Dolezal has drawn outrage from those critical of her appropriation of black culture, as well as her outright deception about her race, but maintained on Friday that she sees herself as "black."
Who is Dolezal, and how did a woman of European descent from northwest Montana come to represent herself as African-American?
Her parents, Ruthanne and Larry Dolezal, are both white and live in the Troy area of Montana, according to local news outlet CDA Press. They say their daughter is not African-American.
Rachel Dolezal, however, has long told a different story. She had a strong message for her biological parents, who questioned Dolezal's claims about her ethnicity, and brought her story to light.
"I don't give two sh*ts what you guys think," Dolezal said in an interview with local television station KREM. "It's more important for me to clarify that with the black community."
Dolezal added that she identifies as black, but not African-American, during the interview.
But in a 2012 profile in local magazine Spokeane CDA, she claimed "African-American, Native American, German, Czech, Swedish, Jewish and Arabic" ancestry.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
In light of this story, I was going to make a joke about applying to be the head of the AACA, until I realized that I technically qualify anyway because of my mother's heritage.
"Dolezal added that she identifies as black, but not African-American, during the interview."
I feel like I went to high school with a lot of people who felt the same way.
Allegedly, she's lied about a LOT of stuff, either directly or through omission. I feel like this needs its own reality show.
June 12, 2015
Baltimore, MD – For 106 years, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has held a long and proud tradition of receiving support from people of all faiths, races, colors and creeds. NAACP Spokane Washington Branch President Rachel Dolezal is enduring a legal issue with her family, and we respect her privacy in this matter. One’s racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership. The NAACP Alaska-Oregon-Washington State Conference stands behind Ms. Dolezal’s advocacy record. In every corner of this country, the NAACP remains committed to securing political, educational, and economic justice for all people, and we encourage Americans of all stripes to become members and serve as leaders in our organization.
Hate language sent through mail and social media along with credible threats continue to be a serious issue for our units in the Pacific Northwest and across the nation. We take all threats seriously and encourage the FBI and the Department of Justice to fully investigate each occurrence.
###
Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest nonpartisan civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities. You can read more about the NAACP’s work and our five “Game Changer” issue areas here.
The Following User Says Thank You to Finger Cookin For This Useful Post:
Good on the NAACP for not nailing her to the cross, hopefully the media doesn't make them do something stupid and actively discriminate against or demean someone because of their race. Even if she is kind of stupid and feels the need to lie about who she is.
If we can have trans-gendered, why not trans-raced?
I don't think it's really a good comparison. There is still a lot not understood about gender, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it is not simply physical. There are chemical and hormonal aspects that can make people mentally one gender while physically another.
Is there anything to suggest that race isn't simply factor of someone's genetic origin after our common ancestors branched out from Africa? Sure, some of the things that are identified with race might be arbitrary and superficial, but I doubt there are many black people that think their race is defined by just how you feel. Culture and nationality can certainly be defined that way, but race seems to have some pretty concrete requirements. I think it is fair for some white people to say that they identify with African American culture, and that is fine. But to say you are black because of it... ridiculous.
On a side note though, good on the NAACP for not dragging her through the mud. There are already white people that promote NAACP causes, so it is not like having a white person running a branch is a huge deal. I am not sure why she needs to alter her appearance though... that is obviously on her alone.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 06-13-2015 at 09:35 PM.
I don't think it's really a good comparison. There is still a lot not understood about gender, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it is not simply physical. There is a chemical and hormonal aspects that can make people mentally one gender while physically another.
Is there anything to suggest that race isn't simply factor of someone's genetic origin after our common ancestors branched out from Africa? Sure, some of the things that are identified with race might be arbitrary and superficial, but I doubt there are many black people that think their race is defined by just how you feel. Culture and nationality can certainly be defined that way, but race seems to have some pretty concrete requirements. I think it is fair for some white people to say that they identify with African American culture, and that is fine. But to say you are black because of it... ridiculous.
On a side note though, good on the NAACP for not dragging her through the mud. There are already white people that promote NAACP causes, to it is not like having a white person running a branch is a huge deal. I am not sure why she needs to alter her appearance though... that is obviously on her alone.
Race is probably less simplistic than gender. While there can be hormonal and emotional differences causing people to feel out of place, for 99.99% of us there is something (or nothing) hanging there that is a yes or no answer.
Race on the other hand is largely based on anecdotal evidence that hasn't been vary easy to substantiate, and appearances vary greatly in as little as 2 or 3 generations making them largely subjective. For example within my family I have heard claims that somewhere in the range of 6-8 generations ago there was some Inuit in the line, But my parents and I are all as white as white can be.
It has gotten allot easier to substantiate race in recent years, but all that has shown us is it is just as complicated as we thought, most of us are well under 50% of one distinguishable group, and many of us are up to 4% a completely different species. While science has given yet another definitive answer to 99% of us about gender and left a vary vary small group in a real scientific grey area.
Race is probably less simplistic than gender. While there can be hormonal and emotional differences causing people to feel out of place, for 99.99% of us there is something (or nothing) hanging there that is a yes or no answer.
Race on the other hand is largely based on anecdotal evidence that hasn't been vary easy to substantiate, and appearances vary greatly in as little as 2 or 3 generations making them largely subjective. For example within my family I have heard claims that somewhere in the range of 6-8 generations ago there was some Inuit in the line, But my parents and I are all as white as white can be.
It has gotten allot easier to substantiate race in recent years, but all that has shown us is it is just as complicated as we thought, most of us are well under 50% of one distinguishable group, and many of us are up to 4% a completely different species. While science has given yet another definitive answer to 99% of us about gender and left a vary vary small group in a real scientific grey area.
This is why I don't like the concept of race, to me it implies another species, human or chimp. What is called race is really a geo spacial cultural thing to me and a gross over simplification into white, black, brown, yellow. Really feels like just trying to draw lines in the sand over colours, but well I guess that's part of racism for yeh.
I think the Dolezal case is one of the most interesting cases in identity politics in probably decades.
The way people are trying to scramble to justify their gut reactions are quite telling. For example, this story that tries to explain why Dolezal should be condemned.
Essentially the argument boils down to...
Quote:
she can take out the box braids and strip off the self-tanner and navigate the world without the stigma tied to actually being black.
...which is exactly the same as saying that "he could just stop having sex with men" or "he could just stop dressing up as a woman". It applies to any female-to-male transgender person who has not had an sex-change operation. (Note: I don't know if this in fact would be an option for Dolezal, as I don't know her personally. But somehow I doubt it.)
The story is also fascinating because it tells us that actually "race" is much more cultural than we like to think. That "being black", and as a logical counterpoint, "being white" are not simply factors of the tone of your skin, but also of your other signals such as use of language and clothes. Which says a lot about the relationship of race and status in general. (Ever notice how the higher up you go up the social ladder the more people start to act and dress like the historic upper classes of Western Europe?)
The Dolezal story also reminds us of something that's already known but generally not discussed; that minorities do not like people who are perceived to have "chosen" to become a part of them.
The very good reason is that in human rights struggles, a simplistic "you can't blame people for the way they were born" has been a very effective way to change attitudes. The fact that this idea of "just born that way" really only covers a part of all the cases is something best ignored if you want to win a public debate ever.
For example, "Homosexuality is not a choice" is an easy answer that works. "Generally speaking for most people now living in homosexual relationships homosexuality is not a choice, but of course we have very little idea how many people there are that might also engage in homosexual activity or relationships should it become widely accepted in the society" is probably much, much closer to reality. It's also tl:dr for most people.
The bad reason is that people are very attached to their own identities, which are often based on these simplistic generalized discussions on identity. So essentially anything challeging a simplistic view on race (or gender, or sexuality) is also a direct personal challenge to the way many people see themselves. For many people the response to such a challenge is hostility.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Dolezal has spent most of her career within the walls of academia. She is a professor in the Africana Studies Program at Eastern Washington University and has immersed herself in black history and culture. Suddenly, this story started to make sense to me. As those of us in the academy know, there is an unspoken social pressure to have a personal connection with the culture you research, and preferably the personal connection is that you are from that culture.
Quote:
I fully understand the intangibles that come with actually being from a culture, not just studying it. However, I felt uneasy about linking academic work to personal experience. How can we inspire our students to study a foreign culture if we discount their input by virtue of who they are and where they are from (or not from)? As one of my other non-Russian colleagues put it, “When did research become me-search?” Reading the criticisms of Dolezal’s work as an Africana Studies professor on social media, I wondered if she had not been trying to avoid what I was running into in my career — academia’s authenticity litmus test.
Head of NAACP Chapter lies about her race
