi. I'm justanothergen - and I'm a bag freak too. Last summer while in Italy I discovered Bagghy. My first is Audrey Hepburn from a scene in Breakfast at Tiffanys. I also have a healthy D & B Collectiion. But not big on Coach. Every 13 year old around here has one. This started for me in te 10th grade when I coveted a Liz Claiborne bag. That was the late 80's when Liz was big. It's been down hill from there.

[Little Star]

175. I have always loved handbags and shoes. I also think Oprah can spend whatever she...

wants to make herself happy. She earned her money and she gives ton's of it to charity.

The whole store thing was racist, imho. But I doubt the clerk even realized it at the time. Bet she does now though!

[MADem]

176. The elephant in the room, here, is that there is racism in Switzerland.

No one knows what happened, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that the shop attendant had a prejudice, and didn't want those not white hands on that pricey merchandise.

We recognize Oprah over here, no matter what she has on, even when she doesn't have the makeup, but she is less well known in Europe. And in person, she looks a bit different than she does on the TV.

Again, there IS racism in Switzerland, and other parts of Europe too--in some sectors, it's pretty bad. This image we have of the Europeans being so much more progressive in terms of race relations is false--they just never had to deal with minorities in any numbers, so they were always happy to welcome the exception to their rule. Now that migration and asylum seekers have made the continent more multi-cultural, they are feeling the stress and plenty of 'em don't like it.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/archive/Blacks_bear_the_brunt_of_racism_in_Switzerland.html?cid=3023446

Blacks bear the brunt of racism in Switzerland


A sharp rise in Switzerland's black population over recent months appears to have hardened attitudes towards Africans, and asylum seekers in particular.
More and more blacks say they are suffering from racism on the streets, in the workplace or in the housing market.
In the run-up to this month's national vote on restricting the rights of asylum seekers, anti-racism groups are warning that blacks in particular are being depicted en masse as drug dealers or trouble-makers without any evidence on the part of those making the claims.

"The federal commission against racism has observed an increase in clearly racist articles in Switzerland's smaller regional newspapers," commission spokeswoman Doris Angst Yilmaz told swissinfo.

"In these articles they frequently use anti-black stereotypes and blatantly incite their readership to act against African asylum seekers who are all classified as drug dealers.".....

[etherealtruth]

180. I love bags and shoes

(your choices are gorgeous)

" .... They are white, and no one questions their right to acquire stuff. Oprah, however, is another story." In the western world, this is very true.

[tblue37]

191. KnR. BTW, I really like that second bag.

(Orange is my favorite color.) What brand is it--and how much would it set me back? Also, do you happen to know its dimensions?

[BainsBane]

196. Here is the link

https://www.brahmin.com/product/J52626ON/la-scala-print-tucker-tote-bag-persimmon

You might be able to find it at a Macy's, Nordstroms, Dillards or Belks.

Here are others by them in the same color. It's a summer color, so will soon be gone. They change the colors seasonally. https://www.brahmin.com/product/J52626ON/la-scala-print-tucker-tote-bag-persimmon

I like the less expensive Anytime Tote, except there is no outside pocket. In my experience, that makes a bag far less practical.

[Demo_Chris]

202. Racism is bad. Oprah is a poor example of a victim of it.

In any case, she isn't a victim of racism here, she is a victim of class snobbery and poor salesmanship -- something many of us have experienced in our lifetimes.

As for purses, if you like them and can afford them buy as many as you like and apologize to no one. You only live once, it's a short and often miserable experience punctuated by brief periods of wonder and happiness. If a purse offers that then jump on it.

[duffyduff]

203. Oprah is a drama queen and an egomaniac to boot

Who in the HELL but an egomaniac names a television network or a magazine after herself or thinks she even has anything important to say?

To say nothing of her piss-poor attempt to run a school or her book club.

[BainsBane]

207. I'm thinking you really aren't in a position to point fingers

on that score, from what I can see from your posts.

[Phentex]

239. The first woman to own her own network, that's who...

You obviously don't know anything about her, and maybe your anger is coming from a place of hurt, but Oprah has earned everything she has and is always ranked as one of the most generous celebrities in the world.

[MineralMan]

213. First world problem, in spades. nt

[pipi_k]

214. So is Oprah full of shit?

Or just clueless?

Or maybe a money-grubbing con artist?


I didn't used to have a problem with her, but now I do.

What I found yesterday on a book she wrote called "The Secret"...

http://www.salon.com/2007/03/05/the_secret/

A few excerpts...

Why “venality”? Because, with survivors of Auschwitz still alive, Oprah writes this about “The Secret” on her Web site, “the energy you put into the world — both good and bad — is exactly what comes back to you. This means you create the circumstances of your life with the choices you make every day.” “Venality,” because Oprah, in the age of AIDS, is advertising a book that says, “You cannot ‘catch’ anything unless you think you can, and thinking you can is inviting it to you with your thought.” “Venality,” because Oprah, from a studio within walking distance of Chicago’s notorious Cabrini Green Projects, pitches a book that says, “The only reason any person does not have enough money is because they are blocking money from coming to them with their thoughts.”

Oprah recently opened, with much fanfare, the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy in South Africa,

But, when I watched Oprah’s prime-time special about interviewing candidates for the school, it seemed to me that she wasn’t nearly as excited about providing an education to the girls as she was about providing a “Secret”-like “transformative experience.” (And not just for the girls, for herself; the first thing she said to the family members at the opening ceremony wasn’t, “Welcome to a great
moment in your daughters’ lives,” it was, “Welcome to the proudest moment of my life.”)

So, in the first example, if Ms Winfrey is to be believed, whatever "racism" she encountered that day was her own doing?

And on the subject of money and material wealth, the poor and the homeless are to blame for their own circumstances?


Regarding the second example, I actually saw that interview for myself, and was also struck by how "ME ME ME" it sounded.

Nauseating self-promotion.

Whatever...it's the first point I wanted to address. That Ms Winfrey must apparently believe that people attract whatever they put out. And if she did indeed attract racism that day, as she claims she did, then what must that say about her?

[BainsBane]

228. Oprah didn't write the Secret

Whether or not you like her doesn't make racism acceptable, at least not to anyone who values human equality.

[pipi_k]

236. My

mistake. She didn't write it.

She only hawked it on her show.

She only stood up in defense of the attitude which blames people for all the bad things that happen to them by suggesting that they basically deserve bad things because of their own thoughts or actions.

Also, the belief that anyone can be materially wealthy, and anyone who isn't...the homeless, for example...it's their own fault.

You're right. Oprah didn't write that crap. She only believes it.

And you can call it what you like. Unless a white woman was in that shop at the same time, dressed the same way, and the clerk refused to show only Ms Winfrey the purse, then yes...let's talk about racism there.

Let's talk about racism if Ms Winfrey had been ushered out the door.


It's absolutely amazing to sit here on any day and see the numbers of people who think they know exactly what was in someone else's mind when a particular event happened.

Especially if it involves a white and non-white person. There could be a whole handful of reasons for what happened, but the one and only reason people hone in on is, of course, "racism".

[pipi_k]

240. PS...

One thing I wanted to mention was that whether or not Ms Winfrey wrote that book is not my point.

My point is that there are things in it that can be, and maybe are, offensive to many people.

Does she actually read the books she hawks on her show? Or does she pay someone to read them for her and give her a brief "Cliff's Notes" version of them?

If she doesn't read them, then she's a bit of a fraud.

If she DOES read them, then it must have struck her at some point that it's offensive to blame people for their circumstances and for their poverty.

Did she encounter racism that day in the shop? Who knows for sure. She feels she did. And, if what that book says is true (and she promoted it on her show) about people attracting into their lives exactly what they put out, then she herself must be a racist. Right?

A racist would naturally attract racism from others. Right?

Or would she get a pass on being a racist because she's black?

What is the answer here?

Did she attract what she is herself?

Or does she hawk bullshit on her show? Which would be a whole other matter in terms of bullshitting lots of people...

[BainsBane]

241. "A racist would naturally attract racism"?

WTF are you talking about?

I get you hate Oprah Winfrey and are grasping as straws to try to find ways to legitimate anything bad that happens to her. But this is more than about Winfrey. Racism is systematic discrimination and subordination of a minority group based on the color of their skin. I can't even begin to think what you've dreamed up to imagine Oprah, a black woman, is racist. Your comments are increasingly offensive and incoherent.

[lunamagica]

230. Oprah is clueless...

I remember years ago she had Connie Selleca (an actress) who was going to show how to decorate a living room on a budget. She spent 10.000 dollars on the make over, and Oprah was amazed, she just couldn't believe that it was possible to decorate ONE room with "only" 10K.

Clueless, clueless clueless (and so was the actress, whom I guess doesn't even have a tenth of Oprah's fortune)

[pipi_k]

238. This is one reason why

I canceled a subscription to her magazine someone had bought for me some years ago.

One particular section featured a bunch of products she found handy or cute or nice for gift giving or whatever.

Yeah. The stuff was nice.

The prices, however, were not. Who the hell was she hawking this stuff to, anyway?

If her target audience was middle class women, she was way off base.

Candles and bath products costing over $100?

Shoes...$500 or more?

Pillows! Pillows for $75 or better?

She IS clueless. She has obviously forgotten the poverty of her early years.

And it's almost like she's rubbing the noses of less affluent women in HER success with her totally insulting presentation of things they will probably never be able to afford.

So others will say she earned it, she can spend it any way she wants. OK, that's true.

But she doesn't have to be an ass about it, AND she doesn't have to be so public about the good works she does.

I admire people who do good works under the radar and are only found out by accident...not by shameless self-promotion.

Oprah is indeed clueless.

[lunamagica]

227. I'd never heard of hardbags costing that much. Sometimes I go to Nordstrom and see shoes and hanbags

costing 1,000 and I like "wow"

If I ever became super rich, I can see myself spending one K on those things. But I hope, I really hope I would never be on a mindset to spend 38K on a purse.

It's a scam. it has to be. What could it have to make it worth that much? Just to be able to brag about it, I guess.

[BainsBane]

229. A lot of celebrities carry Birkin bags. They can cost up to $200K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkin_bag

[lunamagica]

231. WHOAH! What is that they say about a fool ad his money?

Yet these people never seem to run out of it...

[nolabear]

237. I love bags too. But here's what I don't get about the "It's not racism" comments.

I didn't hear a thing here saying President Obama was mistaken when he said he knew what it was to hear car doors lock. People didn't step up and say "Oh, that happens all the time, it wasn't racism". I hate to bring Trayvon up because the severity is so different but I didn't hear people saying "Oh, any kid walking through a neighborhood in a hoodie would have been suspect".

Oprah is a rich, privileged woman but I know where she grew up (my family originated there) and let me tell you, in spite of the fact that there's a street named for her, she was discriminated against when she was a kid, and if people didn't know who she was she'd be discriminated against there now. And if people don't know who she is, she WILL be discriminated against. Her comment was, as was the president's, generated by a lifetime of being watched, suspected, deemed untrustworthy and unsuccessful, and it deserves respect.

Now, back to those bags. A fine bag is one of life's great pleasures, and one of the few reserved for us womenfolk, tall, short, fat, thin, rich, and not-so-rich. I like mine with bright colors and lots of dangles, and that can carry a laptop, because I combine business with bling!

[BainsBane]

242. Some actually did deny racism in the Trayvon Martin murder

some of the die hard Zimmerman defenders. You're right about Obama though. Oprah is wealthy financially beyond anyone's dreams here. But racism means that no matter how wealthy she is, she is subject to being treated like any other African American if someone doesn't recognize her.

Glad you love your bag!

[JustAnotherGen]

245. I knew this was out here somewhere

Yeah - I'm into fashion and this is kind of why I don't discuss it at DU.

I wouldn't be caught dead with a Target handbag either.