Thread: oprah right or wrong?

Yeah...30 kids in a classroom isn't that much, especially in urban areas. It's to be expected. The complaint about there being more kids than teachers is always being flung around, because the teachers unions use it to try and get some more money. They always say "oh, well back in the day there were never that many kids in the schools." Well, depending on where you lived, there has been little variation in number of students. My father was from Britain, and when he went to school (back in the 50's-60's) he had just as many kids in his class as we do now over here in BC, (the population being obviously smaller than in London). The main difference was that if someone got out of hand back in the 50's/60's, they got a whack, which generally kept them quiet. Now if the kid gets out of hand, the teacher can't do anything...so while the class size has remained the same, the way the class is run is done completely differently, so it feels like you have 60 kids rather than 30. So then they say "oh, class size has increased" when in most areas it hasn't. It's remained fairly the same (this isn't true as a whole, I'm sure there's areas where class size has increased quite a lot....but the BC Teachers Union is making the same claims over here, when in fact there has been no real surge in size).

As for Oprah, yes I think it was good she did that. Education is supposed to be provided by the Government, and North America is not running out of money anytime soon. Poor schooling over here is a matter of politics and governance, and if Oprah opened a school in the states, she'd have to give it to state authorities, or make it a private school. But she's not opening a private school, she's opening one for the public.

The government infrastructure is absolutely poor over in South Africa, so education is not guaranteed as a public right. The government itself can't afford to open new schools, and the one that is being opened will more than likely be run by a private organization, run for the public. Access to education in these areas is nigh impossible because of the economic conditions. In North America however, access to education is easily attainable as the government is forced to provide the education (however, to what degree the school recieves funding and how much money it gets are a different matter).

It's a completely different ball game over in South Africa, so anyone who complains aboot Oprah opening up the school probably hasn't read a book on conditions in South Africa, or else they'd keep quiet.

The one thing I don't really like though, is that Oprah doesn't do this stuff unless cameras are recording and people are taking pictures. Oprah's charity work is really a mass publicity stunt, so I have a problem taking her charity as being whole-hearted. I'd like to see information of her shelling out a couple million as an anonomous donation,without making herself look like some charity-God. Of course, you could argue that by making this stuff public she is bringing 'awareness' about a certain subject. But I still don't buy all of it as being pure-hearted charity.

Like...for example, I saw one show where she had a bunch of people who had lost their houses in Katrina come to the show to apply to have Oprah build them a house...of course they get the cameras rolling, and she comes out on stage and is like "guess what ya'll? I'm gonna build ALL of you houses!" and then everyone started crying. Well, yeah, nice try at getting ratings Oprah...You can't say that THAT was trying to bring 'awareness' about Katrina....it freakin happened right in America's backyard. If you have to bring awareness about a subject like that to a country's OWN people, then the citizens of that country have a big problem which even Oprah can't solve. I mean, that show was publicity, publicity, publicity. She could still help people without airing herself writing a cheque on tv, and the help would seem more genuine.

If she needs to show herself writing cheques on TV to motivate people, then the cause is already a lost one. "Hey, Oprah has millions of dollars to spend! Let's be like Oprah and send some of our money!" Like...sure...for a good cause and everything, but if I was some starving kid from Ethiopia, and received some charity money from people who sent it just because they saw Oprah send money, I'd use their charity money to buy a plane ticket, find where they live, and then kill them for being so ignorant that the only way they know of the injustices of the world is by seeing Oprah talk about it.

Ugh...I'm gonna stop now....

i think one thing that concers both the iraq war, and the help kids in africa thing: AMERICA SHOULD LEAVE THE OTHER COUNTRIES ALONE AND MAKE ITSELF BETTER INSTEAD, WHAT HAPPENS IN OTHER COUNTRIES IS THEIR BUSINESS.

Erm.....not sure how the Iraq war plays into this....or the American government in South Africa. Oprah is opening the school using her charity foundation that she has. The American government isn't doing anything.....

Originally Posted by Chubz

Yeah...30 kids in a classroom isn't that much, especially in urban areas. It's to be expected. The complaint about there being more kids than teachers is always being flung around, because the teachers unions use it to try and get some more money. They always say "oh, well back in the day there were never that many kids in the schools." Well, depending on where you lived, there has been little variation in number of students. My father was from Britain, and when he went to school (back in the 50's-60's) he had just as many kids in his class as we do now over here in BC, (the population being obviously smaller than in London). The main difference was that if someone got out of hand back in the 50's/60's, they got a whack, which generally kept them quiet. Now if the kid gets out of hand, the teacher can't do anything...so while the class size has remained the same, the way the class is run is done completely differently, so it feels like you have 60 kids rather than 30. So then they say "oh, class size has increased" when in most areas it hasn't. It's remained fairly the same (this isn't true as a whole, I'm sure there's areas where class size has increased quite a lot....but the BC Teachers Union is making the same claims over here, when in fact there has been no real surge in size).

As for Oprah, yes I think it was good she did that. Education is supposed to be provided by the Government, and North America is not running out of money anytime soon. Poor schooling over here is a matter of politics and governance, and if Oprah opened a school in the states, she'd have to give it to state authorities, or make it a private school. But she's not opening a private school, she's opening one for the public.

The government infrastructure is absolutely poor over in South Africa, so education is not guaranteed as a public right. The government itself can't afford to open new schools, and the one that is being opened will more than likely be run by a private organization, run for the public. Access to education in these areas is nigh impossible because of the economic conditions. In North America however, access to education is easily attainable as the government is forced to provide the education (however, to what degree the school recieves funding and how much money it gets are a different matter).

It's a completely different ball game over in South Africa, so anyone who complains aboot Oprah opening up the school probably hasn't read a book on conditions in South Africa, or else they'd keep quiet.

The one thing I don't really like though, is that Oprah doesn't do this stuff unless cameras are recording and people are taking pictures. Oprah's charity work is really a mass publicity stunt, so I have a problem taking her charity as being whole-hearted. I'd like to see information of her shelling out a couple million as an anonomous donation,without making herself look like some charity-God. Of course, you could argue that by making this stuff public she is bringing 'awareness' about a certain subject. But I still don't buy all of it as being pure-hearted charity.

Like...for example, I saw one show where she had a bunch of people who had lost their houses in Katrina come to the show to apply to have Oprah build them a house...of course they get the cameras rolling, and she comes out on stage and is like "guess what ya'll? I'm gonna build ALL of you houses!" and then everyone started crying. Well, yeah, nice try at getting ratings Oprah...You can't say that THAT was trying to bring 'awareness' about Katrina....it freakin happened right in America's backyard. If you have to bring awareness about a subject like that to a country's OWN people, then the citizens of that country have a big problem which even Oprah can't solve. I mean, that show was publicity, publicity, publicity. She could still help people without airing herself writing a cheque on tv, and the help would seem more genuine.

If she needs to show herself writing cheques on TV to motivate people, then the cause is already a lost one. "Hey, Oprah has millions of dollars to spend! Let's be like Oprah and send some of our money!" Like...sure...for a good cause and everything, but if I was some starving kid from Ethiopia, and received some charity money from people who sent it just because they saw Oprah send money, I'd use their charity money to buy a plane ticket, find where they live, and then kill them for being so ignorant that the only way they know of the injustices of the world is by seeing Oprah talk about it.

Ugh...I'm gonna stop now....

Lol. You rerally surprised me with this post. Oprah? Publicity-whore? I can hardly believe that. She's a woman with the wealth and she shares it. Just because she doesnt do it in private? Means nothing. The fact is, that she does it. What more can you ask of someone? She doesnt have to gives this unfortunate people anything of hers. Because there have been people who've came from worse and made it to where she is. But the fact is, that she does.

However, I do agree with you about the people donating because they see Oprah donating. That's wrong and donating should come from the heart.

okay chubz i have to disagree, oprah is not a publicity-whore! she knows how it is to be poor and have nothing. just like i do. she dos not do this for the cameras. and how about madonna!? she adopted that child only for the cameras. she called the press on purpose to get her coverline. oprah on the other hand is a humanitarian and does things out of the kindness of her heart. can she help that what she is doing is a major thing that the world wants to see?

Originally Posted by Kasai

Lol. You rerally surprised me with this post. Oprah? Publicity-whore? I can hardly believe that. She's a woman with the wealth and she shares it. Just because she doesnt do it in private? Means nothing. The fact is, that she does it. What more can you ask of someone? She doesnt have to gives this unfortunate people anything of hers. Because there have been people who've came from worse and made it to where she is. But the fact is, that she does.

However, I do agree with you about the people donating because they see Oprah donating. That's wrong and donating should come from the heart.

I also don't believe Oprah is after the publicity because if you don't watch her show you hardly ever hear about it. If she was it would be all over the news every time she gave something away... again. She does it a lot. Yes she uses her show to highlight the need but I was not aware publicizing a charitable need was something wrong.

Quite on the contrary she seems to get it unlike many people. "Give a person a fish and you feed them for one day. Teach them to fish and you feed them for a lifetime." This is exactly the sort of thing that is needed and we need more to do it. There was another thread about sweat shops and it was pointed out that the children in those countries. don't have much other choice or chance at education. Perhaps if more people like her were involved then that would be different.

Actually i respect her for doing that, the childeren of africa have a pretty hard time. Some of the stuff we take for granted they would love.