'Black' NAACP leader outed as white woman

No it doesn't. Believing that you are something is totally irrelevant to the fact that you are not that something.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

You keep claiming that Rachel Dolezal was abused. Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just pulling it out of your ass?

 

So only matters that threaten the survival of the world matter to you?

Which ignores the national reaction to this and THAT is the point. Yes there is some harm to the local chapter that she was not vetted very well. And you have to wonder why she wasn't immediately fired and publicly fired and instead resigned hopefully because some more rational heads prevailed at the NAACP. But what this speaks to is the victim mentality many have in this country and the harm it can bring to us when people commit such frauds and many come to their defense over it. Even coming up with the absurd Trans-race thing

Oh spare me....................


I prefer discussing things on an intellectual level not petty assigning of emotions

 

But as you can see from our resident leftist none of that matters, the lies, the fraud, the deceipt, don't matter. Claiming victim status gives you license to do all that.

 

What claim of abuse as a child?

Lying and cheating and deceiving can get you pretty far and that is a good thing?

 

You are spared. I have spoken.

 

Wrong again Buckaroo! Plagiarizing a painting as her own composition. Faking a black father. What her brother said about her. Falsifying a document to the Ombudsman. Lying about her race is one thing, a pattern is neurotic.

 

so we can assume any republican politician that has Plagiarized or use music they did not pay for as liars about every other thing they do? good to know

as for her painting, I do not know much about it, if she painted it herself it is her painting, she may have painted it when younger and forgot what it was a painting of, who knows

.

 

I don't care what you "guarantee". I am looking at this person as just that...a person. Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) cares about your hypothetical. Your hypothetical is moot.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rope-no-bloodlines-linking-slaves-Africa.html

If I was to place a bet it would be that she is not and has no Black in her genes . they have traced her family back and found nothing ? so the only way she is black is someone cheated and lied about it, she is very confused but there are no excuses for grown ups to be lying about anything, She is just another person who has lied to get ahead.

 

Wasn't that the result of bogus racial threats? If so, the only way her parents got involved were due to her lies.

 

everyone thought she was black and she was the president of the NAACP, so she very well could of had some haters out there, I do not think we will ever know if the reports were false or not.. could of been, but no real way to know for sure, maybe some were real and some not, who knows - even some black people make up false allegations, so it could be false, but things like that really do happen to black people in high positions so it could be true

I will say this, if I was her I would never of called the cops about it, as I would think it would give me away... it's almost like she was actually beginning to believe she was black

.

 

It'll be proven soon enough. It's not as if Republicans are immune to such foolishness either and I can pretty much guarantee something similar enough will pop up in the near future. And such "compassion" will be thrown out the window.

 

Well make sure you also look at her as an imposter and impersonator. And make sure you look at her as someone who lied about her identity, filed false police reports, copied the work of others and called it her own, and all the other stuff she did because this person, like any other person, has a lifetime of deeds and actions that make up the character of that person.

 

The most serious was proven false. She put the envelope with the noose in the mailbox and then tried to claim it was hate-mail. This is playing the victim card.

 

Perhaps this will bring some context to those who think this is quite OK and what she did was not wrong.

What Ralph Ellison Could Tell Rachel Dolezal
She can no more become black than I, as a black woman, can become Chinese.

By CHLOÉ VALDARY
June 17, 2015 7:08 p.m. ET
1 COMMENTS
Give credit where credit is due: Rachel Dolezal, who until last week was the chapter president for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in Spokane, Wash., has gone to great lengths to convince the world that she is of African descent. She has darkened her skin tone. She has adopted various “ethnic” hair styles, including at times curly weaves, or dreadlocks, or twists. She has claimed to fight the stereotyping of black identities—all while stereotyping black identity.

Ms. Dolezal has also concocted elaborate stories about an oppressive upbringing: She has claimed that she lived in South Africa; that she grew up with an abusive stepfather who beat her because of her complexion; that her real father is black. These are all poignant fabrications of a life never lived. Ms. Dolezal is racially Caucasian; her parents are of German and Czech descent.

So why would Ms. Dolezal spend so much energy on denying her real identity and masquerading as someone she is not? She may be a fabulist (and a fantasist), but fables and fantasies also reflect the cultural predilections of our time.

One of these predilections is the association of color with predisposed moral behavior; in other words, Ms. Dolezal conflates “content of character” with “color of skin.”

In an interview for a student art project at Eastern Washington University in early 2014, Ms. Dolezal recounted a tale—largely repeated on Tuesday in an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC’s “Today” show—of how as a child she had “anxiety” over which crayon, brown or peach, she should use to draw herself. She chose brown, Ms. Dolezal said, as that was the color with which she mostly identified. She went on to describe white people as “co-opting all kinds of cultures,” and throughout the interview suggested that whiteness is synonymous with racism and oppression. Among white people, Ms. Dolezal said, she felt “isolated and alienated,” but living in a “black community” in Mississippi made her feel “at home.”

In short, whiteness is bigotry incarnate and blackness is preferable. To make amends for this, Ms. Dolezal—a white woman—attempted to destroy everything that she had been and “became” black. Through her new faux identity, Ms. Dolezal tried to become “the other” and emancipate herself from her oppressive white skin.

Making matters worse is the postmodern reverence for “personal narrative,” whereby identity is purely a matter of choice. René Descartes’s “I think, therefore I am,” has been transformed into a narcissistic “I feel, therefore I am.”

In her “Today” interview, Ms. Dolezal denied that she had ever deceived anyone about her race. “I do take exception to that,” she told Mr. Lauer, “because it’s a little more complex than me identifying as black or answering a question of ‘Are you black or white?’ ”

But this isn’t complicated at all. Skin tone and ancestral descent are not traits that can be “transcended” merely because of one’s personal mood. Try as she might, Ms. Dolezal can no more become black than I, as a black woman, can become Chinese by imagining a new family tree.

There is also the reality that in 21st-century America Ms. Dolezal’s perceived blackness had its own distinct advantages. While pretending to be black, she gained employment opportunities, including a position teaching African-American studies courses at Eastern Washington University and the presidency of her local NAACP chapter. Exploiting the identity of others came with personal benefits.

In 1952, Ralph Ellison’s novel “Invisible Man” depicted a similar impulse among some in the black community during the Jim Crow era to disown their skin color. Though the strategy was borne of a desire to survive in a racist society, Ellison showed that such exercises in self-abnegation ultimately result in the true captivity of the individual.

At first glance, it may appear that Ms. Dolezal’s story shows how far America has come when someone would rather pass as black than pass as white. But Ellison would have been the first to recognize the problem with such thinking. “Let man keep his many parts,” he wrote in “Invisible Man,” adding that “America is woven of many strands. I would recognize them and let it so remain.” Too bad for Rachel Dolezal that she elected to be the 21st century’s invisible woman.

Ms. Valdary, a Bartley Fellow at the Journal this summer, is a recent graduate of the University of New Orleans.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-ralph-ellison-could-tell-rachel-dolezal-1434582497

 

why are you making an assumption that "any republican politician has plagiarized or use music they did not pay for" just because an artist comes out and says "I don't like so and so using my songs because I disagree with them"... that does not mean they stole the music or did not pay royalties when they did use it (believe me, campaigns pay a lot of money for music rights, every time a song is played at a rally, cha-ching)... companies that own the rights to distribute the songs will sell the rights to use it to anyone, who pays... and I mean anyone, as long as they pay... why would that company care what their politics are, they are in the business of making money... its what they do... I mean look at all the videos on youtube with the "music removed due to copyright issues", its not because the artist doesn't like the video, its because the company in charge of distributing it didn't get paid for its use... thats all... its that simple...

 

I can give a reasonable guess why she was not fired immediately by the NAACP... it is far better, from a legal standpoint, to allow someone to quit, than to fire them... its just a matter of lawsuits... the university has quite lucky allowed her "contract" to expire on june 12th, and there is already talks of a discrimination lawsuit against them for that... litigation has a cost, if organizations can avoid it, they will, and if they can avoid years of paperwork in courts and proceedings, they will settle out of court every single time, its a dollars and cents answer, if battling it for the "truth" will cost 250,000 dollars, but they can settle out of court and only pay 100,000 dollars, its a no brainer from a cost perspective, and thats what most care about today, not who is right or wrong, just what is least expensive...

remember, she has filed legal claims against other organizations in the past for discrimination, in fact part of her job as president was organizing the legal teams to go after people for discrimination and other legal matters, why give her a chance to sue you when you can wait to see social pressure will get her to quit and remove all your legal woes from her filing a claim about you forcing her to leave unjustly...

 

I suppose hating white woman is OK just as long as it isn't Hillary (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)?

I love it...

Dudes with (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and woman with cocks - social issues to look foraward to...

 

Not if you are listening to the lessons Sister Rachel is trying to teach us.

#wrongskinlivesmatter

 

So Rachel's parents adopted black children to further white supremacy? You guys are really going into the weeds with this. I used to mock [trigger warning] you guys, that is to say, leftists, for needing talking points, but there is actually a good reason why you need talking points. On your own you go right off the rails.

 

I think the NAACP played it just about right. They couldn't fire her outright because they look like idiots for being fooled by her. However I imagine some pressure was applied to her to resign so the NAACP could drop out of the story without having to be asked questions about this.

 

this family seems pretty weird, the fact that she adopted the brother as her son shows their was something odd going on there

maybe the parents own a farm, would not be the first time people adopted for labor, who knows

this was one of those homeschooling Christians families, what does the bible say about slavery

not saying anything is true or false, just saying it's out there and anything is possible, we just do no known

all I know is something is off here and I do not know exactly why, can't wait for the movie

I posted the link, don't shoot the messenger.....

so far this entire story has been one of those "you can't make this stuff up, no one would believe you stories" ... so nothing would surprise me
.

 

It may be one of those "you can't make this stuff up, no one would believe you stories" but you seem to be giving a good try. homeschooling Christians adopting kids for slavery? Yeah something is off here!

 

as do you, you just believe different stuff then I do...