Posted on 06/17/2015 5:01:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
This week, Rachel Dolezal, the former local head of the Spokane NAACP, a lecturer in Africana studies at Eastern Washington University, and a proud black woman, was revealed to be a non-proud white woman. She lied about her personal history: She said her parents whipped her when they lived in South Africa, that she underwent rape and physical abuse, that the KKK targeted her with swastikas and nooses. No evidence exists to support any of this. Her parents point out that Dolezal has no black ancestry, and grew up in a Montana home as the child of two white parents.
Nonetheless, Dolezal insists she is black. "I was drawing self-portraits with the brown crayon instead of the peach crayon, and black curly hair," she said to Today. "It's a little more complex than me identifying as black or answering a question of, are you black or white?"
Just two weeks ago, the world went gaga over Bruce Jenner's transformation into Caitlyn Jenner; the left passionately insisted that Jenner's genetics, hormones and penis did not mean he could not be a woman. The president of the United States felt the need to tweet out his support for Jenner, stating, "It takes courage to share your story." Anyone who abided by the antiquated notion that biological sex exists was treated as a Neanderthal holdover.
Now, however, the left insists that Rachel Dolezal is not black. On June 9, The Daily Beast headlined, "Caitlyn Jenner Is Pissing Off Feminists and Bigots -- Good for Her." Three days later, The Daily Beast headlined, "BREAKING: NAACP 'Stands Behind' Fake Black Woman." The left insists on preserving non-biological, illegitimate racial barriers because they exploit those racial barriers for political gain; the left insists on destroying biologically based sexual differences because they wish to overthrow all established sexual mores.
So what distinguishes Jenner from Dolezal? On what basis can we reject Dolezal's blackness, given that the left has now redefined objective reality as self-definition? If you want to be a woman, you are a woman. If you want to be black, why can't you be black?
Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine makes the odd argument that Jenner had transformed into a woman because Jenner sincerely believes that he has transformed into a woman, whereas Dolezal had fraudulently lied about her race for gain. Now that Dolezal has averred her sincerity, presumably she is black.
Or perhaps there is some objective measure of race? But that, too, fails on the merits: Sex is significantly more biological than race, and it is significantly more significant than race. Skin color is surely biological, but the relevance of race is purely sociological, as even those on the left acknowledge. As Ian Haney Lopez of U.C. Berkeley writes, biology "refutes the supposition that racial divisions reflect fundamental genetic differences." Black people have black skin, but how black must your skin be for you to be legitimately black? In the Old South, one drop of black blood made you black, and therefore fit for discrimination. But that was a racist societal distinction, not a biologically based one. As Rachel Dolezal puts it, if you go far back enough, "we're all from the African continent."
Perhaps race is a societal construct and can change, but society must uphold racial differences for some greater goal? But that would be pure racism: The goal of fighting racism would be to alleviate racial distinctions, which have no behavioral basis, despite the musings of the would-be comedians at #AskRachelDolezal.
And so we come to this inescapable conclusion: By the left's standards, Rachel Dolezal is black. She can choose her race, just as Bruce Jenner can choose his sex. And she didn't choose. She always felt that way. After all, no one would choose to be black, just as no one would choose to be gay -- blacks are so put upon in American society that no one would fake being black for, say, the benefits of employment or mainstream leftist celebration.
Perhaps we can all learn from Rachel Dolezal: Race doesn't matter. Except that it does for people like Rachel Dolezal, which is why she went black. Rachel Dolezal is a poster child for the deconstructionist, victim-manufacturing left. But now she's learning: Once you go black, the left will make you go back.
Yeah, if I had “self identified” as a Black, Trans-woman, Lesbian, Native American, Hispanic Surname, +5 in the Diversity Derby when applying to Med School I would have worried a lot less about my grades and MCAT scores and partied a whole more.
what pray tell is gentrification?
Just another fringe lunatic liberal.
I want to be rich. Ok leftists, “support” me - send me your money. Note, that is *your* money, not someone else’s... After all, I’m asking for *your* support. Put up or shut up.
I do think she’s a bit nuts but I have no love for her parents. I’ve seen what adoption of several children can do to the biological children in a family. In this case, she saw her parents adopt four black kids. You know that some of these adopted kids were a bit damaged and/or fragile which left a lot less time for the parents to spend with Raquel. The parents then out her. I guess her success didn’t make them happy. What do they hope to gain from this? A book deal? A few trips to New York.
Did I ever mention that I am Napoleon?
If the reparationists are successful, Rachel Dolezal has paved the way for a truly massive wave of “transitioning” by whites from their “assigned ethnicity.”
As Michael Jackson was white.
No, actually it's very simple. You don't have the genes to be black and Bruce Jenner does have the Y chromosome that makes him male. Call yourselves what you want. You are both laughing stocks and provide me with much amusement.
Succinctly put!
Amusingly, the (usually leftist) very first people to "discover' and move into the slum get very upset when other people are inspired by the improvements they made and follow after them to further enhance the neighborhood.
So, I think we’ve put the fine-honed point on the definition -
“black” is not a race, it’s a political persuasion.
She “hurt” the leftist cause by exposing that there is indeed “black privilege” which she was taking advantage of.
As a white woman, she would not have attained the positions, benefits, and rewards she did as a black woman.
And best yet, this embarrasses and exposes leftist hypocrisy.
I can just see some public scoool teacher presenting that photo and asking the heads full of mush, "Which one is a dolphin?" Johnny raises hand and says the one on the left. The Teacher says, no, they are both dolphins because the one on the right identifies itself as a dolphin. Johnny stays after school for remedial indoctrination.
The science is settled on this. From a biological stand-point, there is a lot less genetic difference between a white woman and a black woman than there is between a white man and a white woman.
If the left is going to welcome and embrace people who "self-identify" their sex then they must also welcome and embrace people who "self-identify" their race. To do otherwise would be to reject science - and since leftists are so much smarter than we neanderthal conservatives, they would never reject clear, irrefutable, science...
...would they?
Brilliant!
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Did your parents have any children that lived?
Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, yes, sir.
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: I bet they regret that. You’re so ugly you could be a modern art masterpiece! What’s your name fat body?
Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, Leonard Lawrence, sir.
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Lawrence? Lawrence what... of Arabia?
Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, no, sir.
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: That name sounds like royalty. Are you royalty?
Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, no, sir.
You know the rest, but I may get banned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.