White civil rights leader has pretended to be black for years

[8ball]

did anyone reading the statement get a full house while playing bollocks bingo in just the first paragraph?

It's the absorption of the values behind this kind of corpse-speak that makes the astonishing class-blindness possible.

 

[Treacle Toes]

That's a fantastic article. As a person who grew up in a multiracial family with a transracially adopted brother and sister, I found it spot on, and I have found Dolezal's comments baffling and shameful.
This article is good too: http://mediadiversified.org/2015/06/15/transracial-doesnt-mean-what-rachel-dolezal-thinks-it-means/

She did what parents/siblings of transracial adoptees in multiethnic families should not do...treat adoptees and their identities as something they 'own' or can co-opt. It's overinvolvement in it's worst most damaging sense, which basically turns everything around and makes it about her.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

She did what parents/siblings of transracial adoptees in multiethnic families should not do...treat adoptees and their identities as something they 'own' or can co-opt. It's overinvolvement in it's worst most damaging sense, which basically turns everything around and makes it about her.

yeah, v good point. That she has made it all about her is one of harder to excuse bits of this.

 

[Treacle Toes]

yeah, v good point. That she has made it all about her is one of harder to excuse bits of this.

See her resigination letter...same form.

 

[8ball]

yeah, v good point. That she has made it all about her is one of harder to excuse bits of this.

I'm not convinced the kid was even anything to do with it tbf. I think it was probably always all about her.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not convinced the kid was even anything to do with it tbf. I think it was probably always all about her.

Which is why the best reaction now would be just to ignore her. She's resigned from her position at the NAACP and I don't see how any academic position is tenable any more. So she loses both, and the rest of the world just stops calling.

 

[butchersapron]

Which is why the best reaction now would be just to ignore her. She's resigned from her position at the NAACP and I don't see how any academic position is tenable any more. So she loses both, and the rest of the world just stops calling.

There are other roles she been rather involved in.

 

[frogwoman]

It just gets worse and worse. I can totally understand why people are kicking off over this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hite-subordinates-tried-kill-three-times.html

 

[Treacle Toes]

Ye gods....

 

[DotCommunist]

I'm not so sure there was any malicious intent on her part. I'll hold off from making a judgement until we hear firsthand from this woman, as to why she did what she did.

This story made me reflect back on one of my brother's, who was very much involved with supporting the black community within our hometown of Wolverhampton. During the eighties he was involved with a local organisation, which sought to provide employment / training opportunities to the BME community.

Most of my brother's friends and work colleagues were black, and for quite some time he used to have a tight curled perm - even sporting a wet-look perm that was popular at the time.

Given that he has black hair, full lips, brown eyes, a bulbous nose and a dark skin tone - could he have been 'blacking up' with the aforementioned image?

No, is my answer as I know he had his own distinctive identity, which was heavily influenced by black culture. And that's why I'm not so quick to judge in the case of this woman.

Malice implies a desire to do harm- I don't think that is the case here. Con job that went out of control, yes.

Although reading the resignation text it really does seem that this is someone who believes her own bullshit.

 

[frogwoman]

She's essentially stolen someone else's life story ( a black person who really has dealt with all this) its proper disgusting, and for her career/getting back at her family.

 

[8ball]

She's essentially stolen someone else's life story ( a black person who really has dealt with all this) its proper disgusting, and for her career/getting back at her family.

I'm a bit confused as to how she was filing an abuse case against her non-existent white family now...

 

[Libnat]

white guilt to the extreme.

 

[frogwoman]

I dont think she feels guilty.

 

[butchersapron]

Malice implies a desire to do harm- I don't think that is the case here. Con job that went out of control, yes.

Although reading the resignation text it really does seem that this is someone who believes her own bullshit.

But saying there was no malice means there was no harmful result. There was. It's a worthless perspective to use here.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

white guilt to the extreme.

Not necessarily. tbh I'm not all that interested in her motives or motivation. Not sure there's anything of much interest in there.

 

[Treacle Toes]

white guilt to the extreme.

Err no....even saying that is somewhat apologist reasoning IMO. You are taking the responsibility away from her and giving her a hall pass.

 

[frogwoman]

I'm a bit confused as to how she was filing an abuse case against her non-existent white family now...

Maybe it was true, who knows, but nobodys gonna believe her now.

 

[8ball]

But saying there was no malice means there was no harmful result.

I agree about the worthless perspective in this case, but I'm pretty sure you can have harmful results in the absence of malice.

 

[butchersapron]

I agree about the worthless perspective in this case, but I'm pretty sure you can have harmful results in the absence of malice.

That's what i meant. I was parodying our non-judgmental (just the 50 posts) friend.

 

[DotCommunist]

But saying there was no malice means there was no harmful result. There was. It's a worthless perspective to use here.

ah, praps not malice aforethought. Like a grand scheme. It does appear that she is utterly unrepentant about the games she has played on people, so who knows.

 

[8ball]

That's what i meant. I was parodying our non-judgmental (just the 50 posts) friend.

Ah. Mixing parody and non-parody in the same post can be tricky.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not necessarily. tbh I'm not all that interested in her motives or motivation. Not sure there's anything of much interest in there.

the banality of bullshit

 

[Athos]

Why Comparing Rachel Dolezal To Caitlyn Jenner Is Detrimental To Both Trans And Racial Progress

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/12/rachel-dolezal-caitlyn-jenner_n_7569160.html?1434138166

The idea that Dolezal's choice to publicly identify as a black woman --- one who occupied positions of power in spaces specifically designated for members of a marginalized group --- is the same as being a trans woman, simply doesn't add up.

What Dolezal did is culturally appropriative, and suggesting otherwise disrupts actual discussions about transgender identity and issues. (It's also worth noting that a white woman's decade-long deception has effectively hijacked the conversation about race, during a week where the nation was focusing on police brutality in McKinney, Texas.)

As Darnell L. Moore of Mic eloquently put it, "In attempting to pass as black, Dolezal falsely represented her identity. Trans people don't lie about their gender identities — they express their gender according to categories that reflect who they are."

Racial divisions may ultimately be a construct, Moore notes, but "skin color is hereditary." And it's skin color that primarily determines racial privilege, and the way others in the world interact with your racial identity.

Transracial identity is a concept that allows white people to indulge in blackness as a commodity, without having to actually engage with every facet of what being black entails -- discrimination, marginalization, oppression, and so on. It plays into racial stereotypes, and perpetuates the false idea that it is possible to "feel" a race. As a white woman, Dolezal retains her privilege; she can take out the box braids and strip off the self-tanner and navigate the world without the stigma tied to actually being black. Her connection to racial oppression is something she has complete control over, a costume she can put on -- and take off -- as she pleases.

The other article you linked to was good; this isn't, in my opinion.

It relies on the argument that transexualism and 'transracialism' (a misuse of the term, I know, but I understand what was meant) are different because they're not the same.

There's no reason given for the suggestion that presenting as a woman is an expression of gender, whereas presenting as a black person isn't an expression of cultural identity.

It says that skin colour is what primarily determines racial privilege. In reality, it's the fact of skin colour in conjunction with society's perceptions about what that means, but, even if we were to accept the article's logic, it ignores the fact that having a male physiology could equally be said to be what primarily determines gender privilege.

It simply dismisses the idea that it's impossible to feel being one race, whereas it implicitly accepts it's possible to feel being a particular sex - with no explanation for the difference.

I goes on to draw the distinction that Dolezal could reverse the physical changes she had made. That's a very dodgy line to adopt, since many pre-op transexuals could do the same.

I accept that the two things are different, but this article doesn't come close to explaining why (which it purports to do in the title).

 

[Treacle Toes]

Okay so you don't like this one...so tell us what you liked about the other one?

I will get to disagreeing with some of your points above when I am ready

 

[Athos]

Okay so you don't like this one...so tell us what you liked about the other one?

I will get to disagreeing with some of your points above when I am ready

It's a lot more nuanced and thoughtful. Though it doesn't really attempt to explain the differences between changes in gender and race.

 

[Treacle Toes]

It's a lot more nuanced and thoughtful.

In which way/s?

You know what, I have read a lot of what Black & Mixed &Transracial adoptee women have to say about this over recent days and it seems to me, despite their voices and informed viewpoints, what they have to say for some is still not important enough. I don't think many people know enough about what it is to be like them/us, so they seek a way of making sense about the deception that has taken place here. They are even willing to let the term 'transracial' be co-opted and given new meaning to suit the deception and narcissism of someone who hasn't so much as managed an apology at this point for the betrayal of trust she has caused.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Here's another perspective...someone speaking from her own experience...Pretty straight forward/everyday things, no need for academic prowess because of that...

http://www.xovain.com/news/how-rach...doubt-light-skinned-black-and-biracial-people

 

[Athos]

In which way/s?

You know what, I have read a lot of what Black & Mixed &Transracial adoptee women have to say about this over recent days and it seems to me, despite their voices and informed viewpoints, what they have to say for some is still not important enough. I don't think many people know enough about what it is to be like them/us, so they seek a way of making sense about the deception that has taken place here. They are even willing to let the term 'transracial' be co-opted and given new meaning to suit the deception and narcissism of someone who hasn't so much as managed an apology at this point for the betrayal of trust she has caused.

For one, it doesn't deal so much in absolutes - acknowledging complexity. Plus it offers some rationale for many of the assertions. And it makes a bit more sense!

Of course, they might have valuable insight (e.g. the Lost Daughters post). But the author's background doesn't mean that poorly thought-out arguments (like those in the article I criticised) should get a free pass.

 

[Duncan2]

The other article you linked to was good; this isn't, in my opinion.

It relies on the argument that transexualism and 'transracialism' (a misuse of the term, I know, but I understand what was meant) are different because they're not the same.

There's no reason given for the suggestion that presenting as a woman is an expression of gender, whereas presenting as a black person isn't an expression of cultural identity.

It says that skin colour is what primarily determines racial privilege. In reality, it's the fact of skin colour in conjunction with society's perceptions about what that means, but, even if we were to accept the article's logic, it ignores the fact that having a male physiology could equally be said to be what primarily determines gender privilege.

It simply dismisses the idea that it's impossible to feel being one race, whereas it implicitly accepts it's possible to feel being a particular sex - with no explanation for the difference.

I goes on to draw the distinction that Dolezal could reverse the physical changes she had made. That's a very dodgy line to adopt, since many pre-op transexuals could do the same.

I accept that the two things are different, but this article doesn't come close to explaining why (which it purports to do in the title).

if the difference between the two concepts relies on reversibility that is very thin indeed imo as Athos says. E2a the reference in Dolezal's recent epistle to race as a construct confirms where she stands on the issue if it was in doubt that is.