Rachel Dolezal

hedonist

What do you folks think of this brouhaha?

It's made me think of how the trans-gender issue has come to the forefront lately (not to mention Dirtie_Frank's thread). I can see some validity (probably not the appropriate word but it's early and this is off the fly) with TG and admit I'm very early in my education of this issue, but to identify as another race vs another gender...can't really get my head around that.

From an outsider's view, it seems this chick has some issues - especially given that she filed a discrimination lawsuit against Howard University because she was white. It's just confusing, makes me wonder about "identifying".

Last-12-Exit

I don't even know what to think of this woman.

pjhawks

only thing crazier than this woman is the fact that she pulled it off long enough to head up a chapter of the NAACP. incredible.

JimmyV

You can live your life anyway you want, you can try to be anything you want...but in the end you are who you are.

hedonist

That's sort of how I see it, Jimmy.

I mean, I could say I identify as Asian for any number of reasons and yet...


As much as I want to be, I am.

And it's strange because I feel somewhat bad having this view of her...ends didn't really justify the means (not even clear on what her means were).

callen

She sure as hell pulled it off.

Think I'll let my African American brothers and sisters weigh in.

I don't much care.

Now if she did something illegal well that's seperate issue.

mikepegg44

hedonist said:

What do you folks think of this brouhaha?

It's made me think of how the trans-gender issue has come to the forefront lately (not to mention Dirtie_Frank's thread). I can see some validity (probably not the appropriate word but it's early and this is off the fly) with TG and admit I'm very early in my education of this issue, but to identify as another race vs another gender...can't really get my head around that.

From an outsider's view, it seems this chick has some issues - especially given that she filed a discrimination lawsuit against Howard University because she was white. It's just confusing, makes me wonder about "identifying".

To me it simply highlights the need for us to quit separating ourselves by race and ethnicity.
I mean, really, what does it mean to identify as a race? What does it mean to say I am more black than anything else? What do we gain from the separation? These are honest questions because from where I sit it leads to sociological conclusions that identify groups as if they were individuals.

Even more than that, why couldn't a white woman be a solid head of the NAACP? The fact that she lied about it gives me pause, but the fact that these questions are asked is a joke in my opinion. Race does not matter, it is your ability that matters, nothing else, unique perspectives come from living life and everyone can have them and everyone can be an asset if they choose to make something of their lives in some way. She was doing work that bettered a community, and because of race she never will be able to again without having to deal with all of this over and over.

The fact that people have a problem with her being the white and the head of the NAACP is a problem in and of itself. Wouldn't it be racist for this group to not hire someone, or fire them simply because the color of her skin? Do we honestly believe a white woman could not lead this group effectively?

I am not saying this woman was in the right in creating a situation where she was pretending to be someone else for personal gain, she was in the wrong, but the idea that we need to be a race in the eyes of the world needs to die. We do not need to be separated any more by race than we do by hair color, eye color, sexual preference or otherwise...we are all people and should be judged by our actions not by the actions of a group of people that we happen to have the same biological make up as...

Probably rambled too much,

HughFreakingDillon

mikepegg44 said:

hedonist said:

What do you folks think of this brouhaha?

It's made me think of how the trans-gender issue has come to the forefront lately (not to mention Dirtie_Frank's thread). I can see some validity (probably not the appropriate word but it's early and this is off the fly) with TG and admit I'm very early in my education of this issue, but to identify as another race vs another gender...can't really get my head around that.

From an outsider's view, it seems this chick has some issues - especially given that she filed a discrimination lawsuit against Howard University because she was white. It's just confusing, makes me wonder about "identifying".

To me it simply highlights the need for us to quit separating ourselves by race and ethnicity.
I mean, really, what does it mean to identify as a race? What does it mean to say I am more black than anything else? What do we gain from the separation? These are honest questions because from where I sit it leads to sociological conclusions that identify groups as if they were individuals.

Even more than that, why couldn't a white woman be a solid head of the NAACP? The fact that she lied about it gives me pause, but the fact that these questions are asked is a joke in my opinion. Race does not matter, it is your ability that matters, nothing else, unique perspectives come from living life and everyone can have them and everyone can be an asset if they choose to make something of their lives in some way. She was doing work that bettered a community, and because of race she never will be able to again without having to deal with all of this over and over.

The fact that people have a problem with her being the white and the head of the NAACP is a problem in and of itself. Wouldn't it be racist for this group to not hire someone, or fire them simply because the color of her skin? Do we honestly believe a white woman could not lead this group effectively?

I am not saying this woman was in the right in creating a situation where she was pretending to be someone else for personal gain, she was in the wrong, but the idea that we need to be a race in the eyes of the world needs to die. We do not need to be separated any more by race than we do by hair color, eye color, sexual preference or otherwise...we are all people and should be judged by our actions not by the actions of a group of people that we happen to have the same biological make up as...

Probably rambled too much,

a white person simply cannot fathom what it is like to be black, let alone the double whammy of being a black woman in america. the whole point of the leader of the group "needing" to be black is the unique perspective it brings that simply cannot be experienced by someone who is not of that colour.

I would never want to be the head of any aboriginal group. no matter how experienced I am with the plight of their people, I will always be on the outside looking in to a certain extent.

identifying as a culture? fine. but as a different skin colour? that's just fucked up and stupid.

I think you can be wired wrong in terms of gender (we all start out female, for instance), but race? not a chance.

HughFreakingDillon

mikepegg44 said:

hedonist said:

What do you folks think of this brouhaha?

It's made me think of how the trans-gender issue has come to the forefront lately (not to mention Dirtie_Frank's thread). I can see some validity (probably not the appropriate word but it's early and this is off the fly) with TG and admit I'm very early in my education of this issue, but to identify as another race vs another gender...can't really get my head around that.

From an outsider's view, it seems this chick has some issues - especially given that she filed a discrimination lawsuit against Howard University because she was white. It's just confusing, makes me wonder about "identifying".

To me it simply highlights the need for us to quit separating ourselves by race and ethnicity.
I mean, really, what does it mean to identify as a race? What does it mean to say I am more black than anything else? What do we gain from the separation? These are honest questions because from where I sit it leads to sociological conclusions that identify groups as if they were individuals.

Even more than that, why couldn't a white woman be a solid head of the NAACP? The fact that she lied about it gives me pause, but the fact that these questions are asked is a joke in my opinion. Race does not matter, it is your ability that matters, nothing else, unique perspectives come from living life and everyone can have them and everyone can be an asset if they choose to make something of their lives in some way. She was doing work that bettered a community, and because of race she never will be able to again without having to deal with all of this over and over.

The fact that people have a problem with her being the white and the head of the NAACP is a problem in and of itself. Wouldn't it be racist for this group to not hire someone, or fire them simply because the color of her skin? Do we honestly believe a white woman could not lead this group effectively?

I am not saying this woman was in the right in creating a situation where she was pretending to be someone else for personal gain, she was in the wrong, but the idea that we need to be a race in the eyes of the world needs to die. We do not need to be separated any more by race than we do by hair color, eye color, sexual preference or otherwise...we are all people and should be judged by our actions not by the actions of a group of people that we happen to have the same biological make up as...

Probably rambled too much,

the thing I do like about your way of thinking is something I was just talking to my wife about this morning. There's this kid in my 5 year old's kindergarten class that is autistic. he barely speaks, he has incredibly active outbursts, he is clearly challenged. But he's one of my daughter's best friends. she even understands his "language". that's what I love about young kids. they don't judge. they love everybody. they don't see things in terms of ability, or color, or appearance. they just see a person. my daughter doesn't know what brand her friends are wearing. or if their hair is combed "properly". she just knows who she likes based entirely on personality. I wish we could continute on in life without prejudice.

and to a point I do agree about we should all just identify as humans. part of what I don't like about sports is it creates divisions, especially the olympics and international soccer, etc. why we need to play kids games to show how much better we are as a nation compared to others just baffles me.

unfortunately, part of the ongoing healing of races and cultures that have been oppressed is actually identifying as their own groups, because that is part of the "victory" of overcoming oppression; being who you are and remembering those who sacrificed their culture and honouring that. so, while in theory everyone being "one" is great, it just isn't feasible at this point in history.

hedonist

Ramble on anytime, Mike! I saw something earlier that Dave Chappelle said - to paraphrase, that the accomplishments of the person in Dolezal's position could've done good no matter the race. It's why this is so bizarre to me (and again, the lawsuit...something bigger going on with this, I believe).

HughFreakingDillon said:

I think you can be wired wrong in terms of gender (we all start out female, for instance), but race? not a chance.

And agree with this, Hugh.

badbrains

Kind of gives new meaning to "once you go black, there's no going back".

Last-12-Exit

I guess fraud is the word to use. She obviously benefited from this lie, right?

Who Princess

I kept wondering when there would be a thread about this.

Separate from any discussion about this person and her identity, the NAACP has had some Caucasian staff and volunteers ever since it was founded.

I am white and most of my co-workers are African American. They regularly discuss racial issues and controversial events but I'd heard nothing from them about this. I asked this morning if anyone had anything to say about this woman. The general response was something like, "Wow, I don't know what to think about her." They had no problem with her being a leader in the NAACP, as many white people were involved in the Civil Rights Movement. They just couldn't seem to fathom why she would misrepresent herself.

I noticed that she seems to use a lot of doublespeak or deflects questions, i.e., she identifies as black but she never said she was black, she never said a particular black man was her father but she thinks of him like a father.

I understand why in earlier times many black people felt a need to pass for white, if they could. In her case, it's as if she wanted to be black when it was convenient for her. She can go back to being white if she chooses.

hedonist

I noticed that she seems to use a lot of doublespeak or deflects questions, i.e., she identifies as black but she never said she was black, she never said a particular black man was her father but she thinks of him like a father.

Yes - this is a big part of it for me as well. And in posting, I too figured it'd have been brought up but thought fuck it, a worthwhile if not interesting discussion...as it has been.

Related sidenote, all day I've had this Audioslave song in my head...

(come on in!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNro0Wd5ZaQ

hedonist

Really, just be. Accept yourself, be true to who you are and honest with yourself and others. Good people, by design, would never thumb their nose at that.

badbrains

This "black" fucktard is sooooooo annoying. She reminds me of the new octo-mom minus the 8 kids. Straight phony

Who Princess

Maybe she'll get her own reality show?

InHiding80

Well, that takes the attention off of Emma Stone playing an Asian in a hurry.

riotgrl

And yet....I think race is a social construct. It is not biological. There is not one trait that all people of one race have that another does not. So in that sense I can understand that she might choose to "identify" as one race over her perceived "actual" race. I've had students that identify as another race entirely rather than the race that we see. Much of that has to do with the neighborhoods they grew up in and that their primary friendships, and even many within their family, were a different race. I think this gives them a sense of understanding that others with limited exposure don't understand. While I take issue with her deflection and her possibly benefiting from this situation, perhaps because of her previous life experiences she really does identify more so with the black community. I don't see how identifying with another group can be all bad.

Jason P

oftenreading

riotgrl said:

And yet....I think race is a social construct. It is not biological. There is not one trait that all people of one race have that another does not. So in that sense I can understand that she might choose to "identify" as one race over her perceived "actual" race. I've had students that identify as another race entirely rather than the race that we see. Much of that has to do with the neighborhoods they grew up in and that their primary friendships, and even many within their family, were a different race. I think this gives them a sense of understanding that others with limited exposure don't understand. While I take issue with her deflection and her possibly benefiting from this situation, perhaps because of her previous life experiences she really does identify more so with the black community. I don't see how identifying with another group can be all bad.

I agree, there is a lot of interesting fodder for discussion in terms of how we build our identities and what aspects are really important. I think what is bothering people is the sense that this was only an identity of convenience, used when it benefited her to gain some credibility that she isn't really due. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that she does seem to have done some genuinely good work over the years.

HughFreakingDillon

riotgrl said:

And yet....I think race is a social construct. It is not biological. There is not one trait that all people of one race have that another does not. So in that sense I can understand that she might choose to "identify" as one race over her perceived "actual" race. I've had students that identify as another race entirely rather than the race that we see. Much of that has to do with the neighborhoods they grew up in and that their primary friendships, and even many within their family, were a different race. I think this gives them a sense of understanding that others with limited exposure don't understand. While I take issue with her deflection and her possibly benefiting from this situation, perhaps because of her previous life experiences she really does identify more so with the black community. I don't see how identifying with another group can be all bad.

race isn't a social construct. either you are black or you are not. simple as that. if you mean that racial stereotypes are a social construct, absolutely. how a certain group acts is not biological, absolutely. it's social or communal evolution. black people being associated with rap, for instance, is obviously not biological. it's social in a somewhat evolutionary aspect (a modern version of tribal traditions, if you will).

but from the pictures I've seen, it looks like she used makeup to look black.

HughFreakingDillon

InHiding80 said:

Well, that takes the attention off of Emma Stone playing an Asian in a hurry.

no shit! LOL

JimmyV

From a genealogical standpoint, many people would be shocked to learn that they are not as white or as black as they thought they were. We each have:

2 parents
4 grandparents
8 great-grandparents
16 great-great-grandparents
32 great-great-great-grandparents

and on and on and on. The line keeps going well beyond the few hundred years we have written records for. Can anybody really be sure they are all white or all black?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

riotgrl said:

And yet....I think race is a social construct. It is not biological. There is not one trait that all people of one race have that another does not. So in that sense I can understand that she might choose to "identify" as one race over her perceived "actual" race. I've had students that identify as another race entirely rather than the race that we see. Much of that has to do with the neighborhoods they grew up in and that their primary friendships, and even many within their family, were a different race. I think this gives them a sense of understanding that others with limited exposure don't understand. While I take issue with her deflection and her possibly benefiting from this situation, perhaps because of her previous life experiences she really does identify more so with the black community. I don't see how identifying with another group can be all bad.

I would say there are biological traits that do distinguish race to varying degrees. Hair and skin color are two physical (and biological traits) that come to mind.

oftenreading

JimmyV said:

From a genealogical standpoint, many people would be shocked to learn that they are not as white or as black as they thought they were. We each have:

2 parents
4 grandparents
8 great-grandparents
16 great-great-grandparents
32 great-great-great-grandparents

and on and on and on. The line keeps going well beyond the few hundred years we have written records for. Can anybody really be sure they are all white or all black?

Yes, good point, and I do think riotgrl is correct in stating that race is a social construct. Dolezal's flaw seemed to be in not being honest with people about the realities of her background, apparently for personal gain, and not in the identification per se.

HughFreakingDillon

there is no social construct to me being part scottish. that's just historical genealogical fact. now, if I were to wear a kilt and play the bagpipes, that (racial/ethnic behaviours) would be considered part of a social construct.

Who Princess

I've been waiting to hear what my favorite columnist, Leonard Pitts, had to say about this. He often writes about race, as well as other social issues.

Leonard Pitts Jr.: Rachel Dolezal proves race not a fixed or objective fact

Of the 60 people who co-founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in 1909, only seven were, in fact, "colored." Most of the organization's founders were white liberals like Mary White Ovington. Its highest honor, the Spingarn Medal, is named for Joel Spingarn, who was Jewish and white.

Point being, white people have been intricately involved in the NAACP struggle for racial justice from day one. So Rachel Dolezal did not need to be black to be president of the organization's Spokane chapter. That she chose to present herself as such anyway, adopting a frizzy "natural" hairstyle and apparently somehow darkening her skin, has put her in the bull's-eye of the most irresistible water cooler story of the year. This will be on "Blackish" next season; just wait and see.

As you doubtless know, the 37-year-old Dolezal was outed last week by her estranged parents. In response, they say, to a reporter's inquiry, they told the world her heritage includes Czech, Swedish and German roots, but not a scintilla of black. In the resulting mushroom cloud of controversy, Dolezal was forced to resign her leadership of the Spokane office. Interviewed Tuesday by Matt Lauer on "Today," she made an awkward attempt to explain and/or justify herself. "I identify as black," she said, like she thinks she's the Caitlyn Jenner of race. It was painful to watch.

Given that Dolezal sued historically black Howard University in 2002 for allegedly discriminating against her because she is white, it's hard not to see a certain opportunism in her masquerade. Most people who, ahem, "identify as black" don't have the option of trying on another identity when it's convenient.

That said, it's hard to be too exercised over this. Dolezal doesn't appear to have done any harm, save to her own dignity and reputation. One suspects there are deep emotional issues at play, meaning the kindest thing we can do is give her space and time to work them out.

Besides, this story's most pointed moral has less to do with Dolezal and her delusions than with us and ours. Meaning America's founding myth, the one that tells us race is a fixed and objective fact.

It isn't. Indeed, in 2000, after mapping the genetic codes of five people - African-American, Caucasian, Asian and Hispanic - researchers announced they could find no difference among them. "The concept of race," one of them said, "has no scientific basis." The point isn't that race is not real; the jobless rate, the mass incarceration phenomenon and the ghosts of murdered boys from Emmett Till to Tamir Rice argue too persuasively otherwise.

Rather, it's that it's not real in the way we conceive it in America where, as historian Matt Wray once put it, the average 19-year-old regards it as a "set of facts about who people are, which is somehow tied to blood and biology and ancestry." In recent years, Wray and scholars like David Roediger and Nell Irvin Painter have done path-breaking work exploding that view. To read their research is to understand that what we call race is actually a set of cultural likenesses, shared experiences and implicit assumptions, i.e., that white men can't jump and black ones can't conjugate.

To try to make it more than that, to posit it as an immutable truth, is to discover that, for all its awesome power to determine quality of life or lack thereof, race is a chimera. There is no there, there. The closer you look, the faster it disappears.

Consider: If race were really what Wray's average 19-year-old thinks it is, there could never have been a Rachel Dolezal; her lie would have been too immediately transparent. So ultimately, her story is the punchline to a joke most of us don't yet have ears to hear. After all, this white lady didn't just try to pass herself off as black.

She got away with it.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/06/17/270149/leonard-pitts-jr-rachel-dolezal.html#storylink=cpy

mickeyrat

Who Princess said:

I've been waiting to hear what my favorite columnist, Leonard Pitts, had to say about this. He often writes about race, as well as other social issues.

Leonard Pitts Jr.: Rachel Dolezal proves race not a fixed or objective fact

Of the 60 people who co-founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in 1909, only seven were, in fact, "colored." Most of the organization's founders were white liberals like Mary White Ovington. Its highest honor, the Spingarn Medal, is named for Joel Spingarn, who was Jewish and white.

Point being, white people have been intricately involved in the NAACP struggle for racial justice from day one. So Rachel Dolezal did not need to be black to be president of the organization's Spokane chapter. That she chose to present herself as such anyway, adopting a frizzy "natural" hairstyle and apparently somehow darkening her skin, has put her in the bull's-eye of the most irresistible water cooler story of the year. This will be on "Blackish" next season; just wait and see.

As you doubtless know, the 37-year-old Dolezal was outed last week by her estranged parents. In response, they say, to a reporter's inquiry, they told the world her heritage includes Czech, Swedish and German roots, but not a scintilla of black. In the resulting mushroom cloud of controversy, Dolezal was forced to resign her leadership of the Spokane office. Interviewed Tuesday by Matt Lauer on "Today," she made an awkward attempt to explain and/or justify herself. "I identify as black," she said, like she thinks she's the Caitlyn Jenner of race. It was painful to watch.

Given that Dolezal sued historically black Howard University in 2002 for allegedly discriminating against her because she is white, it's hard not to see a certain opportunism in her masquerade. Most people who, ahem, "identify as black" don't have the option of trying on another identity when it's convenient.

That said, it's hard to be too exercised over this. Dolezal doesn't appear to have done any harm, save to her own dignity and reputation. One suspects there are deep emotional issues at play, meaning the kindest thing we can do is give her space and time to work them out.

Besides, this story's most pointed moral has less to do with Dolezal and her delusions than with us and ours. Meaning America's founding myth, the one that tells us race is a fixed and objective fact.

It isn't. Indeed, in 2000, after mapping the genetic codes of five people - African-American, Caucasian, Asian and Hispanic - researchers announced they could find no difference among them. "The concept of race," one of them said, "has no scientific basis." The point isn't that race is not real; the jobless rate, the mass incarceration phenomenon and the ghosts of murdered boys from Emmett Till to Tamir Rice argue too persuasively otherwise.

Rather, it's that it's not real in the way we conceive it in America where, as historian Matt Wray once put it, the average 19-year-old regards it as a "set of facts about who people are, which is somehow tied to blood and biology and ancestry." In recent years, Wray and scholars like David Roediger and Nell Irvin Painter have done path-breaking work exploding that view. To read their research is to understand that what we call race is actually a set of cultural likenesses, shared experiences and implicit assumptions, i.e., that white men can't jump and black ones can't conjugate.

To try to make it more than that, to posit it as an immutable truth, is to discover that, for all its awesome power to determine quality of life or lack thereof, race is a chimera. There is no there, there. The closer you look, the faster it disappears.

Consider: If race were really what Wray's average 19-year-old thinks it is, there could never have been a Rachel Dolezal; her lie would have been too immediately transparent. So ultimately, her story is the punchline to a joke most of us don't yet have ears to hear. After all, this white lady didn't just try to pass herself off as black.

She got away with it.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/06/17/270149/leonard-pitts-jr-rachel-dolezal.html#storylink=cpy

Awesome editorial. Pitts is featured in my local paper often. Always found him to be insightful and fair. As we see here. Good stuff.

HughFreakingDillon

if he speaks of race in the contexts of one's ethnicity, and says that has no basis in scientific fact, I call bullshit. some people are black. some people are white. some people are asian. etc etc. that is irrefutable. but if he speaks of race in the context of cultural behaviours, I agree.

if race has no basis in fact, then why isn't my daughter black?

rgambs

HughFreakingDillon said:

if he speaks of race in the contexts of one's ethnicity, and says that has no basis in scientific fact, I call bullshit. some people are black. some people are white. some people are asian. etc etc. that is irrefutable. but if he speaks of race in the context of cultural behaviours, I agree.

if race has no basis in fact, then why isn't my daughter black?

What is "black"??
Define it please.