We all know what she was getting at. It is still a smarmy and glib way of making the point that you have 'come a long way.' It's tongue-in-cheek assertion that each and every graduate at howard could have 'white people working for' them is both demeaning to her current white employees as well as to the graduates, all of whom, it is presumed, are not from well-to-do families already. It was a cheap joke, and beyond any racial matter, is somewhat offensive along class lines as well, with some insunuation that having people 'work for' you is a higher state of being.

Just an anecdote: Cosby made a not disimilar kind of joke at Howard (I think it was Howard) a few years back. He was critiquing anti-intellectualism in the black community, and thug-life behaviour. Such roguish elements "have the gall to carry a gun, and call YOU white." The assetion was that that white people are the most prolific instigators of violence over the past centuries.

would oprah have made this comment addressing a mostly white gathering? i don't think so...

Reverse the situation, and have a white woman saying she's "glad she's got some really great black folks working for her" and the howls of outrage would be heard clear to Sri Lanka, Tierra Del Fuego, and Spitsbergen.

If we are going to take umbrage when someone of one description makes a racist comment, then we are well obliged to take similar umbrage when someone answering another description makes a similarly racist remark. All we are seeing is a matter of degree. And the specific words do not matter. It is the underlying sentiment: That "the other" is irrevocably different, and worth addressing as a category, not a person. Why is that so difficult to see?

And no, I don't watch Oprah, and no, I didn't listen to Imus - in fact, I'd heard him much more during the "nhh" fuss than I'd heard him in the entire rest of my adult life. And based on that hearing, I hadn't missed much. Nor am I missing much in Oprah's case, I'll wager.

Alan Lloyd,

Your point only holds water if context is completely 100% irrelevent to the conversation. Do you really believe that?

Just tacky, as the first poster stated.

God, I used to like Oprah. Thought she was a good actor. Then, I didn't like the show, but hey, liked the magazine, being upbeat and not about fat, fat and more fat and how to get rid of it lest one live a life of pain and horror forever more.

So... that was nice. And I think that amoung all the self congratulatory back patting that goes on in the Oprahverse, good DOES get done.

But really...Oprah, blech. The "secret" shilling killed it for me. That, and she reminds me of a family friend who loves to boast about his "anonymous" charitable donations....

Still....hmm..there are worse people in the world.

One of em died today!

The underlying issue is racism. Racism is not about hating someone because of the color of their skin (that’s prejudice.) Racism is not even about minorities, South African apartheid (a profoundly racist system) was imposed on the black majority.

Racism is about the use of power to systematically diminish the rights of a segment of the population. “Reverse racism” is arguably an indefensible concept, except perhaps in Rwanda or Iraq where the existing order is reversed completely.

Racism has been so diluted in everyday discussions that it bears little resemblance to the historical meaning. Just my two cents.

First off, the whole "if it would be reversed it would be offensive so it's offensive the way it was said" argument is ridiculous. The implications of the comment as Oprah made it are entirely different than they would be if they were made in the other direction.

Every comment is made in a context, and that context includes not just the actual words themselves, but the time, the place, the culture and the history involved. That was the point behind what happened to Imus -- his words were doubly destructive and rephrehensible because he was a white man commenting on black women. The words themselves were bad enough, but add that context to it and they become that much worse.

Oprah wasn't denigrating anyone or trying to call someone out with her words -- she was trying to point out to the graduates of a "historically black" university that the exepectations of what's possible for them are significantly different now than they were even a couple generations ago. Not only is it factually accurate, it's not hurting anyone!!

The right-wing noise machine LOVES to trot out thier thin-skinned righteous indignation whenever it suits their political purposes. The GOP has built its support in part by playing off of racial animosities in poor, rurual communities by telling white men that blacks and femminists are "stealing" their jobs with affirmative action. Don't beleive me? Then why isn't a black democrat the junior Senator from Tennessee? So of course they have to champion the indefensible to keep those fires of bigotry and hate stoked.

Joe and the other boys are grasping at straws. I'd say ignore them if it weren't for the fact that the Faux News - Talk Radio media mafia will repeat their spew over and over again until even the major news outlets treat it as a given. Oprah is probably powerful enough that she doesn't need a champion, but I think we've put up with this bullshit tactic long enough.

First off, the whole "if it would be reversed it would be offensive so it's offensive the way it was said" argument is ridiculous. The implications of the comment as Oprah made it are entirely different than they would be if they were made in the other direction.

Every comment is made in a context, and that context includes not just the actual words themselves, but the time, the place, the culture and the history involved. That was the point behind what happened to Imus -- his words were doubly destructive and rephrehensible because he was a white man commenting on black women. The words themselves were bad enough, but add that context to it and they become that much worse.

Oprah wasn't denigrating anyone or trying to call someone out with her words -- she was trying to point out to the graduates of a "historically black" university that the exepectations of what's possible for them are significantly different now than they were even a couple generations ago. Not only is it factually accurate, it's not hurting anyone!!

The right-wing noise machine LOVES to trot out thier thin-skinned righteous indignation whenever it suits their political purposes. The GOP has built its support in part by playing off of racial animosities in poor, rurual communities by telling white men that blacks and femminists are "stealing" their jobs with affirmative action. Don't beleive me? Then why isn't a black democrat the junior Senator from Tennessee? So of course they have to champion the indefensible to keep those fires of bigotry and hate stoked.

Joe and the other boys are grasping at straws. I'd say ignore them if it weren't for the fact that the Faux News - Talk Radio media mafia will repeat their spew over and over again until even the major news outlets treat it as a given. Oprah is probably powerful enough that she doesn't need a champion, but I think we've put up with this bullshit tactic long enough.