White woman 'pretends' to be black – for several years *Mod warning in OP*

K4t

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The upshot is basically that Rachel Dolezal used racial stereotypes to appropriate a cultural identity and ethnicity that wasn't who or what she is. She used that identity in a misguided way to ingratiate herself into positions within the black community where, while they can all agree she was saying all the right things, it was insulting to the black community that she was a white woman who appropriated their struggle for equality, to further her own agenda.

Ugh, the usual so.

They really are doing themselves no favours repeating that same train of thought over and over again, at least not in the long run - they're assigning importance to skin colour, which is exactly the kind of thinking that was used to oppress them in the past and still is - they should simply be repeating that race is a clearly a social construct and there is only the human race. Coloured people are oppressed because they're poor in the US. Same as white folk, white trash etc.

LadyFenghuang

Deleted User wrote: »

That is true I suppose. If she was fighting for civil rights though and was helping people then she was still doing a good thing. She lied though and that is wrong. Its weird though how can you 'feel black' surely color is only skin deep so I don't know how you can feel like you are 'black' when you aren't. On the inside we are all the same.

No it's not a good thing. Lying about your parents background is absolutely wrong. It ROBS them of who they are. Backgrounds are individual. They make your experience and shape your view of the world.

LDN_Irish

Has anyone considered the possibility that her parents were abusive and she's created thus backstory to distance herself from her childhood?

Junkyard Tom

K4t wrote: »

they're assigning importance to skin colour, which is exactly the kind of thinking that was used to oppress them in the past and still is

No they're assigning importance to their experience of being actual black people. Dolezal doesn't have this experience she comes from a white background and took on the persona of a black woman which she can discard tomorrow.

LadyFenghuang

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Has anyone considered the possibility that her parents were abusive and she's created thus backstory to distance herself from her childhood?

No.

LDN_Irish

LadyFenghuang wrote: »

No.

Why? It's as plausible as her brainwashing the little brother in to letting her raise him.

LadyFenghuang

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Why? It's as plausible as her brainwashing the little brother in to letting her raise him.

You are the first one to suggest it. Unless you know something we don't?

Junkyard Tom

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Has anyone considered the possibility that her parents were abusive and she's created thus backstory to distance herself from her childhood?

You don't need to go to those lengths to distance yourself from your childhood. Also, the more high-profile she became the greater risk she took of being exposed and the more that would have linked her back to her family of origin.

It's a strange/interesting story that has attracted global attention. I'd say she's being offered good money for an interview..

Someone get The President Oprah on the phone - black woman to black woman.

frostyjacks

Whatever her reasons, she seemed to be acting in good faith. Isn't imitation a form of flattery?

One eyed Jack

K4t wrote: »

Ugh, the usual so.

They really are doing themselves no favours repeating that same train of thought over and over again, at least not in the long run - they're assigning importance to skin colour, which is exactly the kind of thinking that was used to oppress them in the past and still is - they should simply be repeating that race is a clearly a social construct and there is only the human race. Coloured people are oppressed because they're poor in the US. Same as white folk, white trash etc.

For some people though, the idea of race is more than just skin deep. They're doing more than just assigning importance to skin colour, and that's why what this woman did has effectively devalued black people's racial identity. It's far more complex than just doing your hair in a certain style or colouring your skin and taking a language course in ebonics.

The problem with the "race is a social construct" argument is that it's society is the social construct. Society is made up of people of different races, and those people have their own ethnicity and their own culture which has never squared well with another race which has it's own identity, ethnicity and their own culture.

The thing is, that in this case, black people want their identity respected, and a white person appropriating that identity is doing a disservice to black people who have their own racial identity. They shouldn't have to give up their identity in order to be treated equally.

The fact that they want to hold on to their racial identity causes all sorts of problems for people who believe in that whole "one race, race is a social construct" philosophy.

Flippyfloppy

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Has anyone considered the possibility that her parents were abusive and she's created thus backstory to distance herself from her childhood?

Of course something like that is a possibility in her youth, not necessarily by her parents. We'll never know what she did or did not go through to do what she did though.

jobbridge4life

Why is this discussion continuing? She is a fraud. She sued a university for allegedly discriminating against her because she was white. She told a Hispanic person that, that person couldn't advocate for Hispanic rights because they didn't look Hispanic enough.

She is a classic con artist. Enough.

LadyFenghuang

You are jumping to wild conclusions. That alone should tell you the type of damage she has done. Her parents have gone from being denied to being suspected of abuse which is terribly wrong and unfair.

K4t

K4t wrote: »

they should simply be repeating that race is a clearly a social construct

I agree: after all, it is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature does not deal in closed categories. 'Black', white and Asian populations display a huge degree of morphological diversity within themselves. For example, if you ignore skin colour, Barack Obama has more Caucasian features than many Finnish people of indigenous extraction, who look more Asian.

I think it is reasonable to categorise, so long as we are aware that these categories are rough and multi-dimensional, and are totally human constructs, which seems pretty obvious.

Of course, in that case, assuming an alternative ethnic identity seems more understandable. After all, one might simply admire and wish to emulate a particular set of characteristics.

For example, Asians who undergo eye surgery to "westernise" their faces.
White girls can even get tips on how to look like an Asian girl on YouTube.

Coloured people are oppressed because they're poor in the US. Same as white folk, white trash etc.

This I disagree with.

Although race is an arbitrary human construction, it doesn't mean that folk ignore it. Quite the opposite. Black people are discriminated against because they look visually different, and that is called 'black'. Racial discrimination happens because of perceived physical and personality differences, not simply income differences.

hatrickpatrick

Wibbs wrote: »

Hell I'm pissed off that we lost the Erectus

Happens to everyone at some point, no biggie (literally)

LadyFenghuang

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Why is this discussion continuing? She is a fraud. She sued a university for allegedly discriminating against her because she was white. She told a Hispanic person that, that person couldn't advocate for Hispanic rights because they didn't look Hispanic enough.

She is a classic con artist. Enough.

Agreed.
No matter how outrageous their behavior nor how many it offends and hurts they will still think it was ok.

She is a con artist.

hatrickpatrick

MathDebater wrote: »

I really really fcuking hope that American style identity politics doesn't become a thing here over the next decade or two. I think it will though, unfortunately.

It already is on social media. Hasn't quite seeped into mainstream discourse just yet but there are some worrying enough signs that it might.

Junkyard Tom

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think it is reasonable to categorise, so long as we are aware that these categories are rough and multi-dimensional, and are totally human constructs, which seems pretty obvious.

It's unavoidable really because how would you even talk about issues like comparative prison populations, poverty, crime, racism etc if you can't categorise people as black, white or Hispanic (in the US at least).

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The thing is, that in this case, black people want their identity respected, and a white person appropriating that identity is doing a disservice to black people who have their own racial identity. They shouldn't have to give up their identity in order to be treated equally.

Then I once against ask how men dressing in drag is any different?

The fact that they want to hold on to their racial identity causes all sorts of problems for people who believe in that whole "one race, race is a social construct" philosophy.

IMO that means wanting to have one's cake and eat it. Either race should not be used to divide people into sub-groups, or it should. You cannot say it should where it suits me, but it shouldn't where it doesn't.

Imagine for a moment if Irish people were routinely discriminated against today as they once were. Do you not think it would be utterly ridiculous for us to demand equal treatment, while at the same time suggesting that we should enjoy a special exemption from the right to offend?

LDN_Irish

LadyFenghuang wrote: »

You are jumping to wild conclusions. That alone should tell you the type of damage she has done. Her parents have gone from being denied to being suspected of abuse which is terribly wrong and unfair.

She's been alleging abuse against them for years. You're the one who has their mind made up based on what you've read in the media. All I'm saying is she might be telling the truth about the abuse and the con act may be a reaction to that. That's far more plausible than her simply wanting to become a civil rights activist and posing as black to further her career, imo.

LDN_Irish

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Why is this discussion continuing? She is a fraud. She sued a university for allegedly discriminating against her because she was white. She told a Hispanic person that, that person couldn't advocate for Hispanic rights because they didn't look Hispanic enough.

She is a classic con artist. Enough.

That sounds a lot more like someone with mental health problems than a "classic con artist." Unless telling Latinos that they don't look Latino enough to campaign is in fraud 101 class. If she was simply a classic con artist surely she'd have posed as Nigerian royalty.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's unavoidable really because how would you even talk about issues like comparative prison populations, poverty, crime, racism etc if you can't categorise people as black, white or Hispanic (in the US at least).

Perhaps that's a chicken and egg situation.

Arguably, any official, state acknowledgement or implict approval of classification of humans will tend to intensify differences.

For example, in the Republic of Ireland in 2015, no agreeable person cares whether his friend is a Protestant descended from Cromwell's men, a Catholic since St Patrick, or from the Scottish dissenters. In the mid 19th century, not only would we all have known one another's religions, we would have made assumptions about one another on that basis, regularly discriminating in their favour or against them.

It is possible that the end of disestablishment and eventually, the creation of the Irish Free State, muffled-out the acknowledgement of those differences to the extent that these differences had mostly evaporated long before the downfall of Roman Catholicism in the late 20th century.

I think it is inevitable that humans will classify other humans, but I disagree that official recognition achieves much of valuable in civic life.

Junkyard Tom

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Arguably, any official, state acknowledgement or implict approval of classification of humans will tend to intensify differences.

Yes but, in the case of the US, how would we even begin to have a conversation on comparative prison populations if we avoided using the term 'African American'?

K4t

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Has anyone considered the possibility that her parents were abusive and she's created thus backstory to distance herself from her childhood?

I'm sure it's being discussed in meetings of Hollywood producers as we speak.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

No they're assigning importance to their experience of being actual black people. Dolezal doesn't have this experience she comes from a white background and took on the persona of a black woman which she can discard tomorrow.

But that's my point; they're saying that all black people have this shared experience. But it's simply not true - as I said before, the black baby born in Bel Air has more in common with the white baby born next door than the black baby born in a Baltimore project - just as the black baby born in the project as more in common with the white baby born in a Texas trailer park. Of course the history is there of racism and and racism still exists, but if they still think that it's a question of race and not one of income inequality and class then they are only fooling themselves. And by carrying on this argument about "black experience" they are only perpetuating the idea of differences of race, which racists will happily exploit for their own advantage.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yes but, in the case of the US, how would we even begin to have a conversation on comparative prison populations if we avoided using the term 'African American'?

Because it risks reinforcing prejudice. Why not focus on the economic disadvantage of all prisoner backgrounds, for example?

I doubt there are many wealthy African Americans from stable families behind bars, for example. I doubt there are many wealthy white Americans from stable families behind bars either.

The crux of the issue is income equality, and equality of access to public goods. If America could foster greater equality among all its people, it would need to focus less on debates about whether prisoners are black, white or hispanic, which doesn't really get us anywhere.

K4t

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

This I disagree with.

Although race is an arbitrary human construction, it doesn't mean that folk ignore it. Quite the opposite. Black people are discriminated against because they look visually different, and that is called 'black'. Racial discrimination happens because of perceived physical and personality differences, not simply income differences.

Of course racism exists, but I think you overestimate it in the US, which is easy to do when you look at incarceration rates, education levels and income levels etc. But again that is down to being poor, not skin colour - people are not arrested in the US solely for being of a certain skin colour. It's 150 years or so since slavery was abolished in the US and the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century is a lifetime ago now. I don't think the visual difference plays in the mind of most white Americans anymore, just as it doesn't in the mind of most Irish people. But it obviously does in the minds of many 'black' people and therein lies the problem - there is definitely a theme of reveling in their own oppression too imo. I think the problem is absolutely that the majority are poor, or that most of the poor inner city areas are inhabited by people of colour - There is a coloured president and let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of well off and educated coloured people in the US - the visual aspect is not the problem imo.

Junkyard Tom

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The crux of the issue is income equality, and equality of access to public goods.

Which wilfully ignores that racism plays a huge part in people finding themselves in those socio-economic conditions and plays a part in their staying there.

Junkyard Tom

K4t wrote: »

But that's my point; they're saying that all black people have this shared experience. But it's simply not true

Well they all share the experience of being black for starters and that is in the context of a country with a white majority. They would also all have a shared history of being from a slave population. So yes, they would all have some degree of shared experience.

the black baby born in Bel Air has more in common with the white baby born next door than the black baby born in a Baltimore project

But would still be black and could still have experiences analogous to poor black people only in a different social stratum. Racism doesn't suddenly evaporate after people reach a certain social status.

just as the black baby born in the project as more in common with the white baby born in a Texas trailer park.

Except the poor black person is more likely to end up in the justice system.

Of course the history is there of racism and and racism still exists, but if they still think that it's a question of race and not one of income inequality and class then they are only fooling themselves.

Seriously, you're going to dismiss the experiences of black people as 'fooling themselves'? As I said above to ignore racism would be to ignore perhaps the primary contributing factor that leads to income inequality as regards black people.

Junkyard Tom

K4t wrote: »

Of course racism exists, but I think you overestimate it in the US, which is easy to do when you look at incarceration rates, education levels and income levels etc. But again that is down to being poor, not skin colour - people are not arrested in the US solely for being of a certain skin colour. It's 150 years or so since slavery was abolished in the US and the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century is a lifetime ago now. I don't think the visual difference plays in the mind of most white Americans anymore, just as it doesn't in the mind of most Irish people. But it obviously does in the minds of many 'black' people and therein lies the problem - there is definitely a theme of reveling in their own oppression too imo.

There you go folks, black people's struggle is over and now the problem with black people is how they see themselves.

Dear oh dear.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Then I once against ask how men dressing in drag is any different?

Are men dressing in drag campaigning for equality for women?

I don't think they are, and if for example Rory O' Neill (Ireland's most famous 'gender discombobulator') was to stand up in the Abbey and give it welly about women's equality, you can guarantee there'd be people in the audience squinting very hard and finding it difficult to take him seriously, because Panti Bliss is a persona, one that he can discard in the morning if he wanted. A woman can't do that, no more than someone who is black can pretend to be white, or indeed vice versa.

IMO that means wanting to have one's cake and eat it. Either race should not be used to divide people into sub-groups, or it should. You cannot say it should where it suits me, but it shouldn't where it doesn't.

I've never once said it shouldn't, but neither is fighting for equal recognition and respect of the fact that a person is of another race "having one's cake and eating it". I'd see it as more - "share the cake you've got, because right now I don't have any", or to hark back to Martin Luther King's famous "I have a dream" speech, it's like white people telling black people that they aren't suitably dressed to eat at the same table -

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit together at the table of brotherhood.

Source: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm

Imagine for a moment if Irish people were routinely discriminated against today as they once were. Do you not think it would be utterly ridiculous for us to demand equal treatment, while at the same time suggesting that we should enjoy a special exemption from the right to offend?

I don't get what you mean here tbh?

"Exemption from the right to offend"?

Nope, I'm baffled as to how that could apply to people who are asking that you respect the fact that though they are not the same race as you are, they should have equal access to the same opportunities that you do.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Which wilfully ignores that racism plays a huge part in people finding themselves in those socio-economic conditions and plays a part in their staying there.

No, I don't ignore it, but I see American racism against blacks as a relic of economics and history.

I have some good natured, college-educated friends from the Irish Riviera who voted for Obama and would be appalled to be called racists, but sometimes make blatantly racist presumptions about poor urban blacks: they're stupid; they don't work hard enough; they are aggressive, so if they approach your car, you lock the door. These blacks are seen as a different 'type' of black person than some respectable black teacher who educates children.

This isn't exclusively racism, nor is it exclusively socio-economic background, because middle class Americans don't tend to feel this way about whites; it's a complex interplay between the two, where poverty reinforces a racial tension that doesn't exist against richer blacks.

Fundamentally, therefore, the problem is one of economic inequality.

K4t wrote: »

Of course racism exists, but I think you overestimate it in the US

I don't so much overestimate as I suggest that there is racism, but that racism derives from blatant economic inequality.

For example, about 30% of Americans believe blacks are less intelligent than whites. In fact, there's a chance they are correct: poverty and intelligence are correlated because poor children don't have access to the same resources as richer children. Poor mothers don't feed their children as well as richer mothers, so children don't develop equally.

So when 75% of white Americans say that they wouldn't live in a neighbourhood where most of their neighbours were black, that's racism, but a specific type of racism that is informed by the disadvantage suffered by blacks as a result of income inequality and the historical artefacts of black oppression.

There's no reason to believe Americans are more inherently racist than anybody else (wouldn't that itself be racist?), and therefore whilst I accept American racism exist, it is not so much race-hatred as a view of blacks which is prejudiced by poverty and disadvantaged, which reinforces an anti-black sentiment in the USA.

Source for the statistics above
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/race-society/white-racial-attitudes-over-time-data-general-social-survey

se02orqua5xz9v

Well, she's stepped down at as head of the Spokane NAACP. Here is a copy of her resignation letter.

Dear Executive Committee and NAACP Members,

It is a true honor to serve in the racial and social justice movement here in Spokane and across the nation. Many issues face us now that drive at the theme of urgency. Police brutality, biased curriculum in schools, economic disenfranchisement, health inequities, and a lack of pro-justice political representation are among the concerns at the forefront of the current administration of the Spokane NAACP. And yet, the dialogue has unexpectedly shifted internationally to my personal identity in the context of defining race and ethnicity.

I have waited in deference while others expressed their feelings, beliefs, confusions and even conclusions - absent the full story. I am consistently committed to empowering marginalized voices and believe that many individuals have been heard in the last hours and days that would not otherwise have had a platform to weigh in on this important discussion. Additionally, I have always deferred to the state and national NAACP leadership and offer my sincere gratitude for their unwavering support of my leadership through this unexpected firestorm.

While challenging the construct of race is at the core of evolving human consciousness, we can NOT afford to lose sight of the five Game Changers (Criminal Justice & Public Safety, Health & Healthcare, Education, Economic Sustainability, and Voting Rights & Political Representation) that affect millions, often with a life or death outcome. The movement is larger than a moment in time or a single person's story, and I hope that everyone offers their robust support of the Journey for Justice campaign that the NAACP launches today!

I am delighted that so many organizations and individuals have supported and collaborated with the Spokane NAACP under my leadership to grow this branch into one of the healthiest in the nation in 5 short months. In the eye of this current storm, I can see that a separation of family and organizational outcomes is in the best interest of the NAACP.

It is with complete allegiance to the cause of racial and social justice and the NAACP that I step aside from the Presidency and pass the baton to my Vice President, Naima Quarles-Burnley. It is my hope that by securing a beautiful office for the organization in the heart of downtown, bringing the local branch into financial compliance, catalyzing committees to do strategic work in the five Game Changer issues, launching community forums, putting the membership on a fast climb, and helping many individuals find the legal, financial and practical support needed to fight race-based discrimination, I have positioned the Spokane NAACP to buttress this transition.

Please know I will never stop fighting for human rights and will do everything in my power to help and assist, whether it means stepping up or stepping down, because this is not about me. It's about justice. This is not me quitting; this is a continuum. It's about moving the cause of human rights and the Black Liberation Movement along the continuum from Resistance to Chattel Slavery to Abolition to Defiance of Jim Crow to the building of Black Wall Street to the Civil Rights and Black Power Movement to the ‪#‎BlackLivesMatter‬ movement and into a future of self-determination and empowerment.

With much love and a commitment to always fight for what is right and good in this world,

Rachel Dolezal

InTheTrees

She lied. Thats the problem.

jill_valentine

LadyFenghuang wrote: »

Agreed.
No matter how outrageous their behavior nor how many it offends and hurts they will still think it was ok.

She is a con artist.

Not necessarily. Or at least not entirely.

There's a weirdly not infrequent - and I speak anecdotally - phenomenon of prominent online lesbian personalities, usually with especially tragic backstories, like posters or bloggers, turning out to be straight guys. They campaign, they debate, they invest enormous and obsessive amounts of time into claiming some kind of profile in their respective circles, they make the right noises often enough to drown out the wrong ones, but they're just not lesbians. They can keep this up for months or even years before being unmasked, and in that time develop and describe incredibly complex, and completely fictitious narratives about "themselves" and their uniquely hard circumstances.


Those guys aren't trolls in the classic sense - who are a whole other issue - because they don't mean or recognise the harm they do, nor are they con men in the classic sense, because they aren't doing it purely for monetary gain.

The reward seems to be in some kind of emotional need. What that is, I honestly have no idea, but this lady reminds me of them a lot. I don't know if she's actually crazy, but I do see this as something far more deep rooted than just material exploitation.

worded

Her letter of resignation - what a mouth full.

Nixon had less to say.

Axel Lamp

As my grandmother used to say "what a loo-la"

Eugene Norman

There's a fair amount of cis-racial privilege amongst her detractors, black and white.

jank

Cant say I disagree too much with George Will's major two points here.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/16/george_will_social_constructs_allow_left_to_turn_white_into_black_and_black_into_white.html#ooid=VtYzZwdTodc7vuDkvth7n1pglLbHKP5G

The Diabolical Monocle

Eugene Norman wrote: »

There's a fair amount of cis-racial privilege amongst her detractors, black and white.

She's got attitude though.

She could form a group composed of women like her.

They could be called women with attitude or w.w.a.

Nodin

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

She's got attitude though.

She could form a group composed of women like her.

They could be called women with attitude or w.w.a.

W.W.I. would be more apt.
http://gawker.com/rachel-dolezal-theres-no-biological-proof-who-my-rea-1711847882

osarusan

Nodin wrote: »

W.W.I. would be more apt.
http://gawker.com/rachel-dolezal-theres-no-biological-proof-who-my-rea-1711847882

She needs to stop talking for a while. For her own sake.

Nodin

osarusan wrote: »

She needs to stop talking for a while. For her own sake.

Yep. However being in America, until she decides to keep her gob shut, theres going to be a mic and a camera in front of her everytime she comes out with fresh crap. Sad, in some ways.

Arsemageddon

MathDebater wrote: »

I really really fcuking hope that American style identity politics doesn't become a thing here over the next decade or two. I think it will though, unfortunately.

We have the GAA to take care of that for us.

What better way to show pride in your heritage and identity than boxing the head off some fella from Cavan when the ref isn't looking?

Paramite Pie

Nothing about being white describes who I am. So, you know, what’s the word for it? The closest thing that I can come to is if you’re black or white, I’m black. I’m more black than white. On a level of values, lived experience currently. In this moment, that’s the answer. That’s the accurate answer from my truth. But I hope the dialogue continues to push against, ‘what is race? what is ethnicity?

Why is she conflating culture with ethnicity? If an asian kid is adopted and raised by white parents, and that kid can't relate to Asian culture as an Adult, are they white?

No, they're culturally European/Western but ethnically Asian.

This woman identifies with US Black culture. Fine. But she's not Ethnically black. An ethnic group is clearly defined (however broad), as is race. It's almost like she's living vicariously through her sons, taking on their identity.

However it seems rather likely that she was the one sending the hatemail herself, which considering that mail was targeting her kids as well as herself, is extremely delusional. If this is true, she's willing to instill fear into her kids from a racist boogeyman for what end? To reinforce her perceived identity? To scare her children so that her boys would 'need' her so she should coddle them?

Now she's questioning whether her biological parents are her real parents? A DNA test would solve that easily but I doubt she'd want to be faced by that. By dismissing her family, she can immerse herself more in this new identity.

Junkyard Tom

Sweet muppetry, instead of saying 'I done fucked up' she's traded her shovel for an excavator to dig herself further down towards the centre of the Earth.

Shut up woman - rescue what little credibility you might have left and shut up.

frostyjacks

I don't understand in this day and age where diversity is celebrated, where people are appluaded for changing religion (or shunning it), nationality, sexuality, gender, even their very sex if they have the money, why this woman is getting pilloried. I read an article by a black woman on the Guardian site who was calling her a thief, accusing her of white supremacy, all kinds of nonsense.

Why should race be off limits when we can change everything else about our identity?

folamh

kneemos wrote: »

Looks white to my untrained eye.

Who exactly did she fool?

This has been puzzling me too. Sister looks blatantly white. Surely her friends and colleagues must have suspected something? And if she achieved the look with fake tan, there must be people who would have seen her without it?

Paramite Pie

frostyjacks wrote: »

I don't understand in this day and age where diversity is celebrated, where people are appluaded for changing religion (or shunning it), nationality, sexuality, gender, even their very sex if they have the money, why this woman is getting pilloried.

Why should race be off limits when we can change everything else about our identity?

1. Religion is a belief. Beliefs change all the time.
2. Nationality is essentially legal recognition from a government that you are part of that State. People can move to other countries.
3. Sexuality is who makes you horny.
4. Gender/Sex reassignment is more complex than all the above, but transgender brains have been proven to be somewhere in between male/female, bolstering their claims.

Race is genetic inheritance, often coming with cultural baggage. You can't change your lineage. She questions her birth cert and claims she has no way of proving who her parents are.

We generally praise people who over come some form of hardship. This lady seems to have concocted a false hardship based on other peoples experiences, allegedly even sending herself hate mail then reporting it to the police/media.

It'd be like me claiming I had family members in the holocaust because I wanted to identify with Jewish people and their struggle.

If she wanted to just simply identify/relate with another culture/style that'd be ok in my books. But being dishonest about isn't right. I feel like she's running from something other than herself.

folamh wrote: »

This has been puzzling me too. Sister looks blatantly white. Surely her friends and colleagues must have suspected something? And if she achieved the look with fake tan, there must be people who would have seen her without it?

Mariah Carey has a black father and is mixed race but her physiology is white skin with blond hair. It can happen.

Eugene Norman

I wanna be Japanese. Or big in Japan. Or both.

Iwasfrozen

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I wanna be Japanese. Or big in Japan. Or both.

I am a black japanese homosexual female and you're oppressing me if you say I'm not*. :P

*No offence to any japanese, black, homosexual or transgendered people intended.