"But you picked a specific way that you said it can’t be done -- somewhat implying there might be other ways it could be done" So sorry. No way that it can be done. She was born Caucasian from Northern European stock, and can in no way "become" black. She can think she's black, which is her brand of psychosis, but she has no right to ask us to play along and affirm her psychosis as being real. She's a Caucasian woman with makeup and a very convincing perm.
"It sounds like you are/were more angry about Dolezal’s conduct, and wanted to disparage her as “self-hating” and motivated by wanting supposed advantages." She doesn't sound like she's at ease with her racial heritage, hence the "self-hating" assumption. The advantages were in being black -- the only way to head up that particular NAACP office. She's not going to get far by saying, "Hi. I'm Rachel Dolezal, and although my parents are both Caucasian, they adopted some black children, and I always identified with them more than I did my own heritage. I'd like to be the director of this office because I am totally down with the struggle." They would have laughed her out of the building. So yes, there were advantages. She's nobody as Rachel Dolezal, average white girl. She's somebody as Rachel Dolezal, black SJW.
"If she wants to identify with black people, so what?" Nothing whatsoever -- she goes around saying she's just as black as her husband (or ex-husband, I think), and for everyone who knows her background she's as crazy as a loon. She needs therapy, and I hope she gets it.
But in today's society, we're supposed to accept this as normal and not mention that she's not in any way white, that she lied to people for gain, that she's a fraud and a pathological liar. In fact, we're supposed to affirm the lie that she's black. That's one step beyond the pale. I will help her find help for her psychosis, but I won't help enable it.
reply
share
Bobby Briggs Briganza (485)
7 years ago
"The advantages were in being black -- the only way to head up that particular NAACP office.”
Wow, that’s a pretty LONG con!! The lady has been identifying with black culture for many years. It’s not like she has had this goal in mind just to trick everyone to achieve the wonderful and glamorous position of working for the NAACP! haha She wouldn’t be their choice as a leader, but she could probably work for them even if white (why not?). Again, it’s not like being black was going to help her con her way into any spectacular position. Rather, she identifies as black (whether we think that is silly or not), she wants to help and hang out with black people, AND she found a job to do that. Yup! - Her presenting herself as Black WAS deceptive. But identifying as Black was already a given, not a ploy to get the NAACP job.
“...in today's society, we're supposed to accept ... we're supposed to affirm the lie...”
No we’re not. This is where I think you’re blowing this out of proportion. The fact that Dolezal immediately got called out and now (she claims) can’t find work because people shame her is proof that people don’t have to and in fact don’t accept this. There is literally zero pressure on you to accept that Dolezal is trans-racial. The way you early brought in a random extra about “We don’t get to decide... what age we are” (Who said anything about age?) suggests you’re worried about all these nonexistent slippery slopes. It’s the “I identify myself as an attack helicopter” rhetoric. Look, if a person with one “black” parent and one “white” parent can choose to consider themselves black or white, then this idea of choosing the race you identify is not THAT crazy. You may still feel that the degree of difference between your appearance and/or heritage and how you identify, after a point, is too much to accept as reasonable, but that doesn’t put the notion of fluidity of ethnicity anywhere near the notion of being a different age or a dog identifying as a cat or other silly extreme scenarios.
The proverbial boy who was raised by wolves thought he was a wolf. Was he mentally ill? Perhaps. But conceding that, “hmm, it makes sense the boy thinks he’s a wolf” doesn’t threaten our reality.
reply
share
Destinata (2600)
7 years ago
There was a poster above who urged you to look into Dolezal's background of conning people. It seems that whenever things didn't go her way, she started accusing people of violence and threats. She likes being a minority, she likes portraying herself as being a victim because of it. She's worked this con for, as you say, most of her life. This culminated with her being exposed as faking racial threats against her.
She also learned early on that she could get recognition for her black-themed art that she wouldn't have gotten if she'd painted, say, Western landscapes. She climbed the ladder by this long con -- from getting into Howard University to becoming the head of the NAACP in Spokane. For her, being "black" paid in one way or another.
"Look, if a person with one 'black' parent and one 'white' parent can choose to consider themselves black or white, then this idea of choosing the race you identify is not THAT crazy." But Dolezal is of Czech, German and Swedish heritage, so in her case it's nothing but a con.
"The proverbial boy who was raised by wolves thought he was a wolf. Was he mentally ill?" If Rachel Dolezal were raised by blacks, your metaphor would be apt. It's not. Even so, Dolezal is reaping what she has sown. I would expect a white woman raised by blacks who identified as black to tell people that she was adopted, but she identified with the black CULTURE -- NOT that her race was anything other than white.
It's the difference between right and wrong, the truth and a lie.
reply
share
Bobby Briggs Briganza (485)
7 years ago
Your reasoning is failing because you can’t decide whether you want to argue about the general philosophical topic or the specific case and ad hominem details of this person.
I ask you to defend your position on the idea of “trans-racial” and you jump to character attacks on Dolezal.
I ask you to disregard the statistically insignificant individual, and you extrapolate her weirdness outwards into a supposedly major issue that “they are asking us to accept” along with other non-existent issues.
Race IS culture. It is culture with a basis in the real/biology, yes. Nonetheless it remains a cultural concept. Culture is malleable. Race is way more malleable than gender. The degrees to which you can play with the concept and be accepted do vary, but this isn’t the limitation of biology, it’s the limitation of people’s thoughts.
It’s kind of like “God” in that way. God is not real, physically. But so many people believe in this God thing that it’s a big turd in the toilet bowl that we can’t ignore. If someone starts saying they have some unusual idea of “God,” like God is a big bowl of ice cream, then a majority of the God-believers in the world are going to say that is wacky... Hmm, maybe that person “needs psychological help”! Still, the regular God-believers aren’t right either; their view just has more currency. Someone who doesn’t believe in “God” sees that the Ice Cream Bowl God believer is weird, but can’t fault them for being less rational than the other God-believers.
reply
share
Destinata (2600)
7 years ago
"I ask you to defend your position on the idea of 'trans-racial' and you jump to character attacks on Dolezal." Dolezal is the perfect example of why one cannot be "transracial." She's white, not black. She says she identifies as black, even though she's of Northern European stock. You mention people with a black ancestor identifying as black -- we're not talking about that, here. We're talking about someone who wants people to believe she's TRANSitioned from Northern European white to black, and that we should accept that and react to her as if she IS black when she's clearly not. One cannot transition from one race to another.
Now, if you want to believe she can, and you want to aid her delusion, go for it. She needs people like you to continue her fantasy.
"Race IS culture." Black culture in America isn't black culture in Africa or black culture in the West Indies, etc. Whites think there's some amorphous "Black Culture," but there isn't. And a black child raised by Hispanic parents and denied access to any of the black cultures is going to be part of the Hispanic culture, just as a black child raised by whites who denied him access to the local black culture would also reflect that family's millieu. That doesn't mean the black person ceases to be black -- that's his race. He didn't transition from black to Hispanic because he identifies more with their culture. He's black. Race can exist separate from culture.
Dolezal appropriates black culture, darkens her skin and perms her hair and voilà -- we have a white woman trying to pass for black, and eventually her lies caught up to her. We do not suddenly have a black woman. As the other guy pointed out, there's a reason the NAACP isn't defending her at this point. She's simply a case of cultural appropriation taken to a delusional level.
reply
share
Bobby Briggs Briganza (485)
7 years ago
Holy crap.
By “race is culture,” in the context of what I was saying, it was that CONCEPTS of race are cultural, and therefore there is much potential for get area. This is plain from the paragraph; I don’t know why you pulled out one sentence are started equivocating with the 3 words in it.
And how many times do I have to say that I don’t care about Dolezal? You’re trying to argue a universal question from the example of one person.
Stop being such an alarmist. These issues are not new.
To clarify or restate my position:
The idea of “trans-racial,” while definitely edgy, is not so crazy philosophically. It is, in fact, more reasonable than the idea of transgender, which, paradoxically, has gained a lot of traction. The probable reason why the more-reasonable notion of trans-racial does not get traction has to do with irrational thinking by both the political left and right. The irrational left are obsessed with ideas about race and power, and get very touchy about how supposed power imbalances play out across such a racial shift. The irrational right are too wedded to the narrow conservative values of their own experience to engage in an exploration for truth that considers evidence from the range of people and culture of the world.
reply
share
Destinata (2600)
7 years ago
"And how many times do I have to say that I don’t care about Dolezal? You’re trying to argue a universal question from the example of one person." She's the perfect example of my argument, though. I say people can't transition from one race to another, and I get an argument from you.
Okay. Say there's someone who had a black father and a white mother who got divorced, but he spent time in both cultures. Let's also say wants to say he's white. I'll say he's still bi-racial. What he says doesn't change that.
If he wants to say he "identifies" as white, that is to say in his personal *opinion* he's white, he's entitled to that opinion. It still doesn't change his real race, but it's how he wants to see himself. If in the circles he travels, everyone agrees to accept him as white, that's their business, too. But he can't change the term that forensic and physical anthropologists would use to describe his race by mere opinion or "identifying" one way or another.
Fair enough?
Now, if some white lady with Northern European heritage -- period -- up and decides she's black for whatever reason, that also does not change her race simply because she "identifies" as black. But in her case, it's an out and out con job since she has zero in the way of black heritage to bring to the table.
And even the fellow who wants to be seen as white, if he doesn't LOOK white, he has no basis on which to demand others see him as he wants to be seen. Why? Because he can't change his race. If he LOOKS black, they're going to react to him as if he IS black.
My car identifies as a Porche. I try to enable its delusions, but the mechanic says he can't be a part of it -- it's a Chevy and it always will be a Chevy. I think he's a bigot and doesn't understand that make and model can be malleable. He said, "I'll malleable you!" as he chased me out of the garage. He's obviously ignorant. "Malleable" isn't a verb.
I've spent all the time I'm going to trying to explain the obvious to you. You may have the last word.
reply
share