Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

White civil rights leader has pretended to be black for years

equationgirl said:
I'd rather this was a top news story than some of the crap we see. This is encouraging real and productive debate about race and representation.
Click to expand...
Is it though? I think most people are pretty appalled by her misrepresenting herself for personal advantage.

Anyhow I was surprised to see it there.
 
Rutita1 said:
I want to know about this case with her brother. Is the unnamed child the one she has adopted as her own? Are her parents simply trying to protect her biological brother or is she the one who has lied here?
Click to expand...

Well according to the Denver Post :

A source close to the sex assault case said Monday that 39-year-old Joshua Dolezal, awaiting trial in Clear Creek County on four counts of child sex assault by one in a position of trust, is her brother.
Click to expand...
(...)
Joshua Dolezal is accused of assaulting a child who was about 6 years old in 2000 or 2001 in Clear Creek County where the Dolezals lived at the time, according to an arrest affidavit. The alleged victim told investigators Joshua Dolezal also abused another person.

The affidavit shows that after the allegations were reported in July 2013, a detective interviewed someone in Spokane as part of the investigation. The person's name is redacted in the report.
Click to expand...

The alleged victim told investigators Joshua Dolezal warned, "Don't tell anyone or I'll hurt you," according to the affidavit. It also says the person decided to come forward after the birth of Joshua Dolezal's daughter because of concerns about the child's well-being.

He was charged in March 2014 and is free on $15,000 bail, according to court records.

Joshua Dolezal is scheduled to face trial in August. Neither Dolezal nor his Denver-based lawyers responded to messages seeking comment. Fifth Judicial District Attorney Bruce Brown also declined to comment.
Click to expand...

The age of the adoptive brother she has guardianship of is out there so I guess one could compare them and make guesses. I fear that internet 'researchers' (or even worse gamergate types) will be researching the identity of the victims as we speak and I'm disinclined to speculate myself.

Rutita1 said:
You know what if she was coming at this as a thing she did to protect herself and the kid because of prejudice or to make a new life for them because of the past (her brother's sexual abuse etc) I would find her a little more believable.
Click to expand...

Without knowing more about the victim(s) than I think should be in the public domain I'm not sure I feel comfortable about discussing this sexual abuse case simply in the context of making judgments about her credibility. I hope it's not seen as apologism if I say that her sins are of rather a different nature to the abuse allegations against her brother. Moreover she has no credibility at this point - finding new ways to demonstrate this seems little redundant.

As it is there's going to be quite enough people assuming that because she's somehow involved the abuse claims either 'may' or 'must' be bogus. Another consequence of her lies of course.
 
Lurdan said:
Without knowing more about the victim(s) than I think should be in the public domain I'm not sure I feel comfortable about discussing this sexual abuse case simply in the context of making judgments about her credibility. I hope it's not seen as apologism if I say that her sins are of rather a different nature to the abuse allegations against her brother. Moreover she has no credibility at this point - finding new ways to demonstrate this seems little redundant.
Click to expand...
I have no argument with that, of course. I posted it because it occured to me and I asked myself questions.

As it is there's going to be quite enough people assuming that because she's somehow involved the abuse claims either 'may' or 'must' be bogus. Another consequence of her lies of course.
Click to expand...
The boy who cried wolf effect. I know that.
 
weltweit said:
Is it though? I think most people are pretty appalled by her misrepresenting herself for personal advantage.

Anyhow I was surprised to see it there.
Click to expand...
I think there's too many people dismissing, excusing and trivialising what she's done. That's obvious from some of the comments on these articles.

This is a more important news story than what a celebrity did today.
 
Rutita1 said:
I am not above the humour by any stretch I am however more focused on the 'real' voices and credible discussion to have emerged from this. :)
Click to expand...

To clarify my position a little, I think the thing that punches through the bullshit is that she has also claimed being discriminated against for being white.

So there's no "philosophical discussion" to be had - this is a person who will claim to be whomever she needs to be to secure an advantage.

While what she has done is to be condemned, her claims and excuses should rightly be ridiculed.
 
8ball said:
To clarify my position a little, I think the thing that punches through the bullshit is that she has also claimed being discriminated against for being white.

So there's no "philosophical discussion" to be had - this is a person who will claim to be whomever she needs to be to secure an advantage.

While what she has done is to be condemned, her claims and excuses should rightly be ridiculed.
Click to expand...

Yet the discussion has enouraged many to speak out... many voices that are usually ignored. Even if some are still being ignored. ;)

Anyway...a preview...she is now claiming that it's because her parents were restrictive in allowing her express her spiritual connection to 'Blackness/humanness', she worried about who was going to be the link in bringing the adopted Black children into the family...



FB link, sorry...She's going to have her own show before the month is out. Move over Oprah.
 
equationgirl said:
That's a good article.
Click to expand...

It is. It always seems so weird to me that white becomes a 'non-race' according to this formulation.
Like white isn't a race or ethnicity at all, just a default black canvas that shows up anything you mix in with it.

Makes sense that if you want segregation to work you can't really do anything else, but it's almost like erasing 'whiteness' in a way.
 
8ball said:
To clarify my position a little, I think the thing that punches through the bullshit is that she has also claimed being discriminated against for being white.

So there's no "philosophical discussion" to be had - this is a person who will claim to be whomever she needs to be to secure an advantage.

While what she has done is to be condemned, her claims and excuses should rightly be ridiculed.
Click to expand...
That really is the killer point. Whatever the shit that went on in her family and still looks to be going on, there's also mendacious self interest, the huckster who can smooth over every bit of evidence, the con artist. And after seeing her straight lack of humility in the interviews today, she's also an outright scumbag.
 
Rutita1 said:
Whiteness becomes invisible when everything 'other' is assessed and scrutinised from it's gaze/perspective. Everything that 'other' is represented as by that perspective, Whiteness becomes the opposite by default.
Click to expand...

I guess it is default. But yes, anything else is 'other'.

I remember Mel B from the Spice Girls saying something about her nickname of 'scary spice' being an obviously sinister choice of monicker (if anything, it was Geri who you'd be advised to hide from), but also that the white Yorkshire side of her background was never mentioned.

(High brow up to the minute cultural commentary, oh yes)
 
8ball said:
That bit of video made me quite angry - I really wanted the host to lay into her. Fucking tourist.
Click to expand...
Saw some longer extracts from that earlier, that was what pushed me as far as going for scumbag. The host just left her to it. Looks like her agent got her a couple of soft interviews. It's as if you've got some confidence trickster who went round robbing old people in your studio, but you just let them waffle on.
 
Wilf said:
Saw some longer extracts from that earlier, that was what pushed me as far as going for scumbag. The host just left her to it. Looks like her agent got her a couple of soft interviews. It's as if you've got some confidence trickster who went round robbing old people in your studio, but you just let them waffle on.
Click to expand...

Maybe giving her enough rope to hang herself is the better path, if that's what it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

elbows
Bangladesh leader flees country after protests and many deaths
Replies
1
Views
359
JimW
JimW
krtek a houby
  • Poll
Do you support the rights for smaller countries to defend themselves against larger aggressors?
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
newme
newme
krtek a houby
Dublin, Monaghan bombings 50 years on
Replies
2
Views
573
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
editor
Writers condemn startup’s plans to publish 8,000 books next year using AI
2
Replies
51
Views
283
maomao
maomao
mojo pixy
Give me a reason not to embrace the far-right
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
3K
Lotte
L
Back
Top Bottom