Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

White civil rights leader has pretended to be black for years

Also, I believe you are reacting against my posts because they don't fit in neatly with your own perceptions about the actions of this woman. I understand that she has transgressed a line when it comes to defining what is meant by 'race'. But I also know that 'race' is an insidious and complex issue, which serves to affirm difference and inferiority to classes of people.
I am reacting against your posts because this woman is a fraud. It is not the transgression that worries me but that fact she has tried to con people into believing things that are not true. She has tried to make people believe things that are absolute bollocks. She is a liar & a fraud and has been caught out by her own stupid actions by being part of the defence team in an action against her biological brother & did not think this shit would come out.
 
Perhaps if you spent a bit more time trying to understand the concepts being discussed, (and less time on ranting), then you might just have a more cohesive argument. I'm just saying is all.
My argument is cohesive, thank you.

Several posters have been very patient and posted very detailed and clear responses, which you seem to persist in ignoring. This woman has been shown to commit fraud yet you continue excusing her behaviour, post after post.

You claim she's taken responsibility for her actions but she hasn't even apologised for what she's done.
 
but if you're a child from a first generation immigrant family like myself, then you can see the disconnect from having to marry your own cultural values, to the British cultural values - which at times were conflicting.

As I've posted before, I have lived and live through and between cultures all of my life. It's just something I negotiate as I go along. I may [perhaps] have found an independence of living across cultures that you either haven't found or, if you have, it doesn't suit you.

1. Back in Portugal, there was our home and the [white] [Portuguese] world outside... except there was also a bit of Portuguese in the house because of my mum's heritage (as I posted before she was born and raised in Angola mainly by a white Portuguese aunt and later the nunnery) and both my mum and dad shared south Angolan culture. Cultural aspects were negotiated and I know this because I remember my mum talking about how she couldn't find this in the shops and how weird something else was. Later, I also found that not all I was okay with that was part of the world outside was permissible within our four walls for cultural reasons and vice-versa.

I'm allowing myself to skip my travels around Europe to save typing energy and because they happened over 4 years and while I had to negotiate stuff doing those years it was more in the quality of tourist even if I lived and worked in those places.


2. and here there's my home and the Surrey British world outside which I share with a 13 yr old who was born here and sees himself as English - again we negotiate cultural aspects against each other using criteria as flimsy and varied as "what's convenient".

I see culture as something that develops between people and gets shaped in pragmatic terms by lots of people more or less in unison. I'm a bit of an explorer and having found cultural aspects I have grown up with to be constricting of my own persona I've simply shed them. I certainly don't see culture as something I have to bind myself to and I doubt it's possible to completely shed oneself of the culture(s) that see(s) one through childhood. I'm well aware that not all people think this way but that's what I think and I do (or not) accordingly.

Having said all of that I think that conflating race with culture is neither productive nor wise and the bits of my post which are all about disconnecting culture from race seem invisible to you. I share a language with some black people in Brazil but only a few bits of their their culture; I share another language with black people in South Africa and none of their culture; I share yet another language with black people in the Congo and their culture is almost alien to me. I share neither a language nor a culture with black people in Ethiopia. Black people in the Bronx have some things in common with people black people in Alabama but few in common with me. But I do relate to all of them racially.

This is not to say that culture can't and doesn't compound racial issues but then that's another thing about Delozal that anger me. By using her white privilege to choose which bits of what she saw as blackness to pick from and exhibit and then presenting herself as a representative (the scope of the NAACP confines itself to America but it reverberates around the world) she renders me, many other women like me and many others completely totally different from me... invisible.
 
Last edited:
Also, having been brought up in a community with only one other Chinese family around meant that I was detached from my Chinese identity. I was only really Chinese in appearance, and my occasional experiences of racism only served to show up the fact that I was different, and would lead me to resenting my 'racial' identity.

Fine! She could have kept on resenting her white identity and become her reductionist version of "black woman". Where's her solidarity towards the community she wants adopting into? Her using of a mishmash of stories of black lives to make her fictitious father amounts to using the people whom these stories belong like tools. How could she ever claim to feel part of the community while, simultaneously, behaving the slave master complete with full control and rights over their lives and narratives? How come the stealing of an education from another black person and the usurpation of a mic meant for people with a prior claim (supposing she had one) than hers? It's not like she was not clever enough to see that those others she claims brotherhood and sisterhood with would always have a lot more to resent from her race than she could ever argue she had, is it?
 
Last edited:
I suppose the nearest we could come to this in the UK is if a plastic paddy got to be president of Sinn Fein or summat?

Sean MacStiofan would be the nearest such case. . . but even he had an Irish connection:

Although he used the Gaelicised version of name in later life, Mac Stíofáin was born as John Edward Drayton Stephenson in Leytonstone, London in 1928. An only child, his father was an English solicitor's clerk, his mother was of Protestant Irish descent born in East Belfast.[1] He stated his mother had left an impression on him at the age of seven with her instruction:

"I'm Irish, therefore you're Irish....Don't forget it".[2]

His childhood was marred by his alcoholic, wife-beating father. His mother, who doted over her son, died when Mac Stíofáin was only 10. Mac Stíofáin attended Catholic schools, where he came into contact with pro-Sinn Féin Irish students.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seán_Mac_Stíofáin
 
It will be interesting to see the interviews and what she claims in them.

i doubt it, she's obviously not stupid so she'll only give interviews to people/organs that will either be sympathetic, or where she can get them to only ask the questions she prepared to answer, and to accept the wafer-thin answers she gives.

from here, it looks like the only good outcome for her will be through an interview where she - and her stinking pile of shit - comes off well. therefore there's no difference between where she is now and where she'd be in the event of a challenging interview, so better no interview than one with a bad or middling outcome.

whats currently out there is bad enough, if she compounds that with a car crash interview it'll be vastly worse for all time. that said, if we assume (safely i think..) that she's a massively deluded, spectacularly egotistical twat with not the slightest shred of understanding of other people, she might think she can wing it. that i'd pay to see...
 
I don't think I am "digging". In fact, I think we should all probably take a leaf out of Kweisi Mfume's book, as he puts his points across in a calm, considered and measured manner:

Former NAACP President and CEO Kweisi Mfume says he believes Rachel Dolezal "is not make believe when it comes to her sincerity," but should come clean with the Spokane, Washington, NAACP:

I think he's probably - almost certainly - right about her sincerity in the sense of being an anti-racist. It's just that that doesn't tell the whole story, by a long way. It is, as he says, about honesty. He's being very measured, but her obvious and long term dishonesty is the thing that must really hurt genuine black campaigners (and indeed white campaigners). And as has been said several times, this isn't a game, it's not a spat in some local bee keepers group, it's about a vastly unequal society at a time when the colour of your skin - the thing she pisses about with - can get you shot.
 
You don't genuinely align yourself to anything by being a chronic ,attention seeking mendacious bullshitter . And even if what you are saying was true it's effect on anyone, black or white, who takes exception to this utterly patronising , toe curling ultra liberal line of garbage is to form the opinion these civil rights type people tend be a complete bunch of assholes and not worth listening to . That they're a joke, a laughing stock . The right wing stereotypes are just amplified ten times over . As if the intersectionalism wasn't bad enough now it plumbs new depths .
While racism plays a role in social relations so too does basic self awareness , which is something that's extremely important to anyone wishing to be taken seriously. It seems in very short supply in certain quarters . You seem utterly oblivious to the very obvious shot in the arm this idiot , as well as justifications like your own , give to hatemongers who promote " white pride " . She's a poster girl for them now . An absolute gift .
I posted something way back on this thread, a guess that academia and intersectionalism provided a soil for her to grow this invented character. Must admit though, from what I've read there hasn't been much of a defence of her along these lines. In fact virtually everyone has been offended by what she's done. I suspect there will be more from people who also feel personally betrayed in the next few days, people who have worked closely with her. Suppose while the whole thing is playing out through the media arc and will gather pace after her interviews, the reaction to her has actually been quite sound.
 
I think he's probably - almost certainly - right about her sincerity in the sense of being an anti-racist. It's just that that doesn't tell the whole story, by a long way. It is, as he says, about honesty. He's being very measured, but her obvious and long term dishonesty is the thing that must really hurt genuine black campaigners (and indeed white campaigners). And as has been said several times, this isn't a game, it's not a spat in some local bee keepers group, it's about a vastly unequal society at a time when the colour of your skin - the thing she pisses about with - can get you shot.

Most on this thread have been saying it's about honesty. Why wasn't that good enough for Winifred?

Winifred said:
I think we should all probably take a leaf out of Kweisi Mfume's book, as he puts his points across in a calm, considered and measured manner:
Oh really? Who has not been doing that on this thread?

Perhaps you can only see/hear that about Kweisi's approach because he is a commentator/academic/community spokesperson or because he's a bloke? See where I am going here...not a commentator, not a bloke, invisible, even if we've been making exactly the same points in much the same way.
 
Last edited:
I've devoted more of my time to you and your mere cogitations, winifred , than I have done for a long time to any one spouting the kind of bullshit you've been throwing around here the last two days. You persist, despite links, Rutita1 's unbelievable patience and the merits of the story itself to elevate the subject to something that race is not. You have fallen hook, line and sinker to the notion that nigga caps, tribal dancing, afros, twerking, soul food (whatever that's supposed to be outside of Alabama or Mississipi or the US) and a few more of these constitute "black culture".
That, my dear, is exactly what this woman has done. She's used bits of what is seen as black culture and fashioned herself a persona. Even if she's managed to convince herself she's black it doesn't mean she is because blackness is the whole experience of being seen as [something or other] not the experience of seeing yourself as [whatever you think of yourself]. It's the whole experience of seeing yourself disappear in the eyes of your interlocutors to be replaced by whatever stereotypes they choose to hold about people they look at as they look at you.

I don't know how to twerk, I don't wear an afro, I don't sing gospel hymns, or think John [is] Legend, I don't wear the beautiful fabrics of the land that saw me born. My favourite actor is not Denzel Washington, it's Gene Hackman but I held a crush the size of an elephant on Jeremy Irons when I first watched Dead Ringers and when it comes to actresses, it's a Brazilian old chappette called Fernanda Montenegro all the way. I listen to more Mahler than to Alicia Keys and more The Doors than Stevie Wonder and even if I'm enthralled by José Eduardo Agualusa, Saramago is a less quiet solace of mine when Kafka becomes too loud.
All of this to now ask... why is it should I relate to those men and women in America who have been tweeting their angry hearts at Dolezal? What do I have in common with them? Never been to America, haven't met that many Americans in the flesh. Never been to South Africa either but feck and arse, my heart goes fully out there, and when I look at the blatant but unofficial colour coding that goes on in Brazil it's enough to make me cry even as cultures change in all of those places and from each to the next. Learnt an awful lot with the Afro Caribbean community since I got here because in telling their story and making their voices heard I found my own because it's the experience of being black in a white country that i have in common with them. Not the yams or the fucking dub.
It's the experiences various and varied that mean the same for everyone of us in this world... "you're different", "you're lesser", "you're no one".

White privilege winifred is what you guys don't have to do to feel you have a place in the world. White privilege is not having to explore, re-explore, analyse, learn and unlearn and re-learn the politics of race in order to find your place among humanity. White privilege is not having to find and then re-claim your own person from what is reflected to you.
It's not the hairstyles, the music, the lingo, the bling, the dancing or the shouting "Black and Proud". It's the experience of stepping outside and having to protect your own person. That, dear Rachel never had to actually do even if she believes she has. Even the boldness of her deed, [ironically] shows the confidence of someone who has no fucking idea.
Brilliant post. As with the trans thread there have been lots of thought provoking posts, stuff I've learned from. Urban delivers. :cool:
 
I posted something way back on this thread, a guess that academia and intersectionalism provided a soil for her to grow this invented character. Must admit though, from what I've read there hasn't been much of a defence of her along these lines. In fact virtually everyone has been offended by what she's done. I suspect there will be more from people who also feel personally betrayed in the next few days, people who have worked closely with her. Suppose while the whole thing is playing out through the media arc and will gather pace after her interviews, the reaction to her has actually been quite sound.
I agree with CR, though, that this is a gift to those who would promote various racist agendas. Much of her story highlights some of the contradictions inherent in the US system, in which structural inequalities are addressed not by universalist, socialist measures such as university fees paid for through general taxation, but by partial measures including positive discrimination such as grants to people from particular ethnic groups, with all the problems that carries with it. She has given ammunition to those who would attack the latter measures but would never even dream of the former.
 
I agree with CR, though, that this is a gift to those who would promote various racist agendas. Much of her story highlights some of the contradictions inherent in the US system, in which structural inequalities are addressed not by universalist, socialist measures such as university fees paid for through general taxation, but by partial measures including positive discrimination such as grants to people from particular ethnic groups, with all the problems that carries with it. She has given ammunition to those who would attack the latter measures but would never even dream of the former.
That sounds about right - and re-reading Casually Red 's post I end up agreeing with it more. The irony is, that she seems to have done rather well out of those partial measures.
 
That sounds about right - and re-reading Casually Red 's post I end up agreeing with it more. The irony is, that she seems to have done rather well out of those partial measures.
Yesterday i said that these are, if anything, historically developed (self) defensive measures - even when at the bureaucratic and elite level. They're not things that should just be dismissed - or, as in this case, exploited. Dolezal has opened the door on the latter now.
 
Fantastic (and related to last few posts) - if this doesn't lay out the self-interest here i don't know what else might:

The court opinion also noted that Dolezal claimed that the university’s decision to remove some of her artworks from a February 2001 student exhibition was “motivated by a discriminatory purpose to favor African-American students over” her.

(Looks like that entire case could almost be vexatious given her refusal to present any evidence in support of her various claims)
 
The irony is, that she seems to have done rather well out of those partial measures.
Well yes, and if that earlier court case is to be believed, there is strong evidence that she was entirely self-serving in all of this. Playing the system, perhaps even originally out of a sense of outrage at the unfair advantage (in her eyes) others were getting over her because she was white. There is a rotten stench to all of this.
 
I just wanted to use the phrase "your average mug punter", really. As you were.

And quite possibly the teaching of art history may have become rather degraded in the US in the recent past.
 
Back
Top Bottom