Thanks to the courageous efforts of civil rights activists, institutionalized and overt racism are fading in the United States. However, Oprah’s very existence as a black billionaire and the “you can do and be anything you want if you work hard” pseudo-wisdom she so gleefully dispenses to the masses would indicate that America’s poor (and its impoverished blacks in particular) no longer face incredibly long odds as they employ vigorous efforts to improve their socioeconomic conditions.
Consider this excerpt from Paul Street’s “Skipping Past Structural Racism” (http://www.blackcommentator.com/85/85_think_street.html):
“…reflecting (via e-mail) on a commentary in which liberal New York Times columnist Bob Herbert argued that inner-city blacks’ material poverty reflected their own poor values and behavior. “There is a need for” a “values discussion” among “the poorest African-Americans,” my correspondent acknowledges. “But,” he added:
“there are three points to add. One is that [the] hypersegregation [of urban blacks into nearly all-black de-industrialized ghettoes] creates objective conditions that incentivize (perhaps even require) certain anti-social behaviors. The second is whether the values evidenced by the poorest are actually anti-American values. If we consider that the norms of the protestant work ethic have been devalued in American society – consider conspicuous consumption, state gambling expansion, frightening anti-intellectualism, Wall Street’s shenanigans, sexual revolution, and that recreational drug use knows no racial barrier – how different is the “underclass” from the rest of America? The final point is the somewhat sad notion that those who have been most disadvantaged by American society must somehow quickly develop the values and norms necessary to overcome those disadvantages, to “function,” concomitant with undertaking political struggle to dismantle structural barriers. What is more is that if we accept that the values Herbert holds in high esteem are not reinforced generally throughout American society, we are absurdly expecting one group of super-disadvantaged people – without additional assistance and against the mainstream of American society – to somehow morph into some kind of ubervolk.
“As the great ‘historical materialist’ Karl Marx once wrote,’men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given, and transmitted from the past.’”
Hard as it may be for Oprah and her fellow moneyed elites to fathom, Ronald Reagan’s “welfare queen” was a pernicious suburban legend, and that most people, given an environment affording them reasonably accessible options, wouldn’t consciously choose to perpetually wallow in the misery, indignity and self-destruction associated with chronic and inter-generational poverty. Not everyone is blessed with exceptional talent, intellect, or drive, but that doesn’t mean they deserve a life of suffering so that a tiny fraction of humanity can live as Croesus did.
With the vast numbers of people she influences, Ms. Winfrey plays an instrumental role in sustaining the false consciousness that keeps us in the poor and working classes pursuing the one in 20 million dream she projects, staunchly opposing the creation of viable publicly funded social uplift programs, and fighting amongst ourselves based in large part upon the malevolent lie that personal responsibility is the ONLY reason so many blacks remain “ghettoized,” unemployed, drug-addicted, and imprisoned.
Man the barricades, Ms. Winfrey, here come the “barbarian hordes” to raid our treasury!
But Oprah didn’t reach her perch atop the capitalist pyramid as one of its chief apologists simply by virtue of her existence as an anomalous opulent black woman (portrayed as what could be the “norm” if only more people subscribed to her “wisdom”). She also plays a very active role in contributing to the bourgeoisie cause.
A common lever of appeasement employed by our de facto aristocracy in the United States is to exercise faux benevolence by making charitable donations. After accumulating shameless affluence through abject exploitation of the Earth and its sentient beings, they show the masses their “humanity” by giving a mere fraction of their ill-gotten gains to a pet cause or two.
Oprah is no exception. Despite being known for her “generosity,” she remains one of the wealthiest people on the planet, maintaining her sprawling estate in California and, at last count, four other lavish abodes with high dollar zip codes. Bear in mind that Forbes recently gauged Oprah’s fortune to be about $1.5 billion.
Meanwhile, her crowning philanthropic achievement is her Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls in South Africa. This “charitable act” is cynical and self-serving. Its chief beneficiaries are those with a strong interest in maintaining the maleficent inequitable distribution of wealth. Here’s why:
1. Oprah invested $40 million in this school, a mere 2.67% of her net worth.
2. For those questioning the use of the word “invested,” this was indeed a shrewd and calculated investment for Oprah. By “donating” this relatively paltry sum, she will reap huge dividends in terms of increased popularity, goodwill, power, and influence. Her Harpo juggernaut will continue to gain momentum.
3. In a world where 30,000 children die of starvation each day, Oprah has elected to build a posh, luxurious academy equipped to educate a mere 152 girls. Winfrey’s scheme was such an abuse of resources that the South African government withdrew its support of the project.
4. In a vain quest to “make her childhood right”, Oprah is “rescuing” the poor black female attendees of her school by providing them with a regal, lavish existence. Just what the world needs–152 more highly educated elitists who are immersed in the paradigm that the suffering of the many to ensure the comfort of the few is the “way of the world.”
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
