NAACP White Woman caught. She loves being black!

[MOON Ki]

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.)

[veritas]

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.

[Bella]

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.

[veritas]

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.

[MOON Ki]

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.

[Bella]

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.

[Reticent Solipsist]

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.

[vooke]

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

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

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

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.

[MOON Ki]

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.

[vooke]

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

[Bella]

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.

[MOON Ki]

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.

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".

[Bella]

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.

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.

[Georgesoros]

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.