Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Real P on June 14, 2015, 05:42:06 PM
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHQjEfhWUAEWd1W.jpg)
(http://media.spokesman.com/photos/2015/06/11/rachel1_t620.PNG?161ad8e426d1312361ed5892fdc121cdf327258d)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHQjEgZWoAAWvvN.jpg)
Controversy is swirling around one of the Inland Northwest’s most prominent civil rights activists, with family members of Rachel Dolezal saying the local leader of the NAACP has been falsely portraying herself as black for years.
But questions have arisen about her background and her numerous complaints to police of harassment. Members of her family are challenging her very identity, saying she has misrepresented major portions of her life.
Dolezal’s mother, Ruthanne Dolezal, said Thursday by phone from her home in Northwest Montana that she has had no contact with her daughter in years. She said her daughter began to “disguise herself” in 2006 or 2007, after the family had adopted four African-American children and Rachel Dolezal had shown an interest in portrait art.
Ruthanne Dolezal said the family’s ancestry is Czech, Swedish and German. She said the family does have some “faint traces” of Native American heritage as well. She provided a copy of her daughter’s Montana birth certificate listing herself and Larry Dolezal as Rachel’s parents.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jun/11/board-member-had-longstanding-doubts-about-truthfu/
-
We all bleed red despite the skin colour! Right?
-
I don't see anything wrong at all. She feels black that's fine by me. There are lots of blacks that passed for white for years.
There was this play that did rounds in Dixie to much acclaim. In it marriage is prevented by the infamous Jim Crow Laws that prevent any union between whites and blacks. The groom-to-be swears that, though he "looks white", he actually "has black blood" in him. He calls witnesses whom he says can swear to the fact that he "has black blood" in him. The all come and swear that they know for a fact that he has "black blood in him"!
Of course the rednecks don't know that a few minutes earlier he had asked his wife to be to bleed a glass full of her "black" blood and before these witnesses emptied it in his stomach. The born again Christians could therefore not "lie".
-
:lol: that cracked me up. There is really no real white or black. We are continuum of colors...from pink to pitch dark.
I don't see anything wrong at all. She feels black that's fine by me. There are lots of blacks that passed for white for years.
There was this play that did rounds in Dixie to much acclaim. In it marriage is prevented by the infamous Jim Crow Laws that prevent any union between whites and blacks. The groom-to-be swears that, though he "looks white", he actually "has black blood" in him. He calls witnesses whom he says can swear to the fact that he "has black blood" in him. The all come and swear that they know for a fact that he has "black blood in him"!
Of course the rednecks don't know that a few minutes earlier he had asked his wife to be to bleed a glass full of her "black" blood and before these witnesses emptied it in his stomach. The born again Christians could therefore not "lie".
-
I listened to an audio version of the play many years ago and try as hard as I can, I can't trace it. I think it would make a killing money wise if it were re-enacted.
:lol: that cracked me up. There is really no real white or black. We are continuum of colors...from pink to pitch dark.
I don't see anything wrong at all. She feels black that's fine by me. There are lots of blacks that passed for white for years.
There was this play that did rounds in Dixie to much acclaim. In it marriage is prevented by the infamous Jim Crow Laws that prevent any union between whites and blacks. The groom-to-be swears that, though he "looks white", he actually "has black blood" in him. He calls witnesses whom he says can swear to the fact that he "has black blood" in him. The all come and swear that they know for a fact that he has "black blood in him"!
Of course the rednecks don't know that a few minutes earlier he had asked his wife to be to bleed a glass full of her "black" blood and before these witnesses emptied it in his stomach. The born again Christians could therefore not "lie".
-
I don't see anything wrong at all. She feels black that's fine by me. There are lots of blacks that passed for white for years.
Reminds me of Mezz Mezzrow, who insisted that he was black person in a white person's skin, much as nowadays some people of one gender will insist that they are really of another gender. And just as today the latter will act on it, Mezzrow too acted on his "unfortunate" colour.
Merrow was a reasonable clarinet player and known as some sort of jazz impresario, but was even more famous as Louis Armstrong's pot dealer and factotum and for rolling such great joints that a good one in those circles was known as "Mighty Mezz", whence the original start of the Pothead's Jazz Anthem---"If you are a viper":
Think about a reefer, 5 feet long,
A Mighty Mezz, and not too strong
(Louis Armstrong's tune Muggles is devoted to such exceptional "service".)
Anyways ...
The interesting part of Mezzrows's story is that all this was at a time when Jim Crow was as mighty as could be. That inevitably led to colourful situations.
If you ever want to read a genuinely joyful, positive and humorous celebration of life, his autobiography---Really The Blues---is one that I cannot recommend highly enough. There, he also explains how he was born white but became black ("a voluntary Negro", as he put it):
Mezzrow writes that from the moment he heard jazz he "was going to be a Negro musician, hipping [teaching] the world about the blues the way only Negroes can."
As he was white, and lived when he did, it was inevitable that being a Negro and hipping the world about the blues the way only Negroes can would be quite a challenge---from both sides of the divide. He handled it admirably.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezz_Mezzrow
-
A reverse Uncle Ruckus
-
I agree with you guys. This woman chose to advocate for the black community. She identifies more with blacks that any other. She should be congratulated and praised not vilified. Nobody is talking about her accomplishments, rather everyone is talking about her white lie.
:lol: that cracked me up. There is really no real white or black. We are continuum of colors...from pink to pitch dark.
I don't see anything wrong at all. She feels black that's fine by me. There are lots of blacks that passed for white for years.
There was this play that did rounds in Dixie to much acclaim. In it marriage is prevented by the infamous Jim Crow Laws that prevent any union between whites and blacks. The groom-to-be swears that, though he "looks white", he actually "has black blood" in him. He calls witnesses whom he says can swear to the fact that he "has black blood" in him. The all come and swear that they know for a fact that he has "black blood in him"!
Of course the rednecks don't know that a few minutes earlier he had asked his wife to be to bleed a glass full of her "black" blood and before these witnesses emptied it in his stomach. The born again Christians could therefore not "lie".
-
To me, this woman is a fraud, no excuses. She has been counselling black kids on how to cope with racism, which people have trusted her to do under the assumption she knows what the heck she's talking about regarding growing up black and facing racism in white America. She lied that an elderly black friend of hers was her father. She did this to get a job that probably would have gone to an authentic African American. She then makes herself look mulatto using tan salons and coil irons. She is a con woman, that seems very clear to me. Lots of whites have fought for civil rights without committing fraud or pretending they were black. And besides, this is a job she got, its not like she's out in the streets defying bullets like kina Martin Luther King.
-
Bella
I was considered a very good Teacher of History. I could describe Napoleon's charging across the bridge at Lodi under fire from the Austrians like I was there when it happened.
We also have these doctors treating illnesses they have never suffered from.
Do you get the drift?
To me, this woman is a fraud, no excuses. She has been counselling black kids on how to cope with racism, which people have trusted her to do under the assumption she knows what the heck she's talking about regarding growing up black and facing racism in white America. She lied that an elderly black friend of hers was her father. She did this to get a job that probably would have gone to an authentic African American. She then makes herself look mulatto using tan salons and coil irons. She is a con woman, that seems very clear to me. Lots of whites have fought for civil rights without committing fraud or pretending they were black. And besides, this is a job she got, its not like she's out in the streets defying bullets like kina Martin Luther King.
-
Omollo, I understand your point but still, why lie? There are plenty of white psychologists who can help those kids, they don't pretend to have lived the reality those kids live themselves. I think she was picked precisely because she was presumed to have lived the reality on a day-to-day basis since childhood. I just do not trust fraudsters. The woman should have been honest about her heritage. I see her as yet another white person stealing the few opportunities blacks might have.
-
Omollo, I understand your point but still, why lie? There are plenty of white psychologists who can help those kids, they don't pretend to have lived the reality those kids live themselves. I think she was picked precisely because she was presumed to have lived the reality on a day-to-day basis since childhood. I just do not trust fraudsters. The woman should have been honest about her heritage. I see her as yet another white person stealing the few opportunities blacks might have.
kadame,
She had my sympathies because she appears to be on the side of the frequent victim of racism, the Negro. But come to think of it, was it altruism that compelled her to lie or was it the fat check?
If she was really employable elsewhere and probably at the same if not better terms, then she may have been genuine....but I feel she just wanted some good pay
-
A reverse Uncle Ruckus
Ruckus is funny because he is not real. I wish I could say the same about David Webb.
-
Bella
I am not sure that she lied. The job did not require her to be black. In fact that would be highly illegal and contradict the very essence of the NAACP.
From what I hear, she feels she is black. I know many "black" people who feel white and they live like white people. They speak the right accent, have tampered with their physical features to the extent that they appear white.
I think she should have been allowed to continue or should be roped back in at a later stage. Being black is not entirely about color. I have seen this with mixed race kids.
Omollo, I understand your point but still, why lie? There are plenty of white psychologists who can help those kids, they don't pretend to have lived the reality those kids live themselves. I think she was picked precisely because she was presumed to have lived the reality on a day-to-day basis since childhood. I just do not trust fraudsters. The woman should have been honest about her heritage. I see her as yet another white person stealing the few opportunities blacks might have.
-
Being black is not entirely about color.
Indeed. And a starting point in addressing a contrary notion lies in the point you made earlier: some "black" people who were "white" enough to pass for white actually did so.
To my mind, before colour, the first issue here should be this: did the lady do what she was supposed to do in the "advancement of coloured people"? (It should be possible to have an objective answer to that.)
-
Right on MOONKI. As far as I know she has advanced black peoples interests more than the supreme court justice Thomas. She deserves KUDOS. Problem is most black leaders are runnig away from her instead of defending her courage to advance interest of the community. Shame on them.
-
Well gentlemen, I'm sorry but I am not convinced. I read that she tried to sue Howard University for discriminating against her as a white woman. This black persona is something she has put on late in the game, and I believe it was to give her a legitimacy she does not have, that is as a minority who knows what this feels like. She did not just adopt a black persona, she actually lied about her birth parents and pretended that a black friend was her dad. I just do not see any kind of ethical person going to these lengths. This whole case smells funny to me.
-
You have a point. She is a bit messed up.But if her lies were to advance some good cause..I say cut her some slack. Some "white" lies can be tolerated.
Well gentlemen, I'm sorry but I am not convinced. I read that she tried to sue Howard University for discriminating against her as a white woman. This black persona is something she has put on late in the game, and I believe it was to give her a legitimacy she does not have, that is as a minority who knows what this feels like. She did not just adopt a black persona, she actually lied about her birth parents and pretended that a black friend was her dad. I just do not see any kind of ethical person going to these lengths. This whole case smells funny to me.
-
I haven't read the comments yet, but I have no problem with this woman being whomever she wasn't to be...so what if she wants to be black. Hell there are many blacks who have been trying to pass as whites for eons...ie Mariah carey et al.let her be...and that damn CNN spending soo much coverage on this non issue, when there are other important things going on in the world stupid.
-
Kadame, honey. I am with you after some research on what you posted.
-
She is free to live like a black, whatever that means. She is also a fraud. And she easily survives Charleston.
-
She is free to live like a black, whatever that means. She is also a fraud. And she easily survives Charleston.
This gotta be a parody.
If she was in Charleston I doubt she'll let the dude just smack the black off her.
She will drop the wig.
Termie, she's adopting an identity that isn't hers. She's putting on a costume of blackness and co-opting a culture that she might be empathetic to, but that she has no actual identity with. It's still a hilarious story, but it's outrageously offensive that people here @org and other places are legitimately trying to give her a pass, as if any good that she might have done makes this okay.
I sided with Kadame after she (Rachel Doleza) claimed that her parents were black on CNN.
-
but it's outrageously offensive that people here @org and other places are legitimately trying to give her a pass, as if any good that she might have done makes this okay.
You've got to be kidding. If that is your idea of "outrageously offensive", then you are likely to find life quite stressful. Yes, I give her a pass, for the following reasons:
(a) I have not seen much to the effect that her "fraud" has harmed anybody. Until I do, I will consider it harmless "fraud".
(b) There are plenty of "genuinely black" people who are actively harming black people. In America, you can look at drugs, homicide, etc. In Africa---and you can't get them any blacker, in any sense---they are finishing each other like nobody's business. Against that must be weighed against whatever good she may have done.
(c) I have absolutely no issue with whites who wish to pretend to be black if they are doing genuine good for black people. In fact, I wish we would have some more. At the end of the day, we should think of creating a society in which colour does not matter and one is judged solely on how they relate to their fellow human being and what contribution they make to making like better for others.
So, yes; the good she did makes it OK in my book. And here's why: if she did good, then it is still good, even if we suddenly found out that she is really a Martian.
-
but it's outrageously offensive that people here @org and other places are legitimately trying to give her a pass, as if any good that she might have done makes this okay.
You've got to be kidding. If that is your idea of "outrageously offensive", then you are likely to find life quite stressful. Yes, I give her a pass, for the following reasons:
(a) I have not seen much to the effect that her "fraud" has harmed anybody. Until I do, I will consider it harmless "fraud".
(b) There are plenty of "genuinely black" people who are actively harming black people. In America, you can look at drugs, homicide, etc. In Africa---and you can't get them any blacker, in any sense---they are finishing each other like nobody's business. Against that must be weighed against whatever good she may have done.
(c) I have absolutely no issue with whites who wish to pretend to be black if they are doing genuine good for black people. In fact, I wish we would have some more. At the end of the day, we should think of creating a society in which colour does not matter and one is judged solely on how they relate to their fellow human being and what contribution they make to making like better for others.
So, yes; the good she did makes it OK in my book. And here's why: if she did good, then it is still good, even if we suddenly found out that she is really a Martian.
Your writing implements you. Breh, I can tell you're in a legal profession and loves to smoke weed. Just a vibe, I might be wrong but not on both fronts.
(http://i.imgur.com/aaB5coa.jpg)
Your post reminds of this image (brain washed black people). Alot of white people who are involved with people of colour. Quite often they co-opt the culture, the beliefs and victimization because they need it for themselves.
Guess.
She’s disingenuous:
(a) subject of the article or discussion sued a college (Howard University) for discrimination but at that college the subject professed to be white.
(b) when it was beneficial to her in Washington state, she professed to be black.
(c) She sent herself packages in the mail claiming to be terrorized by whites.
(d) She chose to be NAACP President for financial gain? NAACP local Presidents make over $70,000 a year. There are a lot of black folks in Spokane, Washington.
Moonki, is it okay for me to pretend I am disabled. Get all the benefits and a free parking lot without harming anybody?
I don't mean to burst your bubble, but won't hire you for a lawyer.
-
but it's outrageously offensive that people here @org and other places are legitimately trying to give her a pass, as if any good that she might have done makes this okay.
You've got to be kidding. If that is your idea of "outrageously offensive", then you are likely to find life quite stressful. Yes, I give her a pass, for the following reasons:
(a) I have not seen much to the effect that her "fraud" has harmed anybody. Until I do, I will consider it harmless "fraud".
(b) There are plenty of "genuinely black" people who are actively harming black people. In America, you can look at drugs, homicide, etc. In Africa---and you can't get them any blacker, in any sense---they are finishing each other like nobody's business. Against that must be weighed against whatever good she may have done.
(c) I have absolutely no issue with whites who wish to pretend to be black if they are doing genuine good for black people. In fact, I wish we would have some more. At the end of the day, we should think of creating a society in which colour does not matter and one is judged solely on how they relate to their fellow human being and what contribution they make to making like better for others.
So, yes; the good she did makes it OK in my book. And here's why: if she did good, then it is still good, even if we suddenly found out that she is really a Martian.
Your writing implements you. Breh, I can tell you're in a legal profession and loves to smoke weed. Just a vibe, I might be wrong but not on both fronts.
(http://i.imgur.com/aaB5coa.jpg)
Your post reminds of this image (brain washed black people). Alot of white people who are involved with people of colour. Quite often they co-opt the culture, the beliefs and victimization because they need it for themselves.
Guess.
She’s disingenuous:
(a) subject of the article or discussion sued a college (Howard University) for discrimination but at that college the subject professed to be white.
(b) when it was beneficial to her in Washington state, she professed to be black.
(c) She sent herself packages in the mail claiming to be terrorized by whites.
(d) She chose to be NAACP President for financial gain? NAACP local Presidents make over $70,000 a year. There are a lot of black folks in Spokane, Washington.
Moonki, is it okay for me to pretend I am disabled. Get all the benefits and a free parking lot without harming anybody?
I don't mean to burst your bubble, but won't hire you for a lawyer.
:cool: :cool: :cool:
-
RP
(a) Subject of the article or discussion sued a college (Howard University) for discrimination but at that college the subject professed to be white.
I would call that affirmative action in reverse. Howard University being a mostly black college should be held to the same standard as most institutions of higher learning. Blacks have successfully sued colleges based on affirmative action and in most instances won. I see nothing wrong with that. The idea of a black only college is also way outdated. They should accept whoever qualifies and wants to get in.
(b) When it was beneficial to her in Washington State, she professed to be black.
Again, whom did her action hurt? She can claim to be black, white pink orange if she chooses to. How many things have you ever done to gain some advantage….When is the last time you dated a black girl for crying out loud? Why is it that you seem to date anybody else but black?
(c) She sent herself packages in the mail claiming to be terrorized by whites.
Again, who did she hurt? Did the police do their investigation and pursue charges? Why not? I don’t remember that being mentioned before. If threatening packages were being sent to anyone, it was up to the police to follow up the lead? Did they assume she was black and therefore didn’t take her serious? Had they acted different if she was ‘white.?’
(d) She chose to be NAACP President for financial gain? NAACP local Presidents make over $70,000 a year. There are a lot of black folks in Spokane, Washington
.
Did she earn the position on merit or because of being ‘black?’ Did other black qualified black people even apply for the job and were turned down? How much more would she have made being a white educated white woman anywhere in the US. I make waaay more than that and I am not even president of anything.
Moonki, is it okay for me to pretend I am disabled. Get all the benefits and a free parking lot without harming anybody?
Is being black now the same as being disabled? Wow, Is this really a proper comparison? In a time when we are fighting to be equal, you still want to be treated like a special interest group?
-
(a) subject of the article or discussion sued a college (Howard University) for discrimination but at that college the subject professed to be white.
You cut your Logic 101 classes, didn't you? mya88 has given you an excellent response; but by way of a lesson in logic, let me do this small one for you:
(a) She is white.
(b) Howard could have discriminated against her on that basis.
(c) The real question is whether or not (b) happened, not merely that she sued.
I don't mean to burst your bubble, but won't hire you for a lawyer.
Don't let that bother you; I'm doing just fine.
-
Mya, back up a little,
RP
(a) Subject of the article or discussion sued a college (Howard University) for discrimination but at that college the subject professed to be white.
I would call that affirmative action in reverse. Howard University being a mostly black college should be held to the same standard as most institutions of higher learning. Blacks have successfully sued colleges based on affirmative action and in most instances won. I see nothing wrong with that. The idea of a black only college is also way outdated. They should accept whoever qualifies and wants to get in.
Whatever you may call it, the whole "she feels blackso its all good" is shown to be bunk. Clearly she feels black only when there is something to be gained by it. That was the point RealPokot was making.
(b) When it was beneficial to her in Washington State, she professed to be black.
Again, whom did her action hurt? She can claim to be black, white pink orange if she chooses to. How many things have you ever done to gain some advantage….When is the last time you dated a black girl for crying out loud? Why is it that you seem to date anybody else but black?
Gimme a break, Mya88. Your personal attacks on RealP are unwarranted. What has his dating choices got to do with this news story about a con-artist trying to benefit from the injustices of other people?
(c) She sent herself packages in the mail claiming to be terrorized by whites.
Again, who did she hurt? Did the police do their investigation and pursue charges? Why not? I don’t remember that being mentioned before. If threatening packages were being sent to anyone, it was up to the police to follow up the lead? Did they assume she was black and therefore didn’t take her serious? Had they acted different if she was ‘white.?’
Who did she hurt? Some who fabricates hate-crimes is not someone who should be on any one's sympathy list. That just seems so simple to me.
(d) She chose to be NAACP President for financial gain? NAACP local Presidents make over $70,000 a year. There are a lot of black folks in Spokane, Washington
.
Did she earn the position on merit or because of being ‘black?’ Did other black qualified black people even apply for the job and were turned down? How much more would she have made being a white educated white woman anywhere in the US. I make waaay more than that and I am not even president of anything.
Whatever you make is not relevant, Mya. The woman presents herself as black and tries to access scholarships and positions intended for blacks, she even filled African-American in one form. It could be 1,000 dollars a year, that's no excuse for it. Let someone else earn that puny 1,000 dollars without lying, at least they are honest with their employers and the community they serve.
Moonki, is it okay for me to pretend I am disabled. Get all the benefits and a free parking lot without harming anybody?
Is being black now the same as being disabled? Wow, Is this really a proper comparison? In a time when we are fighting to be equal, you still want to be treated like a special interest group?
This is a strawman. Whats wrong with the disabled? They are people too, are they not? They have disadvantages because of their disabilities. Blacks have been disadvantaged because of racism. This does not address in any way any of the points raised by RealP.
-
The woman presents herself as black and tries to access scholarships and positions intended for blacks, she even filled African-American in one form.
I have heard that claim. The question is this: did she actually get scholarships and positions that are intended for blacks. If so, then let's have a list, and then we can have an objective discussion of her actions in relation to those.
-
@Bella
Whatever you may call it, the whole "she feels black"so its all good is bunk. Clearly she feels black only when there is something to be gained by it. That was the point RealPokot was making.
So what if she is doing something to get an edge. Is she really the first person to do that. May blacks here in this country have for eons pretended to be white to get that same ‘advantage’, how come I didn’t hear anyone complaining then?
Gimme a break, Mya88. Your personal attacks on RealP are unwarranted. What has his dating choices got to do with this news story about a con-artist trying to benefit from the injustices of other people?
It’s not a personal attack. Me and RP go way back and are cool like that, so I am well within my ‘right’ to ask him. I will wait for his answer on it if you do not mind.
Who did she hurt? Some who fabricates hate-crimes is not someone who should be on any one's sympathy list. That just seems so simple to me.
Your opinion, you are entitled to it, I don’t see it that way.
Whatever you make is not relevant, Mya. The woman presents herself as black and tries to access scholarships and positions intended for blacks, she even filled African-American in one form. It could be 1,000 dollars a year, that's no excuse for it. Let someone else earn that puny 1,000 dollars without lying, at least they are honest with their employers and the community they serve.
It is relevant to the point I am making because RP alludes to the fact that its too much money for her to be making when other black people could have benefitted from the same. Well black women are making just that and then some. If the position she has warrants the amount she is making, then his point is mute. The question he should be asking is if she is qualified for the position or not. And what do you mean positions meant for blacks? Are there some positions in this country that should be preserved for blacks? Why shouldn't whites also have positions reserved for them and why do we cry racism when that is the case? What community was she serving in that capacity? Was she taking the money from NAACP and spending it on white neighborhoods or white community…. You are way over your head in this… I think.
This is a strawman. Whats wrong with the disabled? They are people too, are they not? They have disadvantages because of their disabilities. Blacks have been disadvantaged because of racism. This does not address in any way any of the points raised by RealP.
Nothing wrong with the disabled. RP compared blacks to disabled and alluded to the benefits they get as his argument points. They are a special interest group and are protected and given certain privileges that most people don’t have. That is not the case when it comes to blacks. Comparing the black race to a disability is really pushing it.
-
(a) subject of the article or discussion sued a college (Howard University) for discrimination but at that college the subject professed to be white.
You cut your Logic 101 classes, didn't you? mya88 has given you an excellent response; but by way of a lesson in logic, let me do this small one for you:
(a) She is white.
(b) Howard could have discriminated against her on that basis.
(c) The real question is whether or not (b) happened, not merely that she sued.
As long as we are on the logic lessons, the fact that she sued on the basis of being white means she does not identify as black when being black is not advantageous to her purpose. No one cares whether she was discriminated at Howard that is not a dispute anywhere unless someone would like to make it so and is between her and Howard. The point as far as this story goes is whether she is being honest when she presents her delusion (of being black) as an honest belief as opposed to a calculated lie. The former makes normal persons sympathetic to her, the second inspires a level of disgust as it shows a person who feels quite happy pursuing personal gain on the basis of the suffering/injustices suffered by others.
-
but it's outrageously offensive that people here @org and other places are legitimately trying to give her a pass, as if any good that she might have done makes this okay.
You've got to be kidding. If that is your idea of "outrageously offensive", then you are likely to find life quite stressful. Yes, I give her a pass, for the following reasons:
(a) I have not seen much to the effect that her "fraud" has harmed anybody. Until I do, I will consider it harmless "fraud".
(b) There are plenty of "genuinely black" people who are actively harming black people. In America, you can look at drugs, homicide, etc. In Africa---and you can't get them any blacker, in any sense---they are finishing each other like nobody's business. Against that must be weighed against whatever good she may have done.
(c) I have absolutely no issue with whites who wish to pretend to be black if they are doing genuine good for black people. In fact, I wish we would have some more. At the end of the day, we should think of creating a society in which colour does not matter and one is judged solely on how they relate to their fellow human being and what contribution they make to making like better for others.
So, yes; the good she did makes it OK in my book. And here's why: if she did good, then it is still good, even if we suddenly found out that she is really a Martian.
MOON Ki,
I consider her a fraud for falsifying information about herself. I can't ignore that.
-
@Bella
So what if she is doing something to get an edge. Is she really the first person to do that. May blacks here in this country have for eons pretended to be white to get that same ‘advantage’, how come I didn’t hear anyone complaining then?
People do all kinds of nasty stuff. That has never been an excuse when someone is caught doing it. And Black people were up against a racist system designed to keep them down. Comparing that to a white woman TODAY in a majority white country doing that on the basis of a minority group is comparing apples and oranges. Context is important.
Gimme a break, Mya88. Your personal attacks on RealP are unwarranted. What has his dating choices got to do with this news story about a con-artist trying to benefit from the injustices of other people?
It’s not a personal attack. Me and RP go way back and are cool like that, so I am well within my ‘right’ to ask him. I will wait for his answer on it if you do not mind.
I don't mind. I also hope you don't mind my pointing out that its irrelevant and a straw-man. His dating choices do not amount to the same thing as lying about who he is.
Who did she hurt? Some who fabricates hate-crimes is not someone who should be on any one's sympathy list. That just seems so simple to me.
Your opinion, you are entitled to it, I don’t see it that way.
Fair enough.
Whatever you make is not relevant, Mya. The woman presents herself as black and tries to access scholarships and positions intended for blacks, she even filled African-American in one form. It could be 1,000 dollars a year, that's no excuse for it. Let someone else earn that puny 1,000 dollars without lying, at least they are honest with their employers and the community they serve.
It is relevant to the point I am making because RP alludes to the fact that its too much money for her to be making when other black people could have benefitted from the same. Well black women are making just that and then some. If the position she has warrants the amount she is making, then his point is mute. The question he should be asking is if she is qualified for the position or not. And what do you mean positions meant for blacks? Are there some positions in this country that should be preserved for blacks? Why shouldn't whites also have positions reserved for them and why do we cry racism when that is the case? What community was she serving in that capacity? Was she taking the money from NAACP and spending it on white neighborhoods or white community…. You are way over your head in this… I think.
Right. If I pretend to be blind and gain some positions on that basis, its ok as long as I don't use that money on people with sight? Don't think so. In countries with long histories of racial discrimination, it is very much ok to deliberately give advantages to minorities with the knowledge that they start out disadvanated. You and others do well, doesnt mean you couldnt do better if you did not have black skin to deal with in a white country. The inequities are there, even if some manage to overcome them better than others.
This is a strawman. Whats wrong with the disabled? They are people too, are they not? They have disadvantages because of their disabilities. Blacks have been disadvantaged because of racism. This does not address in any way any of the points raised by RealP.
Nothing wrong with the disabled. RP compared blacks to disabled and alluded to the benefits they get as his argument points. They are a special interest group and are protected and given certain privileges that most people don’t have. That is not the case when it comes to blacks. Comparing the black race to a disability is really pushing it.
I disagree. Blacks do not have physical disabilities, but they certainly have social ones not entirely of their own making. RealP did not just say "Blacks are like disabled people", he compared the act of taking advantage of social institutions existing for the benefit of one disadvantaged group and another. That is an apt comparison, as far as I can see, but you are entitled to your opinions of course.
-
The woman presents herself as black and tries to access scholarships and positions intended for blacks, she even filled African-American in one form.
I have heard that claim. The question is this: did she actually get scholarships and positions that are intended for blacks. If so, then let's have a list, and then we can have an objective discussion of her actions in relation to those.
What has that got to do with the fact that she is exactly what she's being accused of, a fraud? You are basically arguing that if she was not very successful in her con game then this makes the attempt ok.
-
She's an academic who may have thoroughly embodied her research. She's accomplished more than just the president of some black only organization. There would've been more job opportunities for her on black welfare as a white woman.
Rachel Dolezal is an academic, chair of the office of the police ombudsman commission in the city of Spokane and president of its chapter of the African American civil rights organisation NAACP.
Dolezal, a professor of Africana studies at Eastern Washington University, where she specialises in black studies and African American culture, has spoken out regularly on local media about racial justice...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/12/civil-rights-activist-rachel-dolezal-misrepresented-herself-as-black-claim-parents
She identifies with black, I haven't read anything yet where she claimed to actually be black. To me she looks white. If I dye my hair blonde does that mean I'm pretending to be a Swedish meatball? Who cares?
I don't trust the media. Let the facts speak for itself. I've met a few whites here who identify with Aborigines and subsequently work for Aboriginal advocacy, charities etc. hair like that, sporting ethnic embellishments. The fact Americans are so shocked and quick to condemn Rachel over a non issue just belates the point about how entrenched racial disparities are in the States. How deeply enraged FOX and whites are that a white discredits whites. I suspect only white Americans care.
-
By the way, @ Mya,
I apologize for my first response, for some reason I read your post as being a personal hit at Real Pokot and I jumped, deeming it an unfair way to win an argument, but clearly you didn't mean it like that.
-
, she even filled African-American in one form.
I have heard that claim. The question is this: did she actually get scholarships and positions that The woman presents herself as black and tries to access scholarships and positions intended for blacksare intended for blacks. If so, then let's have a list, and then we can have an objective discussion of her actions in relation to those.
What has that got to do with the fact that she is exactly what she's being accused of, a fraud? You are basically arguing that if she was not very successful in her con game then this makes the attempt ok.
Here is what you wrote:
The woman presents herself as black and tries to access scholarships and positions intended for blacks
When, where, and how did she try to access scholarships and positions intended for blacks? If you can provide the facts to support your claim, then we will be able to proceed with a reasonable discussion.
-
I consider her a fraud for falsifying information about herself. I can't ignore that.
And I say: Whom did she defraud? And of what exactly?
-
By the way, @ Mya,
I apologize for my first response, for some reason I read your post as being a personal hit at Real Pokot and I jumped, deeming it an unfair way to win an argument, but clearly you didn't mean it like that.
Bella
Its cool, I don't take shit too personally. I actually like it when gloves come of as long as it doesn't get too muddy. You are known to be no push over. I like that
-
, she even filled African-American in one form.
I have heard that claim. The question is this: did she actually get scholarships and positions that The woman presents herself as black and tries to access scholarships and positions intended for blacksare intended for blacks. If so, then let's have a list, and then we can have an objective discussion of her actions in relation to those.
What has that got to do with the fact that she is exactly what she's being accused of, a fraud? You are basically arguing that if she was not very successful in her con game then this makes the attempt ok.
Here is what you wrote:
The woman presents herself as black and tries to access scholarships and positions intended for blacks
When, where, and how did she try to access scholarships and positions intended for blacks? If you can provide the facts to support your claim, then we will be able to proceed with a reasonable discussion.
She applied to Howard using an essay in which she made herself sound like an African-American and never revealed that she was white, though knowing that University's history. She filled African-American on the application to the Police ombudsman position and she allowed everyone at NAACP to believe she was black with a biological black father. That may seem all kosher to you but I dont know any person I would consider ethical who could carry out such an elaborate ruse. Lets not even get started on the fake hate-crimes. Besides, when did ethics cease to matter in leadership? Its ok to lie to everyone as long as no one can prove beyond a doubt you defrauded a particular individual?
For those interested in the "facts" of her fraud, you can check this ever-being-updated site: http://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2015/06/19/75-false-or-otherwise-problematic-statements-from-rachel-dolezal-and-counting
She had actually worked as a freelance writer for that site until she was outed!
-
I'm till waiting for evidence that she
tries to scholarships and positions intended for blacks
That evidence can be supplied easily and directly in the following form:
* Here's this or that scholarship that is intended for black people, and here are the facts of her application.
* Here's this or that position that is intended for black people, and here are the facts of her application.
The mere fact that someone might have believed that she was black for whatever scholarship or position is irrelevant unless being black was an explicit requirement.
(And, of course, implicit "colour requirements" is the stuff of racism.)
-
There's nothing in that "inlander" article that sounds credible. Lots of speculations and gossip but no verifiable piece of evidence. That police application is forged. Who doesn't say trash to students? Who cares? The only evidence someone would have to sue her is the fact Howard university descriminated against her for being white. Now that's a newsworthy frontpage. Other than that I see this as a smear campaign to tarnish her reputation and FOX did a good job of it.
-
I'm till waiting for evidence that she
tries to scholarships and positions intended for blacks
That evidence can be supplied easily and directly in the following form:
* Here's this or that scholarship that is intended for black people, and here are the facts of her application.
* Here's this or that position that is intended for black people, and here are the facts of her application.
The mere fact that someone might have believed that she was black for whatever scholarship or position is irrelevant unless being black was an explicit requirement.
(And, of course, implicit "colour requirements" is the stuff of racism.)
Howard university scholarships are intended for black people, throwing around PC threats dont work with me. There's nothing racist about creating educational or professional opportunities specifically for black people in a country that has had slavery and jim crow for so long, still recovering from racism. The police ombudsman position- her background was relevant considering this is an oversight position dealing with complaints against an institution accused of not caring enough about black lives. They certainly had a right to true information before hiring her and you cannot say how much she was trusted to represent that particular demographic in that position based on being black herself, point being, she didnt let the hiring authority decide based on true information. For the NAACP, part of the complaints against her is that a black woman who actually stood a chance may have been elected as the first black woman in that position had the truth been known. I certainly don't think its alright to misrepresent your heritage in an election to a leadership position of an association that is based on the rights of coloured people. Now, how about you also explain why you think ethics are irrelevant for leadership? You seem to say that lying doesnt matter unless you can find an identifiable person who lost an identifiable thing, or perhaps to argue that no lying was done here.
-
Any government parastatal position requires a background check. They knew she was white. Why didn't the media make that the front page news? I don't believe for a second she was stupid enough to put her ethnicity as African American in her application. Obviously she didn't do that for HowardU. The police ombudsman is not there for just black lives. They are not a black only organisation. They are actually a very white organisation like most government positions.
HowardU has problems like all educational institutions like colleges which are racist. Do colleges give better opportunities for minorities? Fck hell no. Never did, never will. They don't do that for female, why suddenly for minorities? Declaring ethnicity in uni applications is a means to racially profile students and ensure the minorities do not dominate and are kept in the minority. This is soft power at it's finest. Conservative cliques ensuring the white status quo remains the status quo for decades to come. It trickles all the way down from geopolitical wrangles. Fck Africanas, Fck Asianas, Fck Europeanos.
I see this as a disgusting political manouvre by white conservative senile males to chastise a white woman back in her place. This is the kind of mob justice whites do. Use the media to rape a person's reputation.
-
Howard university scholarships are intended for black people
Really? On what basis, and where is that stated? Rather than argue in the abstract, let's take a concrete example of one "school". Go here:
http://www.howard.edu/schooleducation/scholarships/
Where do you see a requirement for the person to be "black". To the extent that there is an interest in "black", it is limited to a couple that state
"Must be conducting significant research studies related to Black education"
Are you suggesting that, say, this particular "school" is advertising scholarships that do not require a candidate to be black but is then secretly imposing a "colour" requirement? That has a whole lot of implications.
Here's another page: http://www.howard.edu/financialaid/grants_scholarships.htm
Go through the various scholarship pages at Howard University and identify the one you claim this lady applied for but was meant for black people. Report back and then we can talk.
Also, from what I have seen, at the time she was not claiming to be black, so I don't see the basis for the claim that she went for scholarships intended for blacks.
There's nothing racist about creating educational or professional opportunities specifically for black people in a country that has had racism and jim crow for so long.
Absolutely nothing wrong with it. More than one place will do it; but if they do things right, they will explicitly state so. What will not fly is this idea that scholarships that are advertised without a specific target-group are somehow magically limited to some group because, say, the university is a "x-colour" group.
The police ombudsman position- her background was relevant considering this is an oversight position dealing with complaints against an institution accused of not caring enough about black lives. They certainly had a right to true information before hiring her and you cannot say how much she was trusted to represent that particular demographic in that position based on being black herself, point being, she didnt let the hiring authority decide based on true information. For the NAACP, part of the complaints against her is that a black woman who actually stood a chance may have been elected as the first black woman in that position had the truth been known.
Do you have the job advertisements and descriptions handy? Did any of those positions have an explicit requirement that the person be of a certain colour? If not, then I don't see the basis of the idea that she took jobs that were intended for black people.
And I will repeat this: If black people insist that there are jobs etc. that are implicitly for black people, regardless of what is advertised, then they should be prepared that white people also might feel that there are jobs etc. that implicitly reserved for white people, regardless of what is advertised.
I certainly don't think its alright to misrepresent your heritage in an election to a leadership position of an association that is based on the rights of coloured people.
This is an absolutely staggering statement, considering that the very people who founded the NAACP included white people. And if some of the "founders" were white, then it surely is absurd to suggest that leadership positions in the NAACP are somehow restricted to "coloured people".
But let's put history aside and move along to the present case:
First: does the NAACP currently have a "colour" requirement for leadership positions? Where can we find it? Was it included in the job advertisement for the position in question?
Second: The NAACP has for years had members of all colours. And if people can be members, why can't they be in leadership positions? Surely, the very fact that the founders included white people ought to be a sufficient indicator that colour is not bar to promoting the goals of the association.
Now, how about you also explain why you think ethics are irrelevant for leadership? You seem to say that lying doesnt matter unless you can find an identifiable person who lost an identifiable thing, or perhaps to argue that no lying was done here.
Nowhere have I stated or implied anything of the sort. What I have "issues" with is this:
The woman presents herself as black and tries to access scholarships and positions intended for blacks
So I repeat: which scholarships and what positions?
WHAT THE NAACP SAYS ABOUT ITS HISTORY:
"The NAACP was formed partly in response to the continuing horrific practice of lynching and the 1908 race riot in Springfield, the capital of Illinois and resting place of President Abraham Lincoln. Appalled at the violence that was committed against blacks, a group of white liberals that included Mary White Ovington and Oswald Garrison Villard, both the descendants of abolitionists, William English Walling and Dr. Henry Moscowitz issued a call for a meeting to discuss racial justice."
http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history
All those getting worked up at the idea of whites in NAACP positions should reflect on that. Read it carefully, and reflect on it.
Oh, and before you get too worked up on issues of "colour fraud", consider the role of an aptly-named black fellow: Walter F. White. He looked white and made good use of that fact.
-
MoonKi, like I said, Pc threats just don't work with me. Howard university may not have explicitly stated they wanted only blacks, but in her essay, she wrote as though she was black and the school was shocked when she turned up white instead and still gave her the scholarship. Pretending such things as gender, age, race, natonality just dont matter in such decisions only because they are not specifically stated does not mean that they dont matter. Sometimes, where two candidates are a tie, such considserations will in fact tip the decision over in favour of the candidate deemed more socially disadvantaged based on the demographic. Clearly they had presumed they were giving the scholarship to a black girl. To me, that already shows a person without scruples.
The ombudsman- You have no problem that she lied about race in her application because there was no explicit requirement about race indicated?
The NAACP- I take it you would have no problem if a man pretended to be a woman (not transgendered but biologically female) and was elected as president of an association based on specifically gender issues that focussed mainly on women rights, just because the founders had included men?
In other words, lying is meaningless.
-
I have to give it to MOON Ki and mya88 and to you too veritas.
The pendulum on this subject in American discourse has shifted back and forth: at some point in our history it's been the holy grail, while at other periods it has become a wedge issue. Or a continuum.
The case of Walter White -- MOON Ki alludes to -- is a good starting point for most of you who are not quite conversant with the intricacies of "race" in America.
-
Moon Ki has convinced me. That girl is 'innocent'
Until today I thought Walter White was a character from my all time favorite series Breaking Bad. Breaking Bad director had a way with allegories and symbols that took you weeks to unearth. Every name,everything meant something.
Negro should be preoccupied by her achievements not infringement of they negritude
Meet Walter F White
http://www.mixedracestudies.org/wordpress/?tag=walter-francis-white
-
Moon Ki has convinced me. That girl is 'innocent'
Until today I thought Walter White was a character from my all time favorite series Breaking Bad. Breaking Bad director had a way with allegories and symbols that took you weeks to unearth. Every name,everything meant something.
Negro should be preoccupied by her achievements not infringement of they negritude
Meet Walter F White
http://www.mixedracestudies.org/wordpress/?tag=walter-francis-white (http://www.mixedracestudies.org/wordpress/?tag=walter-francis-white)
I don't know if she is/was considered guilty of anything. She does not inspire warm feelings of trust from me. That means that if something serious does come up and I am on a jury, I'll have serious doubts about her credibility.
-
I don't know if she is/was considered guilty of anything. She does not inspire warm feelings of trust from me.
I mentioned Walter White because (a) one of the "complaints" against this woman is that she has wrought white deceit on a fine coloured organization, and (b) people like me are giving her a pass (on performance), fraud notwithstanding.
Mr. White was very effective at the NAACP, and part of the reason was that he sometimes passed himself off as white, in order to get white people to tell him of the nasty plans they had for blacks. Do we dismiss him as a "fraud", or do we give him a "pass" for the good that he did?
From rabid tribalism in Kenya to rabid racism elsewhere, plus age ... I go by experience these days---in the words of the reggae song "who feels it knows it''.
So. My view is this: Whether from Mars or Planet Earth, whether humanoid or with green skin, purple teeth and orange hair, ..., I go by the final outcome: how much good is there?
Oddly enough: someone like Bella has taken a different view from mine on this one. Yet on a thread where I noted the enormous damage that the "Catholic Church" has done to humanity---think of any possible evil, small or great, and you will find a pope who excelled at it---Bella complained that I had chosen to overlook any good that the "church" as done.
On any given day, I will happily choose a midget from Jupiter who claims to be a black human and does good for black humans over the refined Justice Thomas who fights any laws that would improve things for blacks in America or the brutal kienyeji "leader" who will cheerfully (and brutally) end countless black lives over lunch.
Concrete results over warm fuzzies.
That means that if something serious does come up and I am on a jury, I'll have serious doubts about her credibility.
On jury systems: one of the odd things about the US legal systems is that although the country is largely a "progressive" one---and I can't think of one that is more "progressive"---it still sticks to some rather old-fashioned ideas.
The US system is derived from English common law, but one notes that the English have moved on to a "majority vote" (10-2). And other places are moving on too, e.g. New South Wales in Australia.
On the credibility of liars: Last night a friend and I had a discussion on the "recanting-witness statements" that are now the focus in the Ruto case. My buddy was of the view that since the witnesses have now stated that they had been lying all along, that was that. Actually it is not.
In a major decisions in the Lubanga case, the Appeals Chamber confirmed three fairly "obvious" things:
(a) People do lie from time to time.
(b) The fact that people lie at times does not mean that they are totally incapable of the truth.
(c) Sometimes people initially tell the truth and then lie, in later claiming that they were initially lying.
-
On the credibility of liars: Last night a friend and I had a discussion on the "recanting-witness statements" that are now the focus in the Ruto case. My buddy was of the view that since the witnesses have now stated that they had been lying all along, that was that. Actually it is not.
In a major decisions in the Lubanga case, the Appeals Chamber confirmed three fairly "obvious" things:
(a) People do lie from time to time.
(b) The fact that people lie at times does not mean that they are totally incapable of the truth.
(c) Sometimes people initially tell the truth and then lie, in later claiming that they were initially lying.
People , poor Negroes promised Nothern hemisphere bliss can sing like Lionel Richie
-
Oddly enough: someone like Bella has taken a different view from mine on this one. Yet on a thread where I noted the enormous damage that the "Catholic Church" has done to humanity---think of any possible evil, small or great, and you will find a pope who excelled at it---Bella complained that I had chosen to overlook any good that the "church" as done.
What is odd is this silly idea that judging one individual on the basis of her own actions, and choices, in which she has been recently caught is somehow equivalent to judging a group on the basis of the actions of some. 8)
-
What is odd is this silly idea that judging one individual on the basis of her own actions, and choices, in which she has been recently caught is somehow equivalent to judging a group on the basis of the actions of some. 8)
Not really. The tremendous evils that have been wrought by popes is well known, as is their subsequent spread through the rest of the "church". Consider the extensive diddling of little boys in the butt. That was started by a pope and has then spread to the lower "leaders of the flock" and then to rest. Been going on for centuries. Every evil that one can imagine as possible on Planet Earth ... some pope has led the way, the lower "leaders of the faithful" have followed, and the "faithful" themselves are never too far behind. Why, then, should the latter not be judged on the basis of the former? Why should we not judge will followers of monsters on the basis of their willingness to follow?
Whatever one thinks of the SDAs, there is substantial evidence that shows they have their finger on this one. What we really ought to be discussing: (a) just who are the people who follow these "holy fathers"?; and (b) why?
(An obvious part of the answer to is that the only places where the "church" is growing is in poor desperate parts of the world where some people are, for some odd reason, convinced that some mzungu---it will never be a black---will save them. The people who, originally, forced such characters on the former are themselves fleeing in droves.)
RE, the original comment: It was stated that the mind-boggling evils of the "Catholic church" ought to be weighed against the good it has supposedly done for humanity. To the extent that anyone proposes such a notion, it should be extended to this lady---she lied, but she did good for the cause. If there is an argument to the contrary, let's have it. And without emotional words, like "silly".
-
What is odd is this silly idea that judging one individual on the basis of her own actions, and choices, in which she has been recently caught is somehow equivalent to judging a group on the basis of the actions of some. 8)
Not really. The tremendous evils that have been wrought by popes is well known, as is their subsequent spread through the rest of the "church". Consider the extensive diddling of little boys in the butt. That was started by a pope and has then spread to the lower "leaders of the flock" and then to rest. Been going on for centuries. Every evil that one can imagine as possible on Planet Earth ... some pope has led the way, the lower "leaders of the faithful" have followed, and the "faithful" themselves are never too far behind. Why, then, should the latter not be judged on the basis of the former? Why should we not judge will followers of monsters on the basis of their willingness to follow?
Whatever one thinks of the SDAs, there is substantial evidence that shows they have their finger on this one. What we really ought to be discussing: (a) just who are the people who follow these "holy fathers"?; and (b) why?
(An obvious part of the answer to is that the only places where the "church" is growing is in poor desperate parts of the world where some people are, for some odd reason, convinced that some mzungu---it will never be a black---will save them. The people who, originally, forced such characters on the former are themselves fleeing in droves.)
RE, the original comment: It was stated that the mind-boggling evils of the "Catholic church" ought to be weighed against the good it has supposedly done for humanity. To the extent that anyone proposes such a notion, it should be extended to this lady---she lied, but she did good for the cause. If there is an argument to the contrary, let's have it. And without emotional words, like "silly".
1) Silly is a descriptor for illogical arguments like you are making. The catholic church is a group of billions, not one person. Amazing that such needs pointing out.
2) Emotional is you digging around old posts that have nothing to do with this discussion, a behavior that reminds me of some .com residents.
3) Lets flip that argument back on you. If you feel the ills of bad catholics should reflect on the whole church in a blanket fashion, what is your argument for claiming this girl should be somehow not held accountable for her own bad behaviour? Remove that giant mote in your argument before trying to do the same to mine.
4) Your rants on the catholic church have been repeatedly showed to be filled with prejudice, so forgive me if i dont take that rant you posted as an argument, at least a serious one. You can just link to that debate where you went on and on about 8 popes out 266 and had no idea who the other 258 were or did and save time on typing more unnecessary words in more posts.
-
Let her come home.
NAACP should have aggressively protected her. But I reserve my judgment for the organization.
I haven't read the comments yet, but I have no problem with this woman being whomever she wasn't to be...so what if she wants to be black. Hell there are many blacks who have been trying to pass as whites for eons...ie Mariah carey et al.let her be...and that damn CNN spending soo much coverage on this non issue, when there are other important things going on in the world stupid.