I said “not recent enough” instead of “too recent.” Dammit!
I know you’re saying that, but I’m trying to point out that the claim is so highly improbable as to be essentially impossible.
But given her background in particular, as well as the origins of most black Americans who are not of very recent African descent, it’s quite unlikely that she was not descended from slaves. It’s not impossible, but it’s pretty far outside the realm of probability, especially since she’s never mentioned more recent African heritage. I agree that there is no conclusive proof that she’s the descendent of slaves, but it’s certainly a fair assumption. Frankly, if she wasn’t, we would probably know about it. She hasn’t exactly kept her past or her heritage secret, you know. I really think you’re engaging in unfounded speculation here - the one possibility is so overwhelmingly likely that it doesn’t seem worth discussing the other without some sort of evidence to suggest it.
Many things might be true, but I just don’t see the point on speculating about things that there’s just no evidence for.
If it’s not impossible, whether quite unlikely or not, then, to whatever minute degree, it’s possible. That alone, makes what I’m speculating “founded.” I don’t care whether or not you deem it worth discussing. And an assumption (which admit to making) is still just that – an assumption.
Also given the fact that she’s already headed down the “wrong” road of believing she’s a Zulu, what makes you think she actually taken the time to pursue the “correct” road to discover her slave ancestry?
In order not to hijack this thread any further, I’ll grant you your belief that, if something is highly unlikely it is impossible. I’ll continue to believe that something that has not entered the realm of impossible is still possible, however slightly.
Do you know what the words “founded” and “unfounded” mean? I’m sorry if that sounds condescending, but the terms exist precisely to distinguish between that which is possible but without evidence and that for which there is evidence. The fact that it’s possible her ancestors were not slaves does not mean your speculation is anything but unfounded, since there simply is no evidence. You can speculate on things that you have no evidence for all you like. Like I said, a lot of things are possible. It’s possible, according to my understanding of quantum physics, that her ancestors spontaneously “tunneled” from kwaZulu-Natal into the southern United States as a result of collapsing quantum mechanical wave functions. Not all possibilities merit discussion. (You seem to think “unfounded” is a synonym for “impossible.” Not true. Something may indeed be “unfounded” but possible. So the fact that it’s possible she’s Zulu actually has zero bearing whatsoever on whether it’s founded.)
What?
Do you think there are a significant number of African immigrants to the United States whose children or grandchildren are unaware of it? One doesn’t need to discover their heritage as the grandchild of an immigrant. As has been mentioned, most African immigration to the U.S. has been within the last fifteen years, and we can be relatively certain Oprah was around before that, since many of us remember her show. The number of African immigrants of her grandparents’ age would be miniscule indeed.
I can’t even parse most of your question, except to say that it’s quite clear that there was no “road” of “discovery” (or whatever the hell you’re talking about) into claiming she was a Zulu. Hillary Clinton once claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, even though he wasn’t famous until well after she was born. People say bizarre things. In both cases, it’s possible. It’s possible Oprah’s ancestors came from South Africa, and then promptly forgot about it. It’s possible that Hillary’s mom bumped into her old friend Eddie at a cocktail party just before Hillary was born and named Hillary after him (and, again, forgot that she was pals with him). Neither one is possible without the forgetting, though, because the story would have been a lot different otherwise. It wouldn’t have been “Mama named me after a famous mountain climber”, it would have been “Mama named me after her good pal, and he ended up becoming a famous mountain climber.” Just like it wouldn’t have been “mDNA tests reveal a long-forgotten tie to the Zulu clan”, it would have been “My granddaddy used to tell me about his childhood here.”
Anyway, for reasons I’ve explained, there is zero possibility that she was making a statement with any basis in truth. She did not have mDNA testing that confirmed something that such testing could not confirm. So why would some remote possibility that it’s true even be relevant? It was still a claim she made with absolutely no basis. Like I said, people make weird claims like that. It doesn’t make me think less of her. But there is just no point in what you’re arguing.
Why does it even matter if it’s possible? Any number of things are possible. It’s possible that an asteroid will strike the earth in the next twenty-five seconds. So what? How is that remote possibility relevant? And if you honestly think I’m equating “improbable” and “literally impossible”, then you’re stupid and I might as well not waste my time trying to discuss anything with you. If you’re twisting my words to imply that, you’re being a jackass, and I don’t see why, since we were having a relatively cordial discussion up until you decided to be a dick in the post I’m quoting.
It is not possible that Oprah’s claim that she was of Zulu descent was based upon her knowledge. It is very remotely possible that she is, in fact, of Zulu descent, but there is zero evidence of it, since her statement about mDNA is known to not be true. Do you understand the difference between evidence and no evidence? Do you understand that arguments are supposed to be based on evidence, and not on lack of contradictory evidence? Your argument amounts to “well, prove it’s not possible!” which, if you’ve ever spent any time here, you should recognize as an absurd, childish rhetorical fallacy.
What are you even trying to argue here? Sure, Oprah may have thought she was lying, but she was inadvertently telling the truth, so it was okay? Does that fit within your moral framework? Telling the truth on accident is just as good as doing it on purpose? You can calm down: no one indicated they cared one way or another, beyond simple curiosity, about the Zulu claim. No one has resolved to swear off her show and any book she ever recommends. So your unfounded, unsupported speculation is unnecessary. You’ve proven nothing, you’ve provided evidence for nothing, and even if you somehow proved she was Zulu, it’s clear that she does not know it, and thus it would have no bearing on her false claim.
There’s a cottage industry of DNA testing done on the internet that claims they can pinpoint African-American ethnic heritage among various African ethnic groups through DNA samples provided by clients. I’d considered doing it, but my skepticism being what it is, I decided it’s probably some sort of scam. The testing is neither cheap nor does it come with enough explanations about the test’s validity. I also figure any test that requires clients to mail in samples to be tested elsewhere seems wrought with enough possible errors in retrieving, shipping and contamination to render the whole enterprise moot.
Oprah claiming direct, exclusive Zulu ancestry is spurious. It’s possible that part of her genetic makeup might point to some Zulu ancestry. Or it’s likely she just feels a cultural kinship with that group the way I admire the Songhai or Yoruba.
Excalibre: “Zero evidence” is not the same is “zero possibility.”
Which is a perfectly understandable, and again - I don’t think it’s a big deal that she said something like that, apparently during a speech. The Zulu have a pretty cool history, and I certainly admire their tenacity against the British. She made a claim without really thinking about it, and a lot of people have done such things.
Again, I have asserted no such thing, and I really don’t appreciate the implication that I did. I have claimed that there was zero possibility her claim was based upon any credible DNA testing, and I stick by that. Her claim might be accurate, but odds are remote, and if it is, it’s just a matter of random chance. That is very much unlike any claim that she could not possibly be Zulu. The claim is so unlikely as to pretty extraordinary, but no, it’s not impossible. It’s very likely impossible to prove either way, though, no matter how much DNA testing was done.
However, I have stated over and over that I don’t see any value in random speculation as to her heritage. It’s possible she has Khoisan ancestry, or Malagasy ancestry, or French ancestry, or Karen ancestry, or Ainu ancestry, or Pirahã ancestry, or Torres Straits Islander ancestry. In fact, gene mixing among rather remote human populations is surprisingly high in many instances, and most black Americans can’t trace their ancestry far back due to lack of records. Furthermore, most black Americans have pretty varied ancestry.
So what? Again, there’s a difference between making educated guesses and simply speculating without any evidence. All things are possible, but most things are so ludicrously unlikely as not to merit consideration. Askia, you agree that her claim is “spurious”, so what does it even matter that it’s possible it might coincidentally be true?
Firstly: I’m terrible for tangents myself, but I fail to see what Oprah’s heritage has to do with anything in this discussion. I did start looking up Oprah’s Zulu claim (and found your cites to be too brief and to prove nothing, guinastasia). But then I realised that no, it has no place in this thread. It doesn’t place any doubt on her credibility. It means nothing.
This subject came up because of posters averring that Hermes staff wouldn’t have banned her for being North African, because she doesn’t look North African. This is either a naieve or a disingenuous argument. Presuming for a moment that Hermes staff really did say they’d been having a problem with North Africans lately: does anyone really think they’d look closely at her and see, oh yes, she doesn’t have Moroccan features, she’s not North African after all. As if anyone who could make that sort of statement (presuming for the moment that they really did say it) would look beyond basic skin colour.
Like others in this thread, I find it unlikely that the store’s surveillance cameras revealed whether anything was said about North Africans. Surveillance cameras are scratchy and the sound is fuzzy if there is any sound at all.
Here is the New Yorj Daily News article which started the rumour about her being turned away because of her race. Note that even this article states that Oprah’s people deny this. So she didn’t ‘play the race card.’
The article also states that she’s spent an awful lot of money at that place in the past few years. Given that, maybe she was just pissed off that, after giving the her custom, product placement and money for years and years, they wouldn’t stay open 5 minutes longer to let her buy one thing. The doors were open, or she wouldn’t even have got to speak to her doorman. It’s not like she turned up at midnight at a store she’d never been to and demanded that she be served.
Secondly: Oprah viewers can’t afford Hermes? To give the benefit of the doubt, I’ll presume that didn’t mean ‘black people aren’t that rich’ and presume it meant ‘people who watch Oprah are working class and not rich.’ For one, Oprah still has enough viewers that some at least must be rich, and for another, there is a certain demographic of the working class (of an colour) who use expensive clothes as a status object. They would buy Hermes.
Thirdly:
According to the bbc, among others, it was a friend of Oprah’s who claimed that it was ‘one of the most humiliating experiences of her life.’ Whose life, Oprah’s or the friend’s? None of the reports say. In any case, it’s one of them - not the most.
No need to call her a bitch or bring up her past abuse.
The store also admits to allowing famous people in after hours:
Actually, you’re right, it sounds pretty likely that the doors were still open. No business, whether it’s a liquor store or Prada, should leave the doors open and then tell customers to get out. That’s actually quite strange, and any customer who came upon open doors and was turned away has a right to be pissed at such shabby treatment. In fact, I’ve worked in a grocery store, and if people made it in before the manager managed to get the door locked at the end of the night, we waited for them to do their shopping.
> Firstly: I’m terrible for tangents myself, but I fail to see what Oprah’s heritage
> has to do with anything in this discussion.
The presumed argument would be: If you can’t trust her to tell the truth in one matter, then you can’t trust her to tell the truth in another matter. This doesn’t strike me as being a very good argument. When she made the rather strange statement about being of Zulu ancestry, it sounds to me like a celebrity trying to show her solidarity with the audience by making a claim with no backing that an audience wouldn’t likely immediately realize is unlikely to be true. On the other hand, supposedly somebody made the statement that the store management refused to allow Oprah in because they thought she was a local person of North African descent who was not the sort of person they wanted in the store. Now, if that’s a false claim, it’s a case of someone slandering a store’s management out of pure nastiness. The fact that these two statements are supposedly false statements by Oprah or someone on her staff doesn’t mean that making one of them means that it’s more likely that someone made the other claim. They would have different motives if they are true. So superficially the claim by Oprah about her Zulu ancestry sounds like it’s relevant to this argument, but on closer examination it’s not relevant.