June 15, 2015

Dave Chappelle says Rachel Dolezal is "highlighting the difference between personal feeling and what’s construct as far as racism is concerned."

"The thing that the media’s gotta be real careful about, that they’re kind of overlooking, is the emotional context of what she means. There’s something that’s very nuanced where she’s highlighting the difference between personal feeling and what’s construct as far as racism is concerned. I don’t know what her agenda is, but there’s an emotional context for black people when they see her and white people when they see her. There’s a lot of feelings that are going to come out behind what’s happening with this lady. And she’s just a person, no matter how we feel about her.... I’m probably not going to do any jokes about her or any references to her for awhile 'cause that’s going to be a lot of comedians doing a lot. And I’m sure her rebuttal will be illuminating. Like, once she’s had time to process it and kind of get her wind back and get her message together."

Well put!

As you can tell by clicking on my Rachel Dolezal tag, I've been taking Dolezal seriously and pushing back on those who've gone straight to mockery, but I did just want to say that I just noticed — as I typed in my racial politics tag — "Rachel" sounds very much like "racial."

Racial politics ≈ Rachel politics.

120 comments:

madAsHell said...

It's telling that her rebuttal has already been delayed. I'm sure that more astute minds have prevailed. "You gonna say WHAT!?!? Dat bitch be crazy!"

Scott said...

The so-called "National Conversation on Race" isn't touching the national conversation on Rachel Dolezal with a ten foot pole.

William said...

If she is this delusional about her racial identity, chances are that she is delusional about other aspects of her life. She might have some good qualities and some good intentions, but she is not a reliable witness to problems of racism in America, nor, for hat matter, to the events of her own life.

pm317 said...

OK, from this article, she grew up with black adopted siblings; she got a full scholarship to Howard because she said she was black; there is a picture of her wedding to a black man. Looks like a race conversion to me. Only snag is that she did not announce her intention early on and didn't have a coming out party (like Jenner for instance) and kept it under wraps. It is the deception that is the problem.

sinz52 said...

If the Left wants to accept Rachel Donezal's "personal feelings," then they also have to accept the meaninglessness of affirmative-action programs and majority-minority congressional districts and so on.

Those programs are supposed to be based on objective measures like one's race. And they're supposed to be based on clear historical grievances like slavery and white racism. Those programs become totally meaningless if we can choose our race.

Even worse, epidemiological studies will be rendered meaningless.

How about a majority-minority district in which a whole bunch of white people, whose ancestors never suffered any racial discrimination, decided they're "really" black and "really" felt like they had been the victims of racism?

Or a scientific study that purports to show that the incidence of sickle-cell anemia among blacks is declining (because they are now counting white people who identify as black)?

traditionalguy said...

Once you've gone black you don't go back. It's the most Nation Nation status, and no one gives that up.

pm317 said...

Once she lied/pretended/deluded to get a full scholarship at a black university, there was no going back. She had to continue the charade.

EMD said...

God forbid people go straight to mockery.

traditionalguy said...

Favored Nation.

Amadeus 48 said...

Anne-- Did you see the story on one of her brothers on Buzzfeed? He says she asked him not to blow her cover when she started to "transition" with dark make-up and a new hairdo. He says she was put off by the way she was treated as a white student at Howard with knowledge of African art. He also says she never went to Africa with her family.
Are we beginning to smell performance art? How do we distinguish it from crazy? Maybe it is the self-proclaimed surgical ambitions. Will the NAACP appreciate it? How about her university employer? Do they want to be part of her art project? What about the other members of her family? What would Camille Paglia say? Does she get a free pass from all social conventions of honesty and truthfulness because she is an artist?
I see why you are taking this so seriously, professor. It could be Art.

Sebastian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sebastian said...

Individuals who neatly serve Prog narratives = proper objects of scorn. Off with their heads.

Individuals who threaten to scramble Prog narratives = "just a person." Let's understand their layers.

Individuals who are certifiably insane in a manner endearing to Progs = deserving of sympathy. Let's accept who they say they are.

William said...

Does David Chappelle think that Clarence Thomas is an authentic black? Is Rachel a more authentic black than Clarence Thomas?

EMD said...

Is she a reverse Oreo?

EMD said...

I do, however love her nickname of "White Chocolate"

Sassy!

rhhardin said...

Maybe it's just an estrogen problem. Her feelings rule.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, if you don't understand why the US would be a stronger, better society if race didn't matter one tiny bit, then there's no hope for you as a human being. That's what I and others believed when I demonstrated for Civil Rights as a college student in the 1960s, and it's what I believe still today.

Perhaps if he hadn't been assassinated Martin Luther King, Jr. would have led us to that place. Or perhaps he would have "evolved" into a cheap, run of the mill race hustler like Julian Bond or Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, Sr. Or Rachel Dolezal.

Anonymous said...

Is she for reparations??? How is that going to work???

Todd said...

Amadeus 48 said...

Does she get a free pass from all social conventions of honesty and truthfulness because she is an artist?
I see why you are taking this so seriously, professor. It could be Art.

6/15/15, 8:41 AM


If that flies, I might try a performance art piece whereas I enter a very large bank and perform like I am going to take all of the money that they have in their vault. I will wear a GoPro to document it all. If I get away, I "promise" to return it all. If I get caught, as it is "art", I should get a pass, right?

It is all about that art baby!

Bay Area Guy said...

Let me reiterate that there isn't anything wrong with Rachel migrating towards and/or adopting black culture.

The question is HOW she did it and whether she mislead anyone by obtaining her position at the NAACP.

If the Spokane Chapter of the NAACP doesn't have a problem with her, I don't think many others will either.

The other interesting unresolved question e is whether sex and now race can be determined by personal, subjective standards, i.e., " I am a (fill in the blank), because I say I am." This idea is straight out of the Left-wing playbook, and, in my opinion, is mock worthy.

Chris N said...

But...the fraud!

She became an activist, and has hurt basically everyone she claimed to be helping through her actions by way of that fraud.

What if you trusted her in your own life and suffered some loss in the process?

Oh, but some of it came from a good place...or it's psychologically fascinating/sensitive or it highlights some mental state/innocent intent that highlights America's history on the subject?

Withholding judgment often shows pity, which often shows a lack of respect.

JCC said...

It's one thing to favor some ethnic-based style in speech, music or clothing, for instance. it's entirely a different action to dishonestly claim to be a member of a favored ethnicity in order to benefit by dint of affirmative action. So, gaining collegiate admission and/or financial aid, employment and the like by a lie is fraud. (see: Warren, Native American)

She also seems to have compounded this by falsely claiming to have been the victim of fictitious hate crimes, whether from mental illness or from some attempt to establish credibility.

I'm not sure why she's entitled to a free pass, ala Bruce Jenner, because she just wanted to be black. More like, she cynically wanted to get the free-lunch benefits while just wanting to be black.

I think both she and Bruce are quite ridiculous, and both did what they did for their own, selfish reasons.

Laslo Spatula said...

"I’m probably not going to do any jokes about her or any references to her for awhile 'cause that’s going to be a lot of comedians doing a lot"

Chapelle used to be one of those in the forefront of comedy that may or may not be ready to be accepted.

He is punting.

I am Laslo.

Michael K said...

"It is the deception that is the problem."

No, it is the fictitious hate crimes that are the problem. She is a nut. The Buzzfeed article is also very interesting.

EDH said...

I read Chappell's words as gobbledygook.

JAORE said...

Please enlighten me. What, pray what, circumstance could make this woman NOT the subject of mockery?

A diagnosis of crippling mental illness, perhaps?

Absent that she is a fraud, an abuser of the system, a denier of who she is, cast her family aside and (assuming the racial injustices she claims are actually false) she increases the racial divide that is so destructive to our society.

The only positive I find in her story IS the mockery she makes of racial identity as a fundamental feature of ones life.




JAORE said...

Oh yeah, I am not a black robot.

damikesc said...

Sorry, but this is worthy of mockery. The Progressive War on Reality is a joke. A category 5 cracker playing pretend as a black woman SHOULD be mocked, but no, Progressives have to take this bullshit SERIOUSLY?

Sorry, but making non-reality "real" doesn't benefit society.

As mentioned, these clowns have the audacity to claim people like Rice and Thomas, who dealt with ACTUAL racism, aren't "authentic blacks". Well, seriously, fuck them.

I’m probably not going to do any jokes about her or any references to her for awhile 'cause that’s going to be a lot of comedians doing a lot.

Remember when comedians were concerned about being funny? Comedians being such craven pussies to PC is just sad. Comedy is dead.

I Callahan said...

Are we beginning to smell performance art? How do we distinguish it from crazy?

We don't. Performance Art is a 100% subset of crazy; it doesn't overlap with sane anywhere.

Michael The Magnificent said...

War is not peace.

Freedom is not slavery.

Ignorance is not strength.

Up is not down.

Left is not right.

Right is not wrong.

Two plus two does not equal five.

Bruce Jenner is not a woman.

Rachel Dolezal is not black.

Homosexual marriage is not marriage.

Bob Boyd said...

The nuance generator is red hot, clattering and smoking, seconds away from catastrophic mechanical failure.
Mr. Scott: "I'm giving her all she's got, Captain!"
[the construct begins to crack as comedians demand the PC take]
James T. Kirk: "All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?"
Scotty: Um... Okay, if we reject the core idea and prevaricate, the confusion could be enough to get us some distance! I cannae promise anything, though!
[the editorial pages start to become weightless and drift in different directions]
James T. Kirk: DO IT, DO IT, DO IT!

damikesc said...

Progressives --- 1984 was a warning.

Not a fucking "how to guide".

Todd said...

Michael The Magnificent said... [hush]​[hide comment]
War is not peace.

Freedom is not slavery.

Ignorance is not strength.

Up is not down.

Left is not right.

Right is not wrong.

Two plus two does not equal five.

Bruce Jenner is not a woman.

Rachel Dolezal is not black.

Homosexual marriage is not marriage.

6/15/15, 9:08 AM


Well, you know what you can do with your cisnormal dictionary and cisnormal definitions don't you? That is so old, white man patriarchal. You h8er!

MayBee said...

It's interesting how much of her black identity revolved around being unhappy with history and getting caught up in the grievance industry. I mean, she didn't just realize she was really a black woman and then volunteer with the PTA and work in banking.
I suspect that's why she's being kind of accepted by a lot of the usual SWJs. Or at least not rejected.

How do you think this would be treated if she did the exact same thing, but instead campaigned against Affirmative Action, or volunteered for Ben Carson's campaign?

Is part of this because she was (to use Bob Wright's phrase) the "right kind" of black person?

How much of racial identity has become really just complaining about white people?

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I'm tired of getting these basal cell things removed so I'm going to start pretending I'm black and we'll see how it goes.

SCIENCE!!11!!!!!!

jacksonjay said...

Leave this freak show alone. Save your mockery for men who dress like children.

rhhardin said...

Little girls pretend that they're a nurse even though they have zero credentials.

And for a good reason. At least one doll is probably sick at any time.

You do what you can to help.

MayBee said...

It's interesting how much of her black identity revolved around being unhappy with history

It occurs to me she is directly affected by slavery as every other black person in the US.
She is as directly affected by Jim Crow as every other black person her age in the US.
She is as directly affected by unfair college admissions policies as every other black person her age in the US.

Anonymous said...

I'm with you Ann.

Anyone who wants to be black, native American, or any other favored class, go for it.

The sooner we're all a minority, the better.

Mike said...

The most memorable video clip of this folly so far has been the one where the (off camera) reporter asks her if she's African-American and she has nothing except a blank look before finally muttering, more or less, "I don't understand what you mean by that?" It perfectly captures the absurdity of the situation.

What are the mathematical possibilities she really doesn't know what he's asking? That number approaches zero, as we say. She is, after all, a professor of AA studies, after all. So at the same time she reveals the shallow nature of her scam -- and I do believe it is a long-form scam from day one -- that is so easily disputed by the facts of her birth and life, she also reveals the absurdity of the entire "X as social construct" (with X being race in her formulation) scam being perpetrated in our universities.

What's killing higher education? People like Rachel Dolezal, not people like Scott Walker.

SGT Ted said...

Her agenda? Trying to lie her way out of her other lies with $50 words and bullshit salad learned in the academically fraudulent "black studies" department.

Sharc said...

She's a phony motivated by money, IMHO. Does anyone think she would have gotten a free education from Howard, a teaching gig within the African-American Studies academy, and a cushy race-baiting job as an NAACP director without first gaining access to a professional victim card? If you want an honest reaction, don't wait for her to strategize some self-serving dramatic narrative -- just look at her embarrassed, stammering face during her first confrontation on camera. She has never been confused about her race, nor influenced by her upbringing with adopted siblings, nor color-blind. She lied and then covered the lie with ridiculous coifs, tanning creams, and black fake "family members." She knew what she was doing every step of the way: trading away her self-respect for cash and a secure career in the victimhood industry.

Mike said...

Sinz52 said: "If the Left wants to accept Rachel Donezal's 'personal feelings,' then they also have to..."

Ah the collision of Fen's Law with leftists always leaves righteous people saying things like this. Along with, "If Obama talked about our country's enemies like he talks about Republicans..." and, "If liberal's compassion extended to wanting to understand conservative arguments..." or, "If Democrats really thought the filibuster was wrong then..."

You can do this all day, all year, all your life and never mine this vein to exhaustion.

SGT Ted said...

This also exposes the intellectual bankruptcy and fraudulent nature of the identity politics movement of the left.

tim in vermont said...

Sharc knows what is in her heart!

tim in vermont said...

It is amazing how the left can whip out conservative arguments as if they believed them valid in defense of a sacred cow.

Phil 3:14 said...

Being Black is serious stuff.

Being white, not so much.

(and as I post this even blogger asks "Choose an identity")

Phil 3:14 said...

I am colored.

You can decide which.

tim in vermont said...

It's like when Jon Stewart mocked a SCOTUS justice for asking what the court should say when a polygamist demands the right to marry.

Stewart says "That's ridiculous! That would be illegal!" and everybody laughs at the stupid Scalia, or whoever asked the question.

As if just a few short years ago, gay marriage wasn't illegal too, and as if the law was changed by democratic means through legislation, not decisions of judges like Scalia.

Ha ha ha! Stupid person! Can't you tell which way the wind is blowing? What does that have to do with democracy you stupid old man?

Sharc said...

Don't really care what's in her heart -- just reading the evidence. But let's just go with what she said originally. She doesn't give two shits what you think.

Sharc said...

Anything that comes after that unambiguous statement from her heart is pure damage control.

tim in vermont said...

The trick is to come up with the exact right set of rationalizations and no matter how fanciful or baroque, and imagine that each represents a bedrock facet of human nature on which everybody agrees!

Who am I kidding? Just know what you want the outcome to be and attack anybody who disagrees with whatever weapon comes to hand.

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

She doesn't give two shits what you think.

Why does that matter? Why is that important. Once again you are presuming to know what is in her heart.

Joshua Barker said...

Just like with Bruce Jenner, I couldn't personally care less about what this person wants to call themselves. What I am furious about is the never ending double-standard and hypocrisy that allows people on the left to do whatever the hell they want, and they get a pass, while the caterwauling over the most ridiculously drummed-up nothing's of anyone on the right is deafening... I'm sick of it...

Basil said...

What would America be like it race was immaterial to the government? If race were immaterial at all? I guess we will never know because the race industry would be out of business and the gravy train ended. Pity. AS a general rule, most people are ready to forget about race and move forward together. It's a shame that the racial grievance industry, which is very few people in number, get to keep us all looking backwards.

pduggie said...

Rachel neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg.

But I guess she picked the metaphorical pocket of black Americans and found some spare change and now they feel aggrieved.

It does do a number on the privilege narrative. If black people feel defrauded by her, why? All the privilege is in whiteness. IF she emptied herself of whiteness... how does that "take" from black people?

I think it CAN be explained, but it hasn't been explained, at least very well.

Of course, oppressed explaining the oppression to the oppressors is oppressive. They will not "enact that labor" as Suey Park put it.

Matthew Sablan said...

"I think it CAN be explained, but it hasn't been explained, at least very well. "

-- It is pretty simple. There are systems set up to give advantage to people who are disadvantaged [the scholarships, for example.] No one would say it was wrong if someone pretended to be disabled in someway to get a financial benefit; lying about her race to get one is equally morally wrong.

You can feel or think you are something and that's fine. When you act on those and effectively deprive someone who REALLY was disadvantaged because of your belief, that's wrong. Just remember: Somewhere, there really is a poor, black person who was denied the benefit of that scholarship so she could have it.

Michael K said...

The victims of her fantasy and deception are all black. If they want to pretend she is one of them, go ahead but don't expect the rest of us to be impressed.

Spokane is pretty white. Maybe she would be more comfortable in Detroit or Baltimore.

Sharc said...

It's important because if she suddenly comes out with a new narrative rationalizing years of portraying herself as a victimized black woman (and she will, which is the point of this post) -- "I'm the new post-racial, I'm not a fraud, I have always been confused about race issues," whatever -- it means she actually *does* give a shit what people think and further erodes her credibility.

Not sure what your point is about "knowing her heart." It just seems more likely than not to me that the benefits she has conveniently accrued by pretending to be black are not coincidence or mistake. Means, motive, and opportunity for fraud are all on display. She would need a really great "rebuttal" to get past that, but even then I doubt she will share her "heart" beyond what she has already said.

Gahrie said...

Please enlighten me. What, pray what, circumstance could make this woman NOT the subject of mockery?

She's a woman. You are not allowed to make women feel bad.

pduggie said...

She didn't claim to be black when she applied to and got a free ride at Howard, did she?

So she didn't lie to get a scholarship. What else did she get when she was lying?

tim in vermont said...

and she will, which is the point of this post

Now you know the future.


Not sure what your point is about "knowing her heart." It just seems more likely than not to me that the benefits she has conveniently accrued by pretending to be black are not coincidence or mistake.

The point is that you are bringing up a lot of irrelevant factors. Did she have all of those things when she decided to be black, or did she come to an acceptance that she was black, and build a life from there? You have no idea. You just pretend to know out of some sort of misguided outrage.


Matthew Sablan said...

My understanding is that she did lie about the scholarship, but that might be just from unclear reporting on the subject.

tim in vermont said...

So she didn't lie to get a scholarship. What else did she get when she was lying?

There is a rich vein of cognitive dissonance to be mined here. She decided to go to an historically black university, wasn't that the first indication that she believed herself to be black?

Imagine she was Caitlyn Jenner and these questions just flow!

pduggie said...

White people go to Howard all the time. They can't legally prevent them from doing so. There was even a TV show about Howard that included them

Matthew Sablan said...

Looking back, it looks like where she identifies as African American is at her current job. Apparently, the university just "took her for a black woman," or some wording like that in the WaPo. Which I took to mean "she said she was, and no one bothered to check" since race is on most school applications.

I guess it is possible that they just didn't ask her race at the school's application process, or she wrote down her actual race and they just ignored it, or she wrote down prefer not to identify, or "mixed," but I guess it is POSSIBLE she didn't actively try and deceive the school about her race. We'll just need to wait until we get more details.

pduggie said...

Outrage = epistemology

pduggie said...

Yeah. Tonight will be big!

tim in vermont said...

Now the trans-racial are forced to live a hidden existence, underground, second class citizens, like gays were just a couple of decades ago.

When will they have their Selma? When will they have their Stonewall? Who knows how many more "Malibu Most Wanteds" there are out there, hiding from this kind of scrutiny.

wildswan said...

Is it OK to claim to be white or Hispanic when your parents listed themselves as black on the US Census? Certainly. Is it OK to use hair straighteners? Certainly. And skin lighteners? Certainly. Then what is wrong with what Rachel Dolezal (use hair curlers, use tanning creams, and list herself as black) did except that it is new? Yes, it benefited her in her chosen career but that is often why people change their listed race when they go from "black" to "white."

It is so often said that "white" people can't understand or comment on the "black experience" and she, by cosmetic changes, became a "valid" and accepted commenter and a black leader and a teacher of the meaning of the "black experience" and no one saw any difference or any errors. I think that is quite significant. If she is accepted as "black" then "whites" cannot be excluded from teaching or commenting on the black experience merely on the basis of skin color.

But if she isn't accepted then people who are changing their listed race the other way have a problem.

And look at someone like Bruce Jenner who supposedly knows what it is to be a woman - have boobs and long hair and a sweet nature. That's been accepted.

And all will be accepted - for awhile.
Really you can't call what is happening "the left thinks." The times have gone into contradiction as mode of being.

Easy solution - stop using race or gender as criteria. Drop them from the Census, drop affirmative action, drop Title IX. Shrink Federal intrusion, shrink the Federal budget. shrink Federal debt. So easy.

Anonymous said...

If it were me pretending to be black, I'd probably start processing the fact that I'm pretending to be black at the same time I start pretending to be black.

Rick said...

Bay Area Guy said...
Let me reiterate that there isn't anything wrong with Rachel migrating towards and/or adopting black culture.

The question is HOW she did it and whether she mislead anyone by obtaining her position at the NAACP.

If the Spokane Chapter of the NAACP doesn't have a problem with her, I don't think many others will either.


I think this is true but omits something. I don't care that she does it, and I'm only mildly interested in why. It's hard to not conclude there's something screwy in her psychology, but lots of people do strange things.

The interesting point is how the radical community reacts to her. Left wing activists use tortured logic to take offense at "cultural appropriation" as a fallback offense when someone's actions can't be credibly described as racist. If radicals choose not to criticize Rachel that fact will be used to discredit their future attacks on others. On the other hand these attacks don't carry much weight outside of radical circles where they serve as an in-group marker. So maybe the radicals absolve Rachel but continue to use the methods on others while simply ignoring their hypocrisy.

Are they sufficiently self-aware to understand they can choose not to criticize Rachel because no one who matters to them would ever care? Or would this decision endanger their in-group status?

Fernandinande said...

Eric the Fruit Bat said...
I'm tired of getting these basal cell things removed so I'm going to start pretending I'm black and we'll see how it goes.
SCIENCE!!11!!!!!!


I suggest you first transition to a Hammer Head Fruit Bat because it's grey (and funny looking), before you complete the full transition to black

wildswan said...

And it seems that her parents both had one Native American grandmother. So that her parents' parents were not "white" under the classification prevailing when they grew up in the early Twentieth century. But now Rachel's parents say they are "white" and that she is "white".

And she says her parents are "white oppressors" but she is "black."

Oh there's rich vein of comedy here. How many generations of passing does it take to make a White Oppressor? Or a black studies professor? It's reverse Hitler.

Honey, guess whose coming to dinner?
Keep guessing.
No, keep guessing.
No, not even close.
No ...
...keep guessing

Brando said...

The only reason to not mock this woman is the possibility that it will come out that she is severely deranged and making fun of mentally ill people is cruel. But short of that, what we have here is a brazen liar faking a racial identity to curry favor and advance her career--how can you NOT mock that?

One upside to this (as well as the transexuality controversy) is that it is tearing the far Left apart--in one corner we have the SJWs that believe a person can have a gender or racial identity different from what they're born as, and that this can be legitimate. In the other corner we have the race and gender hucksters who think favor should be dished out to certain oppressed groups, and that someone not born into those groups should not get a piece of the pie. Watching them fight is amusing.

I have more consideration for the transexuals than the transracials, as men and women are in fact wired differently and it is at least possible that a man's brain could be wired as female. But "race" as an inborn thing is just something people have come up with to justify allegiance to their tribes, and the idea of a black brain being wired differently from a white brain (I'm not talking about culture or environmental factors, but rather at birth) has no basis in science.

Todd said...

wildswan said...

Easy solution - stop using race or gender as criteria. Drop them from the Census, drop affirmative action, drop Title IX. Shrink Federal intrusion, shrink the Federal budget. shrink Federal debt. So easy.

6/15/15, 10:24 AM


Ah but then how would the race and sex "leaders" make a living? Grifters have to grift, hustlers have to hussle. There will always have to be room to skim a little cream off of the top.

Bobber Fleck said...

Stepping back and attempting to look at this in full its context I have these reactions:

Regarding the NAACP: How embarrassing.
How telling.

Regarding Rachael: How embarrassing.
What were you thinking?
Your deceit is shameful.

Regarding her parents: How embarrassing.
Your honesty is commendable.

Regarding the press: How embarrassing you didn't discover this sooner.
How enjoyable to watch you struggle with your conflicting narratives.
How can you take this seriously?

Regarding race relations: Can we now stop staying "no white person can possibly understand?"

Scott M said...

Abraham Lincoln once asked a question, " How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? " The group he was addressing conferred and came back with an unanimous answer, "Five". Lincoln shook his head and told them. "Gentlemen, the answer is four. Calling a thing by a different name doesn't make it so". The exact provenance and details of the quote are in dispute, it has been claimed that Lincoln used a cow or a sheep as the animal in question, but what is not in dispute is the context. Lincoln was discussing the Emancipation Proclamation, and his point was that simply calling a man free didn't make him free. This is an exceedingly wise fundamental concept that we have to reclaim as a nation or we are finished.

Scott M said...

That quote was from Fundamental Concepts - Reality [Weirddave] at AceHQ...sorry, meant to put in the hat-tip.

jr565 said...

It's so nuanced we can't have comments about it. That's the way you are forced to accept it as a reality. Well no. The only thing to ask is, is it true or not?
I don't generally question why crazy people think crazy things. Or why liars lie. I simply note that they are crazy or are liars.

wildswan said...

Fourteen to twenty-eight percent of the "white" people in this country have African ancestors in the last five generations. And the rest of us came from Africa more than five generations ago, as Rachel is pointing out. So we are all are "black" if we want to be. And all "blacks" in this country have European ancestors except those who came from Africa in the last three generations. So we are all "white" if we want to be.

Maybe we should all take to randomly listing ourselves as what we want to be on a given day. All my life I've loved Chinese painting ahead of all other forms of art ... as if something in me knew I was really Chinese ... it's misty today ... endless mountains and rivers .. and Wild Swans is a book by a Chinese woman I greatly admire
Chinese-American today if there's any forms to fill out.

I am not a robot to be tagged Made in Europe.

MayBee said...

When taken with the apparently faux hate crimes, it's easy to see she's doing a form of Munchausen syndrome. Which seems to be exploding these days, the more we celebrate victims.

More evidence that you get more of what you subsidize/praise.

holdfast said...

That's a weak statement from Chappelle, a man who has done more than anyone else I can think of to effectively satirize the American obsession with race. His two best skits, IMHO - maybe not cool for work:

The Ractial Draft:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDfcbaSGzwA


The Blind Black Racist Skit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u__W0Qa8v0k

exhelodrvr1 said...

So are liberal blacks who say such horribly racist things to conservative blacks actually transracial, and acting out their whiteness?

Fabi said...

I can't wait for someone to call out Rachel for acting white.

CWJ said...

My reaction is still "Huh, ain't that a hoot." and let it lie. Those affected - Spokane, it's NAACP, the university, and her family have some major sorting out to do but I'm not one of them.

As far as substantive commenting goes, it was all covered in adjacent comments at 9:01 and 9:04.

Michael K responding to -

"It is the deception that is the problem."

No, it is the fictitious hate crimes that are the problem.

and EDH -

I read Chappell's words as gobbledygook.

bbkingfish said...

Even an old skeptic such as I never would have guessed how threatened white people seem to be by Rachel Dolezar. Hilarious.

DanTheMan said...

>> I've been taking Dolezal seriously

Why?

wildswan said...

It may turn out that the "white-oppressor-rapist" and "the red-neck-lyncher-racist" are the same set of imaginative symbols as "the primitive-black-rapist" only reversed or trans-racialized by "whites" (whose grandparents "passed" who are now "passing back" by seeming to be "blacks in the culturally appropriationist" or imperialist sense.) Just look at how Rachel is afraid of the Tea Party. Dredging up dark symbols from her suppressed white consciousness she quickly colors them white and gets a job as a history teacher teaching stereotyping reversed. It's something she understands.

Original Mike said...

"Even an old skeptic such as I never would have guessed how threatened white people seem to be by Rachel Dolezar."
Lame.

Michael K said...

"how threatened white people seem to be by Rachel Dolezar. Hilarious."

Actually, we are enjoying it. The left, not so much.

Gahrie said...

Even an old skeptic such as I never would have guessed how threatened white people seem to be by Rachel Dolezar.

This white guy isn't threatened in the least. I am angered and outraged.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Nuance, compassion, cruel neutrality for those people I like.

Mockery, derision, "othering," and personal attacks for those people I don't like.

I understand those are the Media's rules, but are they really yours, Prof? Funny how the set of "people I like" for the Media just happens to coincide with the usual Leftist victim classes and special interests.

Anonymous said...

Blogger bbkingfish said...
Even an old skeptic such as I never would have guessed how threatened white people seem to be by Rachel Dolezar. Hilarious.


Not all of us!

Some of us, ummmm, what shall we be called? Some of us "has been white guys"(?) are glad for the trail she and Jenner have blazed.

Not for my sake. I've been an old white male for too long. But my children? She has done a great service for them, and for my pocket book going forward.

damikesc said...

Even an old skeptic such as I never would have guessed how threatened white people seem to be by Rachel Dolezar. Hilarious.

You mistake mockery for threatened.

We're watching the entire ladder of racial preferences in hiring, etc FINALLY begin its inevitable collapse under the weight of its poorly thought out justification.

It's glorious.

Char Char Binks said...

What Chapelle said may have been "well put", but it's too bad he didn't say anything.

n.n said...

It's a good effort by the social complex to adjust the narrative to accommodate change and remain profitable. I wonder how many people will buy it. Well, there's always the pro-choice doctrine, and redistributed opiates; and, where those fail to capture minds and wallets, there are the authoritarian decrees, legal flogging, and emotional appeals to sustain a consensus.

tim in vermont said...

Even an old skeptic such as I never would have guessed how threatened white people seem to be by Rachel Dolezar. Hilarious.

Oh, people are threatened alright, and they are probably primarily white. Most leftist advocates of identity politics are. The rest of us think this is pretty funny.

jr565 said...

bbkingfish wrote:
Even an old skeptic such as I never would have guessed how threatened white people seem to be by Rachel Dolezar. Hilarious.

You're probably a liberal. Why do liberals always couch opposition to something as FEAR of that thing? What do we white peoplle have to be afraid of. And when you say white people are afraid, what do you mean by white people anyway?
Since she is a white person, yet is black. SO maybe us white people are also black,and black people are white. Therefore your suggestion that white people are afraid of anything is only your stereotypical view of white people.

IN short, you sir are a racist. Or a transracist.

walter said...

Just because this story reads like it's out of the Onion, that doesn't mean it's to be laughed at. Yes..(stroking chin) it's a very nuuuuaaanced situation.
Has anyone added up the "privilege" points she accumulated this way? Monetarily? Prestige-wise? In this zero-sum society hyper focused on "fairness" and "social justice", no one wants to point out what she "took" from someone more deserving?

"Don't blow my cover."

Ah yes..terribly nuanced.
Chappelle's humor died when he heard someone laughing "for the wrong reason". I guess he's stuck in that mindset.

BrianE said...

Someone is delusional here-- it's either Dolezar or those that want to take this seriously. One or the other, or possibly both.

If it's her-- than I agree, one should not mock the mentally ill.
If it's Ms. Althouse-- she's fallen down the rabbit hole.

Drago said...

bbkingfish: "Even an old skeptic such as I never would have guessed how threatened white people seem to be by Rachel Dolezar."

I guess the operative term here is "seemed to be", as opposed to "actually are".

walter said...

Ah yes...the ole "what are you afraid of?" argument. Equally elevated response: "I know you are but what am I?"

Ann Althouse said...

pm317 said... "OK, from this article... she got a full scholarship to Howard because she said she was black..."

No, it doesn't!

It said her art portfolio was full of portraits of black people, and Howard assumed she was black!

BrianE said...

I think my concern with this story is a creeping disconnect with reality our 'elites' seem bent on perpetrating on the American culture.

I have no problem with someone appropriating the culture of another race-- but fooling oneself or others about biological reality is fraud.

Our 'elites' want us adopt a reality where nothing is real--and everything is real.

walter said...

meanwhile..at The Root:

"

I saw how much pain she was causing sisters like me who have been demeaned for the very blackness she stole. I read the social media posts of black women living in anguish because the skin they’re in has been deemed less-than in the eyes of society at large, and even in some of their own homes and communities. I cringed as I saw seemingly socially conscious and inclusive people post the most emotionally violent false equivalencies about the transgender community.

I even watched Melissa Harris-Perry, who spoke with me in an interview several years ago about “authentic representation of black womanhood,” and the fact that she was “identifiably black," grapple with the absurd concepts of “cis black and trans black” as racial identities, largely in response to some white impostor from Spokane, Wash., whose concept of blackness is constructed through the lens of white supremacy. This woman, with her orange skin and rent-an-Afro, her lies and artistic plagiarism has caused black people around the world to stop and question their own understanding of blackness.



Let me repeat: Most people who are entertaining this farce aren’t questioning Rachel Dolezal’s so-called blackness. Oh, no, her blackness is somehow deemed self-determination. Dolezal’s choice to be black has, instead, forced some black people to work through their own concept of blackness and how it should be defined.

Because the white woman said so."

http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2015/06/let_s_not_question_blackness_because_of_rachel_dolezal.html?wpisrc=mostpopular


gerry said...

Is she a reverse Oreo?

Yes.

And that makes her very, very sticky.

CWJ said...

Althouse wrote -
"It said her art portfolio was full of portraits of black people, and Howard assumed she was black!"

Her portfolio also includes at least one transturner painting, so I'll assume she's a nineteenth century Englishman.

I know Althouse was correcting another commentator, and it was Howard U reported to be doing the assuming, but this person is a joke. One can only take her seriously as a mirror to reflect all our reactions, including yours Althouse.

She is a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale come to life.

lgv said...

I still prefer light mockery. As a white person she had nothing. She realized that as a black person she had her raison d'etre. She succeeded at something she couldn't have without being black and she continued to feed her need with false hate crimes.

She's now faced with going back to being just another white person. Maybe she is just so empathetic they she became black. I'm still going with attention whore. I think she's gotten enough already, including all the Althouse posts. I think we should just let her fade away.



Anonymous said...

Blogger Ann Althouse said...
pm317 said... "OK, from this article... she got a full scholarship to Howard because she said she was black..."

No, it doesn't!

It said her art portfolio was full of portraits of black people, and Howard assumed she was black!


It seems like just the opposite is true.

She got a full scholarship for her art at some point, then later was denied a scholarship because they found out she was white. Looks like, based on her art, they assumed she was black and that's how she got the scholarship.

So, she sued them based on those assumptions and she lost her lawsuit. Then she learned the benefits of what it would be to claim you're black and started doing so, only after she lost her lawsuit and was ordered to pay up.

Very clever lady. Not insane at all. And we should all accept her as the black woman she is. Just as you accept that my children are all Native American.

BrianE said...

In the past six months or so, reality has taken a pretty good sock to the jaw, what with this trans-racial, trans-gender, trans-marriage trifecta.

BrianE said...

Which is why I assume Ms. Althouse treats this thing so seriously. If one is not real, they're all not real.

averagejoe said...

Poor little liar... Chappelle will change his tune as soon as he finds out the white bitch sued Howard University.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

lgv:

That's right. The revelation of her dysfunctional history exposed part of the problem to public scrutiny. The civil rights industry, public and private, is not pursuing reconciliation of individual rights and moral principles to further social cohesiveness and stability.

Unknown said...

Chapelle--as always--is interesting and worth listening to but I can't understand the construction "...highlighting the difference between personal feeling and what’s construct..." I don't see where this is anything but gibberish, in the sense it's non-grammatical.
I have no clue what it means.

Oh he *did* make a joke about Ms Dolezal in the linked article a gentle one that was pretty funny.

And does anybody remember "Black. White" on FX?

Brian McKim & Traci Skene said...

"Well put?" I read it twice and still don't know what he's trying to say.

I do know that he's a comedian who is utterly abdicating his responsibility as a comedian... and for the vaguest of reasons.

averagejoe said...

The one thing I find hard to believe in this farce, is that she became the leader of an NAACP chapter, yet nobody affiliated with Howard University identified her as the white girl who sued them in 2001. She didn't change her name, and aside from the faux-fro and the bronzer, she didn't change her looks, yet nobody at Howard U recognized her? No one from the NAACP had connections at Howard U to tell them who she really was and that she isn't black? I don't believe it- She might be able to hide her parents, but she herself was visible to former classmates, teachers and administrators, and her academic history had to be known- Did she rise up in the NAACP ranks without ever acknowledging her attending Howard? Doubtful. They knew- Somebody knew. She was granted the African-American omerta. The black community is very strange about some things- at least the progressive democrat part of it. I think that has more to do with being progressive democrat than being black.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

She sued Howard University under her married name, Rachel Moore. And it was 2002.