June 16, 2015

Rachel Dolezal takes exception to "When did you start deceiving people?”

Today, on the "Today" show: "I do take exception to that, because it’s a little more complex than me identifying as black, or answering a question of, ‘Are you black or white?’”
[T]he closest Ms. Dolezal came to admitting any fault was in saying, “There are probably a couple interviews that I would do a little differently if circumstances in retrospect, I knew what I know now.”...
She defended calling a man who was not her father her father: “We connected on a very intimate level as family... Albert Wilkerson is my dad.”

And she defended calling her adopted, black brother her son, because she became his guardian, and he sees her as his “real mom,” and "for that to be something that is plausible, I certainly can’t be seen as white and be Izaiah’s mom.”
Mr. Lauer asked repeatedly whether she had cynically used racial identification as a way to gain advantage, either against Howard or in enhancing her credibility as a civil rights advocate. She declined to answer.

Ms. Dolezal said her identification with black people went back as far as when she was 5 years old. “I was drawing self-portraits with the brown crayon instead of the peach crayon, and the black curly hair,” she said.
ADDED: The link goes to the NYT where 2 of the most highly rated comments come from readers who self-identify as black:

1. Sheeba, Brooklyn: "I don't have a problem with her identifying with my culture, even if that goes so far as altering your physical appearance. Women have been doing that cross culturally for eons. Yet if you are checking off the Black box or African American box on an application, I cannot condone that. I cannot become white when there is a full moon. Her credibility is simply compromised."

2. Will, New York City: "I don't know what's all the hullabaloo is about. As an African American, I'm flattered that this beautiful woman has chosen to identify herself as my race. People are becoming too sensitive nowadays - taking all the good fun out of living."

120 comments:

tim in vermont said...

Wait for the torrent of special pleading on behalf of Elizabeth Warren when Hillary finally implodes.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Enh, Dolezal is a nutcase, a serial fabulist, that's all. The more you look, the weirder it gets. Between her "father" and her "son" and the suit against Howard U. and the numerous alleged hate crimes against her, there's not much left of that original cute blonde kid, is there?

William said...

I don't think Rachel could have pulled this off if she was completely cynical or completely sane. I suppose the same thing could be said of Bernie Madoff.

Brando said...

Maybe she's working towards pleading insanity in the court of public opinion. If this was all part of some mental condition we might feel sorry for her.

PB said...

The problem comes when there are so many financial rewards for "identifying as" a protected class. It hurts those that truly need them.

Louis said...

^ is black. I don't have a problem with her.* We all get to identify as we choose. I suspect some white people might have a problem (as in, angry rather than amused) because of a fear of the loss of their privilege. She rejects the value of white privilege through her choices. (The dissonance of having to deny the existence of privilege for ideological reasons adds to the weight of the emotions.)

It is the same reason I think some people get upset thinking about formerly male-assigned transpeople. People do not want to think about the loss of penis.

*I will qualify by noting my observation that she may have compulsive lying tendencies.

MayBee said...

I'm fine with questioning her. It is interesting to compare this to how people were shamed for asking similar questions about Caitlyn Jenner. Maybe leftists can use this time to see if they are really happy with the "because shut up" explanations they advocate for their causes these days.

MayBee said...

I suspect some white people might have a problem (as in, angry rather than amused) because of a fear of the loss of their privilege.


Where are these angry white people?
Have you ever talked to any white person who spends much time thinking about having and keeping "Their privilege"?

Brando said...

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but this seems to be the year that the Far Left is completely unravelling. We're seeing "rape culture" narratives fall apart under scrutiny, feminists at each other's throats over whether to count the transgendered as women, and racial identification tearing up what it means to be "black." On top of that we're seeing a liberal backlash against "microaggression culture", with even left-leaning comedians decrying what the unamused Left is doing to campuses. Maybe this is the year things start to swing back to the middle.

Big Mike said...

Will in NY has it right. Progs take the fun out of everything, up to and including coitus.

gerry said...

Is she psychotic or merely psychopathic?

Whenever I see "trans" prefixed to anything anymore, I wonder what it will take to end the fabulism that marks our neurotically permissive culture. "Transracial" caps it all, really.

Jane the Actuary said...

The only reason why this matters is that in 2015 America, people perceive, and rightly so, that there is an economic advantage to claiming to be a light-skinned black. Box-checking, etc.

Otherwise, this'd be good for a laugh, and that's it.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/janetheactuary/2015/06/why-do-we-care-whether-rachel-dolezal-identifies-as-black.html

Louis said...

Have you ever talked to any white person who spends much time thinking about having and keeping "Their privilege"?

Well, yes, I did go to college.

Brando said...

"I suspect some white people might have a problem (as in, angry rather than amused) because of a fear of the loss of their privilege. She rejects the value of white privilege through her choices."

I'm not sure who you're listening to, but the impression I'm getting is that any "outrage" directed at her is based on the idea that actual black people face real discrimination that they cannot simply choose to avoid by going back to being white, as she can--that she is picking an "a la carte" form of racial identity, claiming to be black when it suits her (e.g., becoming an NAACP director, getting sympathy for alleged hate crimes directed at her) but not taking on the actual struggles faced by blacks. I have yet to see how any of this amounts to whites losing their "privilege" because of anything this woman did.

Amadeus 48 said...

Yesterday I thought Rachel Dolezal might be engaged in performance art. Today I am back to it's all crazy.

It is one thing to make up stories about yourself and your life. It is another to drag your family and friends into the racial/ethnic identity groupthink vortex and the sexual assault survivor complex. Her adopted brother Ezra doesn't believe anything she has said for the past couple of years. She has claimed her adopted brother Izaiah as her birth son. She has claimed on unrelated black friend as her birth father. She is working to get her blood brother convicted of sex abuse of a minor. She has faked hate crimes against herself. She sued Howard University for discriminating against her because she was white. She is claiming that her white parents and blood brother abused her in some way.

I want to thank you for keeping this alive in your blog, professor, because this whole fiasco illustrates that crazy people do crazy things. I expect her next to transition to some other gender (cf Bradley/Chelsea Manning).

By the way, why aren't we celebrating Pfc. Manning's brave transition?

Lyle said...

I menstruated today even though I don't have a vagina. Don't take all the fun out of life, and just take my word for it. Check your sensitivities folks; we're not a nation of small farmers any more!


MayBee said...

but not taking on the actual struggles faced by blacks.

Which is interesting, because of course she is taking on the actual struggles faced by black people!

(maybe they are afraid someone choosing to be black hurts the narrative that they have a special burden because of their skin color)

John Lynch said...

Rachel Dolezal lied to a lot of people about a lot of things, which reflects on her credibility (I'm surprised Althouse hasn't picked up on the criminal investigation into whether Dolezal's hate mail was faked). I think her biological family decided to out her in order to undermine the charges against her brother and to retaliate for her public charges against them. When your daughter is publicly accusing you of sexual abuse, you don't have to stay silent.

I think everyone has some right to bury the past and start over. However, Rachel went after her family in public and shouldn't be surprised that they responded.

Whatever the truth of the charges Rachel Dolezal made (and they could be true) she seems really surprised that she was outted. She should not be. It was totally predictable. If she was willing to put her professional life on the line in pursuit of justice, then good for her. However, I don't think she was prepared for what happened. It's really evident that she had no plan.

Family disputes can get really ugly because the people closest to you have all your dirt. It's best not to go public unless you want your dirt public, too.

Gabriel said...

Jane the Actuary has hit the important point as usual.

Dolezal did not choose to identify as black while being a suburban housewife, or a greeter at WalMart, or a waitress, or any other profession in which her assumed color would not be an advantage. She chose to be an ethnic studies professor and an activist with NAACP, and being the right color has advantages in those positions while being the wrong color carries a penalty.

Louis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gabriel said...

@MayBee:Which is interesting, because of course she is taking on the actual struggles faced by black people!

Black professors and black professional activists face very few of the struggles faced by most black people.

Shanna said...

for that to be something that is plausible, I certainly can’t be seen as white and be Izaiah’s mom.

Why on earth not???

Louis said...

Shanna, that struck me too. She isn't organized in her thinking.

The Bergall said...

I'm beginning to believe all this is "made up" (sic)................

walter said...

"And she defended calling her adopted, black brother her son, because she became his guardian, and he sees her as his “real mom,” and "for that to be something that is plausible, I certainly can’t be seen as white and be Izaiah’s mom.”

She apparently learned nothing..or something very strange..from her life with adopting parents in a mixed "race" scenario. Of course, one has to wonder how she won guardianship of the child or if she's lying about that status as well.

"I don't have a problem with her.* We all get to identify as we choose. I suspect some white people might have a problem (as in, angry rather than amused) because of a fear of the loss of their privilege."
Ah..excellent. Combines a ridiculous truism regarding "identity" with the "What are you afraid of?" taunt with a ready (yet logic inverted) buzz word answer. Nice. Please revise to inject "Where is the social justice?" somehow. That always is disarming.

No..what's continually far from amusing is the hijacking of language to exclude, redefine and stigmatize opposing viewpoints or even plain facts...like who your father is.
This con woman took/takes great advantage of this.



Brando said...

"(maybe they are afraid someone choosing to be black hurts the narrative that they have a special burden because of their skin color)"

That too. I note that even if she were black, as an educated middle class woman she's not really facing the disadvantages that other blacks may face (which are mostly class-based rather than race-based). I think the biggest "anger" at her is coming from the racialist Left, while for others it's a mix of well-earned mockery and some disgust at the tastelessness of a person lying about their race to gain career advantages.

tim in vermont said...

because of a fear of the loss of their privilege - Louis.

Ha ha ha ha! Whatever Louis. Maybe, if you can keep your revulsion in check, you should consider cultivating a wider circle of friends. But alas, there are the Democrat "No Fraternizing" rules, they are in place so that you can accept these kinds of ideas when you hear them about conservatives without spitting out your coffee.

Thorley Winston said...

Yesterday I thought Rachel Dolezal might be engaged in performance art. Today I am back to it's all crazy.

Maybe it’s time to consider the possibility that “performance art” is just a subset of “crazy.”

MayBee said...

Black professors and black professional activists face very few of the struggles faced by most black people.

So the people who are writing about her not taking on the struggles are also not taking on the struggles?
How are we defining the struggles faced by most black people?

Scott M said...

"The civil rights advocate portrayed herself as the daughter of a black Oakland police officer when seeking appointment to Spokane’s police oversight commission last year. That blend of life experiences impressed at least two of those involved in the selection process."

So, it's becoming apparent that this woman has a problem with the truth.

When Bruce Jenner killed someone, he originally blamed the paparazzi that were chasing him. When the evidence proved that a lie, he changed his story to blame the driver of the Lexus that he killed.

My question, which would be nigh impossible to find out in any clinical manner, is just how many people that self-identify as trans-something, are habitual liars?

Sammy Finkelman said...

There's a job waiting for her in the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Well, there would be if she wasn't so notorious.

This is really a joke. She'll probably wind up at a pro-Hillary or pro-something or other non-profit organization. Maybe a job has already been found for her. Otherwise maybe she wouldn't have been so quick to resign.

Louis said...

Tim, you do not happen to know a single fact about my circle(s) of friends. What is going on to cause you to believe that you do?

Sebastian said...

"Dolezal is a nutcase, a serial fabulist, that's all."

But lies can be so "charming," don't you know.

"I'm beginning to believe all this is "made up""

But who are you to say? Check your reality-defining privilege.

"All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned" -- except man is not compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The transvaluation of values proceeds apace -- except in the direction of enslavement to base impulses and insanity.

Gabriel said...

@MayBee:How are we defining the struggles faced by most black people?

I don't know, I haven't lived that life. Ask a professional activist, they'll tell you all kinds of things. I don't really want to get into the details because then it will be an argument over how real it is. And that's not relevant.

What's relevant is that the vast majority of those things that someone like Dolezal would say make it hard to be black, very few of them apply to college professors or professional activists, unless you want to talk about micro-aggressions.

But being black is huge advantage in those professions, even if being black is a disadvantage anywhere else.

She chose the parts of being black that were advantageous for her. And she could stop being black and any time, if she found her experience was getting to be too typical.

Shanna said...

She chose the parts of being black that were advantageous for her.

That's true, but it's clearly more than that, since she went to Howard when she was white - which is clearly not an advantage. (unless there is a secret white girl discount I did not know about).

I think we're talking about something more here.

Sammy Finkelman said...

@Amadeus 48 6/16/15, @ 9:56 AM

Also: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jun/14/spokane-officials-investigating-rachel-dolezals/ (hat tip; New York Times)

The examination of Dolezal’s work as an ombudsman commissioner makes two investigations open at City Hall related to Dolezal.

This is, I think, something separate from the false, faked hate crimes against herself.

Sammy Finkelman said...

@Amadeus 48 6/16/15, @ 9:56 AM

Also: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jun/14/spokane-officials-investigating-rachel-dolezals/ (hat tip; New York Times)

The examination of Dolezal’s work as an ombudsman commissioner makes two investigations open at City Hall related to Dolezal.

This is, I think, something separate from the false, faked hate crimes against herself.

Michael said...

Just a head's up to the SJWs regarding the "fear" of white people losing their privilege. There is no such fear because 99.9% of white people do not know what you would be talking about and 98.4% of white people do not think about any minority 20 seconds a day. If that.

Sammy Finkelman said...

One of rachel dolezal's achievements is getting Spokane, Washington to officially celebrate Martin Luther King Day, Spokane, Washintgon is about 2% black.

By the way, she got her post as head of the Spokane NAACP in a contested election! against the one-term incumbent, former Sunset, Arkansas, mayor
(1984-1988 and 1993-2001 I think) James Wilburn.

Sunset, Arkansas is 13 miles from Memphis and has a population of around 3,000. It used to be a place where old or injured black plantation workers went to live out their days when they couldn't work any more. Wilburn himself got elected in 2013 when the previous president, V. Anne Smith, 78, retired because of poor health.

Skeptical Voter said...

Try a little pop psychology here. Rachel, a blue eyed blonde of German Czech Swedish descent, was one of two children born to her parents. Her parents then chose to adopt three African American kids, and one Haitian kid. Rachel "came" in the normal way---but her parents "chose" four black kids. Young Rachel may well have reasonably concluded that the "butter" on life's slice of bread was on the black side. And it went from there. Little lies do tend to roll downhill and get bigger and badder as life goes along.

But dang me. Even though I tell myself I'm a sub four minute miler, I still can't get there.

Gabriel said...

@Shanna:That's true, but it's clearly more than that, since she went to Howard when she was white - which is clearly not an advantage.

It's one thing to like black people and spend most of your time with them. That would not have got any attentions. I've known people like that. There's nothing to that. It might be odd, but it's not deceitful or fraudulent. There are white people who go to HBCs.

It is a totally different thing to pretend to be black and lie about who is related to you and how. I have never known anyone who did that--though I did know people who pretended to be American Indian, which is much easier to get away with.

Sammy Finkelman said...

she went to Howard when she was white - which is clearly not an advantage. (unless there is a secret white girl discount I did not know about).

On her application, she did not indicate her race, apparently, and got a scholarship based on her "African American" art.

John Lynch said...

Sammy-

The investigation you linked seems to be whether she lied when she checked the "Black" box on her application for the job. Big deal. Why would that even matter? Is lying about your race a criminal offense now? If a black person checked "white" on an application would they be charged? How creepy is that? What about all the people who believe that the racial boxes are BS and routinely check all of them? Should they be charged?

The investigation into whether she faked her hate mail is legitimate. Whether she checked the wrong box is not a reason for a criminal inquiry.

Shanna said...

There are white people who go to HBCs.

Well sure, but it's not common unless you already are interested in the culture. What I mean is that it's more than just 'this is advantageous, I'll do this'. Because I don't think going to Howard was likely advantageous as a white person, and indeed she herself felt discriminated against as a white person there.

So one thing came first, and the pretending came later. I don't see any benefit to pretending that your adopted brother is your son.

But then, I'm not crazy. So maybe I will never understand her choices. I just don't think you can look at them from a purely rational, cost benefit perspective.

Gabriel said...

@Sammy Finkelman:On her application, she did not indicate her race, apparently, and got a scholarship based on her "African American" art.

I do not know of any evidence to suggest that white people have trouble getting accepted to HBCs. I doubt that very many apply, and I'm sure the HBCs appreciate every butt-in-seat--most colleges and universities are not that picky. (It's only the big ones and the prestigious ones that are selective.)

Shanna said...

What about all the people who believe that the racial boxes are BS and routinely check all of them? Should they be charged?

It seems like the only way you could truly prove anything would be with one of those cool DNA testing things that tells you where all your ancestors were from.

Genetics are weird. You can get recessive genes and look very different from your parents.

Hagar said...

What Ms. Dolezal and the NAACP do is their business, however crazy it may look to us outsiders, but making false statements in applications for official positions is a crime.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Skeptical Voter @ 6/16/15, 10:39 AM

Rachel, a blue eyed blonde of German Czech Swedish descent,

Also some Indian descent, on both her mother's and her father's side. She's more Indian than Elizabeth Warren has claimed to be. She checked off, white, black and Native American on her application to become a member of Spokane, Washington's Office of Police Ombudsman, where she apparently joined in the whole nationwide (what amounts to an) anti-policing campaign.

was one of two children born to her parents. Her parents then chose to adopt three African American kids, and one Haitian kid.

Who is now living with her and whom she pretended was her son. It's been kept out of the stories whether or not she has other, younger, children, but there seem to be some indications that she might. She is divorced and resumed using her maiden name.


Bob Ellison said...

You silly geese. "Trans" is so last Tuesday. (Trans passes spell-check.)

The new prefix is "cis". Cisgender, for example (that doesn't get past spell-check yet).

MayBee said...

This is almost exactly like what Jeb Bush did.

TMink said...

Words are hot air. Race is a construct. So anyone who calls another person a racist does not understand the way things are, they should be ignored and shunned. We are all black now.

Trey - who is 8% African according to dna tests

Sammy Finkelman said...

@ John Lynch.

The investigation you linked seems to be whether she lied when she checked the "Black" box on her application for the job.

No, that's a separate one. The Spokane Spokesman-Review newspaper article also says:

The examination of Dolezal’s work as an ombudsman commissioner makes two investigations open at City Hall related to Dolezal. Last week, Mayor David Condon and City Council President Ben Stuckart announced that the city would investigate whether Dolezal lied on her application to become an ombudsman commissioner. She checked multiple boxes on a form inquiring her race, including white and black. Last week, however, her parents said she is white and has been lying about her race.

So, there's something that she did while an ombudsman commissioner that attracted an investigation. It probably has to mean some lie concerning a complaint. Perhaps she bolstered somebody's credibility. I doubt that this would be linked to the self-reported hate crimes, although maybe it could, if she complained about how the police were handling or had handled those investigations. Those cases were dropped before this came out.

Big deal. Why would that even matter? Is lying about your race a criminal offense now?

You could argue that any lie on an application is a ceiminal offense, depending on what Washington State law actually says, and it wouldn't be presumptively illegal racial discrimination because this was a political appointment.

She is going to claim that it all depends on the meaning of the term "African-American" or whatever they used on the form. I doubt this will end in any prosecution. And I don't think most people would like the precedent. But there will be probably be some official report saying that, you know, that wasn't accurate.


Gabriel said...

@MayBee:This is almost exactly like what Jeb Bush did.

Not a fan of Jeb Bush, but he checked ONE box ONCE. He did not pretend not to be a Bush, pretend to speak only Spanish, get deeply tanned and dye his hair, and lie about who he was related to and how.

At any event Hispanics can be of any race.

Gabriel said...

@MayBee:This is almost exactly like what Jeb Bush did.

And Jeb Bush, by the way, did not become a Chicano studies professor and an officer of a chapter of La Raza. He did not materially benefit from checking his box. Any political advantage he has with Hispanics is because of his wife and children, and of course he was already rich and an established politician.

Now if you could find he got some set-asides for a minority-owned business, claiming to be the minority owner, you'd have something analogous.

John Lynch said...

I'm deeply troubled by the idea that we can be charged with a criminal offense for checking the wrong box on a demographic form. How is that a good idea?

John Lynch said...

Sammy-

So there's two complaints, and one of them is about checking the wrong box. The other complaint we know nothing about... so... what are we supposed to talk about? I'll talk about the complaint we know about. The existence of some other complaint doesn't matter until we know the details.

Hagar said...

And whatever form he made the mistake on was not an application for an official position set aside to represent "the Hispanic community."

And this commissioner position is not the only one Ms. Dolezal has misrepresented her racial identity in order to obtain. If I understand it correctly, some of these positions have also involved financial considerations besides being positions of trust.



Sammy Finkelman said...

MayBee: 6/16/15, 10:55 AM

This is almost exactly like what Jeb Bush did.

No, because that's the only thing he did, and he did on a 2009 Voter registration form where the information is probably voluntary and collected for statistical purposes (and as lawsuit fodder.)

It's not certain that it was a mistake, but he couldn't have done it for any personal advanatge because

1) Nobody would ordinarily see it, although it is a public record available to political campaigns and others

2) He was out of politics in 2009, and it would be have been hard to foresee he would run again for any office - he conducted his life that way too, getting involved in all kinds of businesses from which he disnetangled himself in 2014 and

3) Everybody knew exactly who he was.

It was possible for him to make an honest mistake because he could have mistakenly checked the box to the right instead of to the left of the words. The correct choice was, it seems, not the first one on the line, although you might expect it to be.

It could have been deliberate if:

A) He was trying to sabotage the statistics and rendering a private protest against it - unlikely for him, and even then it would only be likely if he thought he was out of politics.

B) The alternative was White and not of Hispanic origin, and he might have had a thought that that was actually less accurate than calling himself Hispanic. You know they always say, when none of the answers on a multiple choice test seem right, pick the answer closest to the truth. He couldn't be just plain white. He could only be white and pointedly NOT Hispanic.

John Lynch said...

As an example, my mother is from Peru. I check the "hispanic" box on forms all the time. I don't have a hispanic last name. Am I going to be the subject of criminal investigations because my name doesn't match the box? Am I subject to investigation if I don't check the hispanic box? See the problem?

My son is the product of two generations of interracial marriage on both sides. If he checks all the boxes on the form is he then going to have to justify all of them? How? Family pictures? DNA tests? Why is that the government's business?

If he doesn't check all the boxes that apply, is he lying? Can he be prosecuted for failing to check the right box? Didn't we get rid of this nonsense in the 1960s?

My God, just let Dolezal suffer the consequences of her actions without making life worse for the rest of us.

Hagar said...

And we have the example of Elizabeth Warren claiming to be part Cherokee on the basis of her grandfather having high cheekbones like "those people" and taking advantage of affirmative actionlaws to advance her career on those grounds.

It really is criminal activity and not funny at all.

traditionalguy said...

i admire her acting talents. And what else can an ambitious woman do now for a good Affirmative Action Job that pays you for doing nothing.

The joke is on the whites that get no privileges anymore. Those went to our ancestors.

Hagar said...

The minorities for whom those affirmative action benefits were intended may not appreciate the "joke" so much.

MayBee said...

Sammy- it was a joke (on my part) referencing a post from this weekend.

John Lynch said...

She didn't have a good Affirmative Action job. Part-time profs make next to nothing. I don't know what the pay for being President of a NAACP chapter is, but I bet it ain't much, if it's a paid position at all. The ombudsman position she had might be a paid one, I don't know.

I don't think she did it for money. If you want to get a good AA gig, then go work for the gov't or a big corporation.

MayBee said...

Ditto to Gabriel. That was Althouse's contention. I was referencing it.

Brando said...

I'm sure white residents of shacks in Appalachia would be surprised to learn they've been wasting their white privilege.

There is such a thing as "class privilege" in this country--there are major advantages to being brought up in a stable family with educated parents, adequate wealth and good schools. I don't doubt that there is some element of "racial privilege" in this country, but it is vastly outweighed by class privilege. If you had a choice to be born in 2015 to a two-educated parent black middle class family or a single-uneducated parent poverty line white family, no serious person would have to think long about their choice.

JAORE said...

Yeah, Jeb is trying to pass. After all, no one knows his parents.... idiots.

Chuck said...

Left-wing racialists, and most particularly those employed in the racial grievance industry (including the NAACP, Rainbow-PUSH, the black sections of NPR, MSNBC and most luberal black newspaper columnists, and all of the African Studies faculty all over the nation) are simply impossible to embarrass with the stark facts anymore. They are like those old standup comedians working tough rooms in the Catskill resorts; utterly immune to heckling because they have no shame, but also a comical retort for anything.

Brando said...

"I don't think she did it for money. If you want to get a good AA gig, then go work for the gov't or a big corporation."

I don't disagree--clearly if she got a slot in a big law firm as an AA hire that would be a different story. But in the world of grievance activism--which she was in professionally--being "black" is far more advantageous than being white. She used her "blackness" to claim victimhood of hate crimes, as well as to smear tea party activists (saying she would have felt uncomfortable around all those white people, despite her attending such a rally would have made it WHITER). She did this for a non-monetary but very real advantage.

Birches said...

I totally knew you were joking MayBee. I'm surprised you got so much pushback.

Anonymous said...

And she defended calling her adopted, black brother her son, because she became his guardian, and he sees her as his “real mom,” and "for that to be something that is plausible, I certainly can’t be seen as white and be Izaiah’s mom.”

Really? So a "white" woman who marries a "black" man can't be a "real mother" to their children?

She is a racist pig. But, then, so are pretty much all the people who are part of the NAACP. So is pretty much all of the Left.

Yes, you should take her seriously. But only in the way you would take seriously a Nazi Party supporter in early 1930s Germany.

MayBee said...

My son is the product of two generations of interracial marriage on both sides. If he checks all the boxes on the form is he then going to have to justify all of them? How? Family pictures? DNA tests? Why is that the government's business?

Well, that's the thing. How do companies know?
And why would they want to find out? The government makes them fill out paperwork on how many employees of diversity they have. It isn't to their benefit to look to closely.

As I said the other day, I have friends and relatives who have Hispanic blood. These are kids who have no "typical" hispanic looks or names, although their claims are legitimate. They have not lived lives with any kind of hardship put upon them by their bloodlines. These are beautiful children of engineers and investment bankers.
But they help companies check boxes, so they get an extra boost when they apply for jobs.

SeanF said...

Bob Ellison: You silly geese. "Trans" is so last Tuesday. (Trans passes spell-check.)

The new prefix is "cis". Cisgender, for example (that doesn't get past spell-check yet).


"Cisgender" means the opposite of "transgender," Bob. It's about twenty years newer than "transgender," but it's not a replacement for it.

I suspect it was invented primarily because some folks didn't like that the opposite of "transgender" was simply "normal."

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Any comments on the hate crimes Dolezal has claimed to be a victim of, Prof? How do those play into your judgment of Dolezal, and of the need to take her seriously?

Hagar said...

Cis-alpine and trans-alpine.

Anonymous said...

Louis said...

^ is black. I don't have a problem with her.* We all get to identify as we choose. I suspect some white people might have a problem (as in, angry rather than amused) because of a fear of the loss of their privilege. She rejects the value of white privilege through her choices. (The dissonance of having to deny the existence of privilege for ideological reasons adds to the weight of the emotions.)

Congratulations, you got it exactly backwards. The only people who obsess about "white privilege" are leftists doing it over "guilt", and in an attempt to promote the idea. For those of us, OTOH, who are sane, "white privilege" is a big joke, and her actions expose it for the joke it is.

IOW, it's not a threat, to us. Only to fanatical believers in "white privilege".

Anonymous said...

abriel said...

@MayBee:Which is interesting, because of course she is taking on the actual struggles faced by black people!

Black professors and black professional activists face very few of the struggles faced by most black people.



Can I watch while you tell them that?

Roughcoat said...

What a despicable person. I absolutely loathe her. I detest her. This one is really setting something off in me.

Roughcoat said...

Also, she is not beautiful. Not physically, and not in terms of character. That hair--it looks like an animal is sitting on her head.

Fabi said...

White privilege? Hahaha

-- drink! --

Brando said...

"Congratulations, you got it exactly backwards. The only people who obsess about "white privilege" are leftists doing it over "guilt", and in an attempt to promote the idea."

Pretty much--among right wingers and anti-racialists (IOW those who prefer people seen as individuals rather than racial categories) who don't buy into this "white privilege" narrative that suggests your skin color is the primary factor in your life, the Donezal case is a welcome, amusing example that mocks the whole theory. I don't think anyone who believes in the "white privilege" theory is actually afraid of losing their "white privilege" as they don't believe it's an actual thing to lose. Those who believe it does exist on the other hand also want to eradicate it.

damikesc said...

It is interesting to compare this to how people were shamed for asking similar questions about Caitlyn Jenner.

Indeed. She is more African than Bruce is a woman. I want to hear HOW she is black and see if the answer involves bad credit; an affection for watermelon, grape soda, or fried chicken; athleticism; or any of the other assorted stereotypes of black folks. Since Bruce is a woman because he likes dressing in dresses and wearing makeup which, apparently, is the entire female experience.

When Bruce Jenner killed someone, he originally blamed the paparazzi that were chasing him. When the evidence proved that a lie, he changed his story to blame the driver of the Lexus that he killed.

Shocked he hasn't mentioned hot flashes yet.

We all get to identify as we choose.

I have multiple kids. I doubt being transvirginal is really an option.

I suspect some white people might have a problem (as in, angry rather than amused) because of a fear of the loss of their privilege.

Feel free to define said privilege. Because she got privileges for being allegedly black.

She rejects the value of white privilege through her choices. (The dissonance of having to deny the existence of privilege for ideological reasons adds to the weight of the emotions.)

It is the same reason I think some people get upset thinking about formerly male-assigned transpeople. People do not want to think about the loss of penis.


Or because people have common sense. That could lead to some rejection here. She didn't reject "white privilege" --- she simply took black privilege which undoubtedly exists. It kinda hurts your entire "white privilege" mindset.

And, again, transgenders are no more "born in the wrong body" than an anorexic is fat.

Owen said...

On those forms I always try to check "other" and write in "human."

It's almost true.

SteveR said...

According to my clock, the 15 minutes are up

n.n said...

This is the Age of Transcension.

David said...

I identify as a powerful billionaire. The banks are not fooled.

Fen said...

Libtard: I suspect some white people might have a problem (as in, angry rather than amused) because of a fear of the loss of their privilege.

Amusing. She changed her race because it was more advantageous to be considered black, and you just continue to vomit up the white privilege bs without any shame.

I'm beginning to think you are a parody of the Left. No one, not even Garage, is this stupid.

lgv said...

"According to my clock, the 15 minutes are up"

My thinking.

Anyone else reminded of the scene the "The Commitments" where the two Irish lad declares, "I'm black and proud of it!"?

They were way ahead of this character.

William Chadwick said...

See

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/gutcheck-a-black-man-his-bike-little-britain-and-rachel-dolezal/

HT said...

I wanted to stay out of this, I think the whole thing is "boutique," but something that Brando said prodded me and probably against my better judgment I'm jumping back in.

Brando, I think there is white privilege. Perhaps if we came up with some scenarios we could talk about what we mean.

Bill said...

Spokane must be an interesting place. I'm reminded of Billy Tipton.

walter said...

"I doubt being transvirginal is really an option."

Well..there are the "born again virgins"..kinda trans-cendent.

Sammy Finkelman said...

MayBee said...6/16/15, 11:34 AM

Sammy- it was a joke (on my part) referencing a post from this weekend.

I was asked a question on that post by Ann Althouse, [is it known that it was accidental?] which I didn't answer, so I answered it here.

Brando said...

"Brando, I think there is white privilege. Perhaps if we came up with some scenarios we could talk about what we mean."

I don't deny that there is some degree of "white privilege" in certain scenarios separate from the more prevalent "class privilege"--I dont' think it's impossible that employers in some cases pick white candidates over black ones because the white ones are more comfortable in interviews with white interviewers, for example, or that police and security guards may be less suspicious of white people than black ones, or cabbies and wait staff assume blacks are worse tippers, or will want to be driven to less safe neighborhoods. Again, "class privilege" often outweighs this--a black Harvard grad may be more comfortable interviewing at a big law firm than a white third tier college graduate, or a better dressed black person would be less scrutinized than a poorly dressed white person.

Also, there are privileges to being non-white--sometimes employers subconsciously want to hire nonwhites to fill an unofficial quota, or subconsciously favor such candidates to prove to themselves they're not bigoted. Also, being nonwhite does generally give your opinions on race issues greater weight, even in conservative circles. Again, though, the class privilege--being able to be considered for the job, or being able to articulate the discussion of race, outweighs one's racial background.

I don't agree with those who say "race is never a factor anymore, full stop" any more than with those who seem to think it is THE controlling factor in every case. It's a bit more complicated.

exhelodrvr1 said...

It's easier to fire white employees when it's deemed necessary, thus it makes more sense to hire them, all other factors being equal.

HT said...

Thanks.

The race vs class privilege debate is interesting. Have you read The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter? I am not so sure it's always true that a regal black man will get hired before Ricky Lee Jordan a white bumpkin recently graduated, but I am familiar with the argument.

The Lancet has done studies showing that stress among black professionals is almost always higher than whites and that rich blacks often have poor health outcomes, just as bad as their poorer brothers and sisters often. Being a rich African Am does not insulate you from racism.

The debate continues.

Chuck said...

Did she really claim, as now being reported, that her father was black and that they grew up being harassed in the Jim Crow south?

Is she doing that to hide the fact that her father is in fact Sideshow Bob!

damikesc said...

The Lancet has done studies showing that stress among black professionals is almost always higher than whites and that rich blacks often have poor health outcomes, just as bad as their poorer brothers and sisters often. Being a rich African Am does not insulate you from racism.

My faith in Lancet studies is pretty low (they DID print the studies that led to the whole "immunizations cause autism" stories), but stress isn't a sign of racism. And genetic issues involving health isn't racism.

Look at it this way: Obama's daughters will have more benefits than my kids. In what world do I have "privilege" over the fucking President?

Sammy Finkelman said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/us/rachel-dolezal-nbc-today-show.html?_r=0

In the “Today” interview, Ms. Dolezal defended publicly identifying a black friend, who is not a relative, as her father. “We connected on a very intimate level as family,” she said. “Albert Wilkerson is my dad.”

She also claimed her racial misidentification was all the fault of the local news media.

Somehow the media came up with the word "transracial" and later described her as biracial and then as black. “I never corrected that,” she said.

Brando said...

"Obama's daughters will have more benefits than my kids. In what world do I have "privilege" over the fucking President?"

Whether you're white or not, you don't--their "class privilege" trumps all against most Americans. But let's assume they weren't the president's daughters, and instead were young women of the same age and social class as you--again, not a perfect comparison because they're female and much of "racial disparity" is also trumped by gender disparity (e.g., if the police are more likely to stop a black person, that is almost always going to be a black man rather than a woman).

How much of "racial privilege" is real vs. imagined? Obviously a black person may be less likely to interview well because the interviewers are less comfortable with him, or it could be that he is less comfortable with them, and no one could prove it either way. Likewise, a cop could stop a black man more because of how he's dressed, how he's acting, what neighborhood he is in, his youth, or his gender, far more than because of his race. But while I wont' completely rule out race as a negative factor for blacks, I think it's far less a factor than the racialists claim and significantly outweighed by bigger factors (e.g., class, age, attractiveness, even height).

SGT Ted said...

I suspect some white people might have a problem (as in, angry rather than amused) because of a fear of the loss of their privilege. 

HAHAHA! Where'd you get that bullshit?

Joshua Barker said...

Orange is the new Black

Rusty said...

Louis said...
^ is black. I don't have a problem with her.* We all get to identify as we choose. I suspect some white people might have a problem (as in, angry rather than amused) because of a fear of the loss of their privilege.

I think it's interesting that you think that whites would be angry towards her rather than, say, amused. Because she hasn't hurt anybody except the NAACP, her parents- I appologize for referring to them as nutjobs earlier-and herself. If anything I pity her.

Birches said...

But while I wont' completely rule out race as a negative factor for blacks, I think it's far less a factor than the racialists claim and significantly outweighed by bigger factors (e.g., class, age, attractiveness, even height).

This. When my lily white spouse was a teenager and hung around in a wifebeater all day with his similarly dressed white friends, they got hassled a lot by cops. They were dressed the part and treated accordingly.

Skyler said...

I'm fascinated by the eager support of this fraud by liberals and blacks.

Will this be used to dismantle the quota system that is used by the government and by universities? Somehow I doubt they would agree to that.

Or will it be used as a racial purity test to discredit non-liberal blacks? This seems more likely, but I think it will end in making a mockery of the racists who want their perks in government and education.

damikesc said...

Likewise, a cop could stop a black man more because of how he's dressed, how he's acting, what neighborhood he is in, his youth, or his gender, far more than because of his race. But while I wont' completely rule out race as a negative factor for blacks, I think it's far less a factor than the racialists claim and significantly outweighed by bigger factors (e.g., class, age, attractiveness, even height).


I'd argue blacks and whites dressed IDENTICALLY will be accosted by the police at identical numbers.

Anonymous said...

Brando said...

Those who believe [white privilege] does exist on the other hand also want to eradicate it.


No they don't. If it went away, they'd lose their all powerful justification for why everything is wrong.

The last thing the Left ever wants to do is fix a problem. Doing that leads to fewer people on the gov't teat, or otherwise "needing" them, and we can't have that!

Laslo Spatula said...

Black cops, white cops. Yeah. Everyone knows.

I am Laslo.

Fernandinande said...

HT said...The Lancet has done studies showing that stress among black professionals is almost always higher than whites and that rich blacks often have poor health outcomes, just as bad as their poorer brothers and sisters often. Being a rich African Am does not insulate you from racism.

The Lancet doesn't do studies. They publish studies.

At any rate, search thelancet.com for black stress -> one result about "Prevention of crime and violence".

Search "race stress" -> 6 results, 5 about racing cars, and this one:
"Treatment adherence and risk of death after a myocardial infarction" : race specifically not an issue.

Search "stress disparities" -> 3 results:
Diabetes in China: ...
Interdisciplinary undergraduate education: ...
Indigenous health part 2: ...

Oh, well.

damikesc said...And genetic issues involving health isn't racism.

Obviously not. "Hispanics" and Asians live longer than whites despite whites being mean to them every chance they get.

HT said...

Ferndinandenande, I'm not going to argue. You win, I could have been more rigorous, but then this is not a research paper. What I remember hearing was a radio program citing a lancet study or lancet published study as you say about status and health disparities. It was saying that the higher you are on the heap the better your health outcomes. But - and I think memory still serves here - that the same did NOT hold true for blacks. I wish I had a lot of time to spend searching the radio and / or lancet archives (but they charge) but I don't.

kcom said...

It's suddenly clear to me how all those dead people vote in Chicago. They simply identify as trans respiratory.

Michael K said...

" It was saying that the higher you are on the heap the better your health outcomes. But - and I think memory still serves here - that the same did NOT hold true for blacks."

The Army did a study of birth weights in dependents delivering in Army hospitals. Pre-natal care was free and the birth weights of black babies was the lowest. Hispanics was the highest.

"rich blacks often have poor health outcomes,"

I'd be very interested in that study. Do you have a link ? Blacks have certain inherited diseases, including prostate cancer and hypertension, that affect them regardless of social status.

HT said...

Yes, being black is a risk factor in many diseases
hypertension, stroke, DM, heart disease (not CAD), kidney disease, glaucoma, prematurity, LBW, lupus, sickle cell, prostate cancer. Whites are at risk for other diseases like cystic fibrosis and maybe ulcerative colitis, MS, etc

But that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm saying, based on what I heard from that radio program, you take a white surgeon and a black surgeon living in the same neighborhood, 9 times out of 10 the black surgeon will have more stress-related diseases or disorders and have a poorer health outcome. I am sorry, but that is the best I can remember it.

All I remember about that study was it was in the spring or summer of 2010 I think. I heard it referenced on (sorry) NPR and I think it was a Lancet published study.

jr565 said...

Just beciase you identify as something doesn't make you thet thing. Your mind doesn't wrap reality around your thoughts and shift matter to turn you into what you think you are. You don't become a woman if you have male body pats and you don't become black if you are white. Stop making tolerance be the enemy of truth.
Stop making truth be the enemy of truth.
For fucks sake.

jr565 said...

If I get an operation to make my ears look like an elf it doesn't make me Legolas. There is no Legolas. And there are no real genders as a social construct thet are different than your natural sex. It's just mental masturbstion and play acting. There is no race other than the race thet you are.
matical thinking and lies are just that. Stop placating crazy people and liars because you want to be viewe as tolerant.
You refusal to adhere to reality is intolerant of common sense. And I take offense.

Qwinn said...

So, I've been thinking. Bruce Jenner now thinks he's a woman, and we must refer to him as trans-gender, or a trans-woman.

The white chick from the NAACP (henceforth referred to as "Rachel Discrimination") thinks she's black, so we refer to her as trans-racial, or trans-black.

Some have pointed out that anorexics think they're heavy when in fact they're catastrophically thin, and we don't turn that into an act of bravery and celebration. The inconsistency is pretty obvious. What principle can explain how one is a mental illness, while the others are "the new normal"?

But there's an easy way for the Social Justice Warrios to fix this. Just rename anorexics to a new word that takes away the social stigma, and we can celebrate them too!

Henceforth, all anorexics shall be referred to by their new, politically correct designation:

Trans-fats.

Problem solved. You're welcome.

Lee Moore said...

Poor Will. In referring to her as "a beautiful woman" he has committed a microaggression - nay, almost a medium sized aggression. Back to the camps with you, my lad.

Sammy Finkelman said...

http://www.jammiewf.com/2015/rachel-dolezal-wanted-to-boycott-a-movie-because-a-white-actor-played-moses-audio/

President-Mom-Jeans said...

" No one, not even Garage, is this stupid."

You give Bitchtits far too little credit.

jr565 said...

It's a trans black thing. YOu wouldn't understand.