Rachel Dolezal

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.

HughFreakingDillon

rgambs said:

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.

I think we all know what the definition is without me being baited into it.

callen

We say Obama is black but he's half white.

Think one can identify as another race and I have no problem with it.

Hell even Nathan thought he was black and he did eventually get his rhythm.

Wonder why this bothers so many.

callen

HughFreakingDillon said:

rgambs said:

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.

I think we all know what the definition is without me being baited into it.

I don't know about that.

hedonist

"Opportunism" - fantastic application to this woman and her actions.

Callen, do you mean Navin?

I'm not bothered by perceptions (though I think this one and others are a ways from reality), it's her specific actions and her dishonesty. Even if she did some good in the end, does that excuse being deceitful?

rgambs

hedonist said:

"Opportunism" - fantastic application to this woman and her actions.

Callen, do you mean Navin?

I'm not bothered by perceptions (though I think this one and others are a ways from reality), it's her specific actions and her dishonesty. Even if she did some good in the end, does that excuse being deceitful?

I agree! She could have been saying everything she is saying now all along, but she deceived people on purpose.

rgambs

HughFreakingDillon said:

rgambs said:

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.

I think we all know what the definition is without me being baited into it.

Dark skin?
How dark?

If you feel baited it's because you know you don't have a viable answer.

Who Princess

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?

Perhaps she didn't inherit a lot of melanin?

I think Pitts is referring to the fact that genetically there isn't a difference between what we consider races. Sure, there are differences in features, which we are passed down from our parents, their parents, etc. Or we inherit some health conditions, like predisposition to some illnesses or longevity. But genetically, we're all humans.

g under p

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?

JV I would agree with this in that just this year around my birthday my mother revealed to me I'm part Irish. I was like "WHAT" and you are just telling me this. I always wondered why my great grandmother on my fathers side was so light skinned. That side of my family were Catholics which had an extension back to Ireland. No wonder I love St. Patrick's Day and one of my names is Saint.

I have no issue with her being the head of an NAACP chapter. Many whites (it feel odd saying white, who is really actually white OR black) have been involved with that organization. Many have moved it forward exponentially in getting voting rights etc. my only issue was that she was deceitful in doing so, when she probably didn't have to if she REALLY wanted to move the organization forward. She appears to have done this for selfish reasons, anybody remember the movie Soulman or the book Black Like Me? One of the best books I had to read in HS.

PEACE

HughFreakingDillon

rgambs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

rgambs said:

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.

I think we all know what the definition is without me being baited into it.

Dark skin?
How dark?

If you feel baited it's because you know you don't have a viable answer.

not true at all. it's because no matter what I say (African, dark skin, etc), you will have a grey-area retort (not all africans are black, how dark? as you stated above).

I am white. I know I am white. how do I define it? NATURAL APPEARANCE. this woman made her face darker on purpose to deceive people. that's the crux of the matter.

I don't give a shit if my buddy (also white) hangs out with all black people, loves hip hop, married black, has never dated white. that's his choice and his lifestyle. he would probably say he identifies more with "black culture" than "white culture". but he doesn't deceive people into believing he is something he's not. that's all.

HughFreakingDillon

rgambs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

rgambs said:

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.

I think we all know what the definition is without me being baited into it.

Dark skin?
How dark?

If you feel baited it's because you know you don't have a viable answer.

and baiting has nothing to do with the potential answer. it's how the questions are framed.