Rachel Dolezal Is Nearly Homeless, On Food Stamps And Still White

Daily Caller ^ | February 25, 2017 | Rob Shimshock

[a fool in paradise]

I would call Shaun King. He seems to be doing fine.

< /Seinfeld >

[Stepan12]

I remember that crappy movie.

[Vigilanteman]

Yes, I mean ancestors. Sorry.

[Vigilanteman]

You may be splitting hairs, but the first sale was in Virginia in 1619 which predated the arrival of the pilgrims a year later. Technically, they were indentured servants because there was no legally established concept of slavery in the Virginia Company colony. I’m not sure, but suspect that was corrected before 1630.

[Vigilanteman]

Dr. King's records, unfortunately, go back no more than about three generations, so hard to say. I recall reading an article about one of his brothers doing the DNA test thing and finding a lot of white blood, 155 or so seems to stick in my mind.

For those with slave ancestry, records are either very good (if the owner kept breeding records) or nearly non-existent (most cases as few did), the reason why mostly just suspected or was stuff of family folklore before DNA testing became widely available.

DNA testing isn't expensive anymore, $50 or so in most cases. Swab a cheek, screw it back in the provided tube, send it off and get your results a couple of weeks later.

I don't suggest it as a primary source, but definitely helpful when there are no authentic records available.

People are often shocked to find different DNA origin results from siblings of the same parents. They shouldn't be. Just as traits like eye or hair color may differ depending on which sperm and egg cells combined, so do the national origin markers. Of course, they are not going to vary greatly. One brother isn't going to have 80% Native American DNA, while the other shows 20%, but a 5-10% difference is normal.

[Wonder Warthog]

"You may be splitting hairs, but the first sale was in Virginia in 1619 which predated the arrival of the pilgrims a year later. Technically, they were indentured servants because there was no legally established concept of slavery in the Virginia Company colony. I’m not sure, but suspect that was corrected before 1630."

Could be. I came by my info not from any study of early slavery, but from family history. But my main point is that the "northern colonies" were just as guilty on the acceptance of slavery as the southern.

[Vigilanteman]

Correct. There is a cool map on Wikipedia under the heading "slavery in America" which shows the progression of time of abolition.

Pennsylvania was the first to do so. Massachusetts soon followed. The motivation was when the bodies were collected from the Battle of Bunker Hill for burial. There were a significant number of Black soldier who died fighting for our side in that battle, so much so that it led Massachusetts to follow Pennsylvania's lead.

As a sidenote, I am a member of S.A.R. (the male equivalent of the far more numerous and famous DAR). We have black members who are descendants of American Revolution veterans. In fact, there are whole chapters of them in some areas. A North Carolina chapter was featured in our last quarter's magazine.

[Impala64ssa]

Too Bad! Hey, Rachel, let this be a lesson to you. Next time you profit off of a scam, PUT THE MONEY AWAY!

[Impala64ssa]

Also,

[Impala64ssa]

Looks like her CHICKENS HAVE COME HOME TO ROOST!

[AuntB]

“She sums it up well.....she’s a sicko victim. “

Yes, Ma’am!

[ScottinVA]

Nobody will embrace your victimology, Rachel? Well, remember girlfriend....

[Lumper20]

Exactly. The ones who lie like her and Warren make me puke. They do it to obtain so called AA slots in colleges/jobs, plus to obtain many other bennies.