Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

White civil rights leader has pretended to be black for years

Since yesterday an image has formed for me when thinking about her possible motives and the WTF why-ness.

There is a scene in Malcolm X (the movie) where a White college student approaches him and asks if there is anything she can do to help...he says no. Point blank. This is pre-mecca Malcolm obviously...and speaks to more than just thinking that enthusiastic/well meaning people have nothing to offer any movement against discrimination. That was about trust. So is this.

I wonder if something like that/of that fear is at play here...the worry that she would not be accepted when being honest about all that she is. Of course I can't and don't know. Just sharing a thought/picture.
 
You made a decent point earlier about it being like 'passing'...the difference though is that people with some Black hertitage who pass for white or vice versa do not necessarily have to try to. It's their phenotype that allows them to pass. Reasons for and the ways that people engage in 'passing' are complex.

the context I first encountered the concept was perhaps not so complex. With structural and societal day to day life of a black american in the time of Crow laws- denial of franchise, property laws against you, school system bias, legal system against you on even the mildest of crimes, access to services. The full run of it. For some, perhaps it was as simple as wanting to be able to not have that shit heaped on them. I'm no expert on anything though so there is probs a lot more to it than that. Did make me think about that peculiar thing with the 'enemy within' the secret red, the secret muslim, the secret black person, must make laws. Although in the case of those times I suppose the racists were basing a lot on the whole inheritable traits idea, 19th century scientific racism etc, hence why they lose their minds (and probably still do) over the thought of 'miscegenation' contaminating the purity off blah blah you know their chat
 
the context I first encountered the concept was perhaps not so complex. With structural and societal day to day life of a black american in the time of Crow laws- denial of franchise, property laws against you, school system bias, legal system against you on even the mildest of crimes, access to services. The full run of it. For some, perhaps it was as simple as wanting to be able to not have that shit heaped on them. I'm no expert on anything though so there is probs a lot more to it than that. Did make me think about that peculiar thing with the 'enemy within' the secret red, the secret muslim, the secret black person, must make laws. Although in the case of those times I suppose the racists were basing a lot on the whole inheritable traits idea, 19th century scientific racism etc, hence why they lose their minds (and probably still do) over the thought of 'miscegenation' contaminating the purity off blah blah you know their chat

Many people in the UK will first have encountered it as a 'concept' when watching or reading Alex Hailey's 'Queen'...kinda a sequel/next chapter to 'Roots - the saga of an American Family'. Others will have encountered it elsewhere in literature factual or fictional that depicted a similar period.
 
Since yesterday an image has formed for me when thinking about her possible motives and the WTF why-ness.

There is a scene in Malcolm X (the movie) where a White college student approaches him and asks if there is anything she can do to help...he says no. Point blank. This is pre-mecca Malcolm obviously...and speaks to more than just thinking that enthusiastic/well meaning people have nothing to offer any movement against discrimination. That was about trust. So is this.

I wonder if something like that/of that fear is at play here...the worry that she would not be accepted when being honest about all that she is. Of course I can't and don't know. Just sharing a thought/picture.
Sounds like the truth is a bit more prosaic, tbh. She did it to get a grant. It worked, and she continued doing it.
 
Sounds like the truth is a bit more prosaic, tbh. She did it to get a grant. It worked, and she continued doing it.

Yes, I was thinking along the same lines as Rutita1 originally but I think that it is now quite clear that the whole thing is more con trick than delusion.
 
Since yesterday an image has formed for me when thinking about her possible motives and the WTF why-ness.

There is a scene in Malcolm X (the movie) where a White college student approaches him and asks if there is anything she can do to help...he says no. Point blank. This is pre-mecca Malcolm obviously...and speaks to more than just thinking that enthusiastic/well meaning people have nothing to offer any movement against discrimination. That was about trust. So is this.

I wonder if something like that/of that fear is at play here...the worry that she would not be accepted when being honest about all that she is. Of course I can't and don't know. Just sharing a thought/picture.
NO
 
Yes, I was thinking along the same lines as Rutita1 originally but I think that it is now quite clear that the whole thing is more con trick than delusion.
Not sure it's always that clear cut a distinction. I've known 'con artists' who thoroughly deceived themselves about what they were doing (and even went on deceive others again when caught out, through the 'transparent genuineness' of their conviction of their own innocence). Obviously no idea about this particular case however.
 
It took me a few years already in this country to find out people even made out a thing about being ginger. People are strange! :)

Gingers are heavily represented among the Celts <Scots and Irish especially>- it's an echo of a much older form of discrimination imo.
 
However we do not know if the grant was her motive to begin with. I imagine the motivation started before that. I could be wrong of course.

I've missed a link somewhere, or my browser is arsing about again, but I didn't see where it says she directly lied to get a grant for Howard university (indefensible imo). Though I did see it said she claimed some African descent for the city police oversight commission.
 
I've missed a link somewhere, or my browser is arsing about again, but I didn't see where it says she directly lied to get a grant for Howard university (indefensible imo). Though I did see it said she claimed some African descent for the city police oversight commission.

Turns out Dolezal has been frontin’ (as we used to say back in the 1980s to describe people who fake aspects of their personalities or lives) since she went to Howard University on a full scholarship in the 1990s. Seems the historically black college thought she was black, too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/06/12/the-damage-rachel-dolezal-has-done/
 
No, fair enough. Maybe that's the difference, then - the real world consequences of accepting/not accepting. But that raises the paradox that the more Dolzeal is abused for blacking up, the more we ought to accept that she is black.

No we shouldn't because she just isn't , and that would make us as completely detached from reality as she is . And she didn't just black up , it wasn't her only bizarre invention by a long shot .

If we follow the logic that this is in any manner acceptable or justifiable behaviour , then we arrive at the point were the most effective means of eliminating racism is to encourage everyone pretend to be black . Problem then solved . That we should admire her for going the extra mile and setting a good example to the rest of us , whose puny efforts pale into insignificance .

The woman's a laughing stock primarily for being a massive bullshitter who went to inordinate degrees to deceive people around her . She's just yet another social inadequate acting the maggot . Attention seeking solely for her own warped benefit .And her actions are an absolute gift to racists on a multiple of levels .
 
Quite a staggering number of US citizens (of the WASP sort) are keen to claim Cherokee heritage (for some reason, those Cherokee peaceniks are more acceptable than the ferocious Huron or unspellable Ojibwe). There appears to be 2 issues here - authenticity and power.
 
Quite a staggering number of US citizens (of the WASP sort) are keen to claim Cherokee heritage (for some reason, those Cherokee peaceniks are more acceptable than the ferocious Huron or unspellable Ojibwe). There appears to be 2 issues here - authenticity and power.

Something else that is also defined by "blood" in the US. In Mexico, to claim official status as an indigenous person, you have to show you speak an indigenous language as your first language.
 
Yeah, that quote you picked out is all it says. It's implied but it's like no one is sure enough to make the damning elements of the claim, which Would be that the scholarship was for African-American students, and that she fraudulently claimed African-American descent on the application.

It's actually her own family that is alleging fraud. The institutions she's been involved in are keeping shtum about it. I think it's because of the flak they may themselves get from activists to donors to students. Why would anyone portray themselves as black if they weren't? The future is black. Anyway here's the actual link I meant to post earlier (it did look different but I've read so many articles on this I don't where I read what - and I don't give quotes without the article links).

When Rachel applied to Howard University to study art with a portfolio of “exclusively African American portraiture,” the university “took her for a black woman” and gave her a full scholarship. “You’ve got a white woman coming in that got a full-ride scholarship to the black Harvard,” Lawrence Dolezal said. “And ever since then she’s been involved in social justice advocacy for African Americans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-naacp-president-rachel-dolezal-may-be-white/
 
Back
Top Bottom