As evidenced by the fact that no one has started a thread about this (http://"http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/12/spokane-naacp-president-rachel-dolezal-may-be-white/") yet.
QuoteA controversy is raging over whether a prominent Washington state civil rights activist and Howard University graduate who claimed she was African American is actually white.
Rachel Dolezal, 37, is the president of the Spokane NAACP and has claimed to be the victim of a number of hate crimes. As questions were raised about the veracity of some of her reports this week, a white couple from Montana came forward to claim that Dolezal is their daughter.
Earlier this week, KXLY4 asked Dolezal about a photo posted to the NAACP chapter's Facebook page of a black man identified as Dolezal's father.
"I was wondering if your dad really is an African American man," Jeff Humphrey of KXLY4 asked Dolezal.
"That's a very ... I mean, I don't know what you're implying," Dolezal said.
"Are you African American?" Humphrey said.
"I don't understand the question," Dolezal said. She walked off-camera as Humphrey asked: "Are your parents, are they white?"
----
Rachel Dolezal did not return requests for comment. However, she dodged questions about her race this week after allegations that some hate crimes she had reported were fabricated.
"That question is not as easy as it seems," Dolezal said after being contacted by the Spokane Spokesman-Review at Eastern Washington University, where she is a part-time professor in the Africana studies program. "There's a lot of complexities ... and I don't know that everyone would understand that."
She added: "We're all from the African continent."
I've been claiming to be transracial since around the time Nigel coined spicegender. Bitch is copping my style.
Quote from: Hoopla on June 13, 2015, 04:19:20 AM
I've been claiming to be transracial since around the time Nigel coined spicegender. Bitch is copping my style.
:lulz:
Transracial sounds fine, at some point the human body's skin colour will be easily modifiable, at which point colour and racial markers will be a fashion accessory.
Now what I want to do it create the transprivilege movement. As a white male in his twenties with a comfortable lifestyle I am what would typically be considered privileged, however I know that underneath that all I am a put upon person of less privilege.
For this reason I would like to announce my candidacy for president of the NAACP, and would challenge anyone who opposes me as being both transphobic, ignorant and a privileged POS.
Quote from: Faust on June 13, 2015, 12:12:58 PM
Transracial sounds fine, at some point the human body's skin colour will be easily modifiable, at which point colour and racial markers will be a fashion accessory.
Now what I want to do it create the transprivilege movement. As a white male in his twenties with a comfortable lifestyle I am what would typically be considered privileged, however I know that underneath that all I am a put upon person of less privilege.
For this reason I would like to announce my candidacy for president of the NAACP, and would challenge anyone who opposes me as being both transphobic, ignorant and a privileged POS.
TRANSPOOR.
Meh. Michael Jackson beat her to it.
I am transGoldmanSachs, and that the public is not funding my lifestyle while I gamble the days away is causing me considerable mental distress.
I'm transPOTUS... I know deep down in my soul that I should be ferried from golf course to golf course in a private 777/helicopter to putt against world leaders while tourists flock to see my house.
Transendowed...So wipe that disappointed look off your face, you girthest pig.
COME ON NOW! You did that on purpose!
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/313/18589249450_5d1a6178ce_o.jpg)
Reminds me of the medievalpoc thing.
Quote from: Hoopla on June 13, 2015, 04:19:20 AM
I've been claiming to be transracial since around the time Nigel coined spicegender. Bitch is copping my style.
I'm pretty sure Roger got on board with that too. As far as I know he's still self identifies as ANGRY BLACK WOMAN when appropriate.
It's all fairly minor to him anyway after dealing with being translizard.
A lot of people are talking about this woman as if she simply lied and took advantage of the system by claiming to be black.
I think that it would take at least a 300-page book to really discuss the complexities of what's going on there. For example, if one can take advantage of the system by claiming to be black, that implies (strongly) that there are privileges that come along with being black that are greater than the privileges that come with being white; enough so that renouncing whiteness can open more doors than simply being white.
As a person who has been told (by my white ex-husband) that I am "culturally white", and (by my white mother) that by identifying as black I am "pretending to be someone I'm not" (which apparently ONLY applies to the African part of my mixed Black and Native American father's ancestry, since she actively encouraged my Native identity throughout my upbringing) I have lots and lots of crazy conflicting feelz about this situation. For one thing, I am happy about the conversation because it makes people actually talk about what race is, in the first place. Is race a social construct, or a biological reality? Can someone raised with black siblings (or by black parents) legitimately identify as black even if they have no immediate Aftrican ancestry? How does that concept apply to Native American or other communities? What actually makes someone white?
I honestly don't know enough about the situation to know whether she lied. Is it a lie to check the "black" box if you identify publicly, socially, and personally, as black? When is it wrong to identify as black? When is it wrong to identify as white? My entire life I have been taught that what matters is what you self-identify as, not blood quantum or appearance. So when does that cease to be the case, and for whom?
A full biography with multiple witnesses and testimonies is needed for this kind of shit, its complicated.
It's all meta-trans-topical, IMHO.
At least she doesn't identify as a sports-fan.
Wait, maybe she does, how would I know?
If she does identify as multiple things my opinion changes:
In that case I think she has a personality varied enough to respect her as a person.
What annoys me are the people comparing her to Caitlyn Jenner.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 14, 2015, 05:02:25 PM
What annoys me are the people comparing her to Caitlyn Jenner.
Why does that bother you?
Because they're using it to try to invalidate Jenner. Saying she's not "really" a woman. I feel they're separate issues.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 14, 2015, 05:31:46 PM
Because they're using it to try to invalidate Jenner. Saying she's not "really" a woman. I feel they're separate issues.
I think it brings up an interesting and uncomfortable part of the conversation. Race is a social construct even more so than gender is. I honestly don't know how I feel about the idea of people identifying as a race other than those of their biological parents; however, there's also not really any getting around the fact that race is completely made the fuck up. This leads me to the uncomfortable point of having to ask myself whether, if I support acceptance of transgender people, I can in good conscience reject the validity of someone who identifies as a race that is not the one their parents identify as.
So no, not really separate issues. It would be less messy if they were.
This is regardless of the motivations of people who are bringing up the comparison.
Both very good points.
Relevant to the discussion: http://alimichael.org/blog/rachel-dolezal-syndrome/
Quote...There was a time in my 20s when everything I learned about the history of racism made me hate myself, my Whiteness, my ancestors... and my descendants. I remember deciding that I couldn't have biological children because I didn't want to propagate my privilege biologically. If I was going to pass on my privilege, I wanted to pass it on to someone who doesn't have racial privilege; so I planned to adopt. I disliked my Whiteness, but I disliked the Whiteness of other White people more. I felt like the way to really end racism was to feel guilty for it, and to make other White people feel guilty for it too. And then, like Dolezal, I wanted to take on Africanness. ...
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 14, 2015, 05:39:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 14, 2015, 05:31:46 PM
Because they're using it to try to invalidate Jenner. Saying she's not "really" a woman. I feel they're separate issues.
I think it brings up an interesting and uncomfortable part of the conversation. Race is a social construct even more so than gender is. I honestly don't know how I feel about the idea of people identifying as a race other than those of their biological parents; however, there's also not really any getting around the fact that race is completely made the fuck up. This leads me to the uncomfortable point of having to ask myself whether, if I support acceptance of transgender people, I can in good conscience reject the validity of someone who identifies as a race that is not the one their parents identify as.
So no, not really separate issues. It would be less messy if they were.
The general issue isn't wholly separate, but the specifics definitely are. Rachel Dolezal fabricated her back story completely. She claimed that her biological father was black. Told stories about her childhood in Africa, and being abused with a baboon whip there. She backed up her part Native American Identity by lying about being born in a teepee. She wasn't merely identifying as black in the way that Jenner identifies as woman, she was completely inventing and selling a life that wasn't hers.
In these tense situations, it often pays to take a moment to reflect:
What will the consequences be if we allow this sort of thing to continue?
Bigots will get confused about who to hate, they will solve this by hating everyone. They won't immediately notice but this will make people hate them less. Since the amount of hate a bigot generates is mostly made up of the way others feel about him this will result in a net decrease in hate.
Top down positive discrimination will be abused more often and consequently either more strictly regulated or abolished.
Other than that the price of Texas Instruments calculators will stay exactly the same, the economy will go through another bubble, and Permafrost will keep melting. But that would have happened anyway.
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 14, 2015, 10:19:04 PM
In these tense situations, it often pays to take a moment to reflect:
What will the consequences be if we allow this sort of thing to continue?
Bigots will get confused about who to hate, they will solve this by hating everyone. They won't immediately notice but this will make people hate them less. Since the amount of hate a bigot generates is mostly made up of the way others feel about him this will result in a net decrease in hate.
Top down positive discrimination will be abused more often and consequently either more strictly regulated or abolished.
Other than that the price of Texas Instruments calculators will stay exactly the same, the economy will go through another bubble, and Permafrost will keep melting. But that would have happened anyway.
Bigots will use their now legitimized experiences with ethnic tourism to add punch to their arguments that the only barrier between the "black-born" and wealth and privilege is their character...because after all, I was black for 2 years and look at me...and besides there's nothing saying that a dark-skinned black person can't be white, after all.
Yeah I dont see how deception comes in to the jenner thing.
And for cultural aspects, I'm sure there is a great troll to be had equating Transgenderism to cultural appropriation, but the target audience of such a troll yield screeching for far less, so the effort would be wasted.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 14, 2015, 10:25:28 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 14, 2015, 10:19:04 PM
In these tense situations, it often pays to take a moment to reflect:
What will the consequences be if we allow this sort of thing to continue?
Bigots will get confused about who to hate, they will solve this by hating everyone. They won't immediately notice but this will make people hate them less. Since the amount of hate a bigot generates is mostly made up of the way others feel about him this will result in a net decrease in hate.
Top down positive discrimination will be abused more often and consequently either more strictly regulated or abolished.
Other than that the price of Texas Instruments calculators will stay exactly the same, the economy will go through another bubble, and Permafrost will keep melting. But that would have happened anyway.
Bigots will use their now legitimized experiences with ethnic tourism to add punch to their arguments that the only barrier between the "black-born" and wealth and privilege is their character...because after all, I was black for 2 years and look at me...and besides there's nothing saying that a dark-skinned black person can't be white, after all.
You are aware that i just steered the discussion and gave you a position to defend, right?
You have just defended the position opposite of mine: The one where people should get locked up for pretending to be of a different race than their parents are.
Unless you know of a way to not allow things without involving The Law, you are effectively strengthening the idea that your race is a thing the government needs to know.
What would a police race-check look like? Will everyone have to practice stereotypical behaviour daily so they can give a convincing show when they are pulled over?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 14, 2015, 06:37:08 AM
A lot of people are talking about this woman as if she simply lied and took advantage of the system by claiming to be black.
I think that it would take at least a 300-page book to really discuss the complexities of what's going on there. For example, if one can take advantage of the system by claiming to be black, that implies (strongly) that there are privileges that come along with being black that are greater than the privileges that come with being white; enough so that renouncing whiteness can open more doors than simply being white.
As a person who has been told (by my white ex-husband) that I am "culturally white", and (by my white mother) that by identifying as black I am "pretending to be someone I'm not" (which apparently ONLY applies to the African part of my mixed Black and Native American father's ancestry, since she actively encouraged my Native identity throughout my upbringing) I have lots and lots of crazy conflicting feelz about this situation. For one thing, I am happy about the conversation because it makes people actually talk about what race is, in the first place. Is race a social construct, or a biological reality? Can someone raised with black siblings (or by black parents) legitimately identify as black even if they have no immediate Aftrican ancestry? How does that concept apply to Native American or other communities? What actually makes someone white?
I honestly don't know enough about the situation to know whether she lied. Is it a lie to check the "black" box if you identify publicly, socially, and personally, as black? When is it wrong to identify as black? When is it wrong to identify as white? My entire life I have been taught that what matters is what you self-identify as, not blood quantum or appearance. So when does that cease to be the case, and for whom?
So, I wanted to talk about the bolded bit. It seems to me like there is an element of playing the system here, where she got to take advantage of a lot of white privilege, and then took advantage of the systems designed to compensate for white privilege, while still getting to take advantage of being lighter skinned even as she identified herself publicly as mixed-race black. Had she "stayed in her lane" she would have had (potentially) fewer opportunities overall than she got. It's like the cyclist thing, where some assholes on bikes pretend to be pedestrians or traffic depending on which set of rules suits them best at that moment.
But even that's not all of it, because my kneejerk "fuck her" is also grounded in my own resentment that I have to check "white" on the box and not something "more interesting" and then the crazy internal racism that lays bare when I am forced to admit my head still thinks of white as the "default" and everything else as "exotic." And fuck me, I still don't know where the "stop being unconsciously racist" button is. It's embarrassing and I don't even know how to start working on it, and it sucks that this problem is harder to deal with than the internal transphobia, and maybe that's a sign of internal racism, too, because most of the trans folks I've met are white.
And that's not enough either, because mixed race folks should be front and center in talking about this, because whatever the cultural consensus on this whole mess ends up being, they're the ones who are going to be affected by it the most, so while I have a place in talking about white girl problems, I have to figure out how to shut up and listen to the people who are potentially going to be hurt by the discussion.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 14, 2015, 10:05:15 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 14, 2015, 05:39:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 14, 2015, 05:31:46 PM
Because they're using it to try to invalidate Jenner. Saying she's not "really" a woman. I feel they're separate issues.
I think it brings up an interesting and uncomfortable part of the conversation. Race is a social construct even more so than gender is. I honestly don't know how I feel about the idea of people identifying as a race other than those of their biological parents; however, there's also not really any getting around the fact that race is completely made the fuck up. This leads me to the uncomfortable point of having to ask myself whether, if I support acceptance of transgender people, I can in good conscience reject the validity of someone who identifies as a race that is not the one their parents identify as.
So no, not really separate issues. It would be less messy if they were.
The general issue isn't wholly separate, but the specifics definitely are. Rachel Dolezal fabricated her back story completely. She claimed that her biological father was black. Told stories about her childhood in Africa, and being abused with a baboon whip there. She backed up her part Native American Identity by lying about being born in a teepee. She wasn't merely identifying as black in the way that Jenner identifies as woman, she was completely inventing and selling a life that wasn't hers.
Those aspects I was completely unaware of, because I really just haven't had time to read up on her story beyond skimming an article or two. I am very leery of most news articles these days, because the tendency to misinterpret, exaggerate, and generally extremize as much as possible is so rampant. Do you have a good article or two that you can recommend?
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on June 14, 2015, 10:55:12 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 14, 2015, 06:37:08 AM
A lot of people are talking about this woman as if she simply lied and took advantage of the system by claiming to be black.
I think that it would take at least a 300-page book to really discuss the complexities of what's going on there. For example, if one can take advantage of the system by claiming to be black, that implies (strongly) that there are privileges that come along with being black that are greater than the privileges that come with being white; enough so that renouncing whiteness can open more doors than simply being white.
As a person who has been told (by my white ex-husband) that I am "culturally white", and (by my white mother) that by identifying as black I am "pretending to be someone I'm not" (which apparently ONLY applies to the African part of my mixed Black and Native American father's ancestry, since she actively encouraged my Native identity throughout my upbringing) I have lots and lots of crazy conflicting feelz about this situation. For one thing, I am happy about the conversation because it makes people actually talk about what race is, in the first place. Is race a social construct, or a biological reality? Can someone raised with black siblings (or by black parents) legitimately identify as black even if they have no immediate Aftrican ancestry? How does that concept apply to Native American or other communities? What actually makes someone white?
I honestly don't know enough about the situation to know whether she lied. Is it a lie to check the "black" box if you identify publicly, socially, and personally, as black? When is it wrong to identify as black? When is it wrong to identify as white? My entire life I have been taught that what matters is what you self-identify as, not blood quantum or appearance. So when does that cease to be the case, and for whom?
So, I wanted to talk about the bolded bit. It seems to me like there is an element of playing the system here, where she got to take advantage of a lot of white privilege, and then took advantage of the systems designed to compensate for white privilege, while still getting to take advantage of being lighter skinned even as she identified herself publicly as mixed-race black. Had she "stayed in her lane" she would have had (potentially) fewer opportunities overall than she got. It's like the cyclist thing, where some assholes on bikes pretend to be pedestrians or traffic depending on which set of rules suits them best at that moment.
But even that's not all of it, because my kneejerk "fuck her" is also grounded in my own resentment that I have to check "white" on the box and not something "more interesting" and then the crazy internal racism that lays bare when I am forced to admit my head still thinks of white as the "default" and everything else as "exotic." And fuck me, I still don't know where the "stop being unconsciously racist" button is. It's embarrassing and I don't even know how to start working on it, and it sucks that this problem is harder to deal with than the internal transphobia, and maybe that's a sign of internal racism, too, because most of the trans folks I've met are white.
And that's not enough either, because mixed race folks should be front and center in talking about this, because whatever the cultural consensus on this whole mess ends up being, they're the ones who are going to be affected by it the most, so while I have a place in talking about white girl problems, I have to figure out how to shut up and listen to the people who are potentially going to be hurt by the discussion.
I guess at the heart of it, what I'm wondering is what is the penalty for checking the wrong box, and for whom?
Taking out the elements that NLDM is talking about that are straight-up fabrications, if a person checks the "black" box on her college application because she identifies as black, for whatever reason -- maybe, to use an example from real life based on someone I know, when she was a kid her best friend was black and her home life was shitty and she spent as much time at her best friend's house as possible, finally moving there permanently at 13, and spending the rest of her life as part of the black community, marrying a black man and having black children -- does that make her a liar? And then, what of the people who identify as Native American because that's what they were told they were growing up, even though they have no proof? Where is that line drawn?
I cannot even really start to go into white privilege in the trans community. There are a ton of privilege issues to unpack, there... and some of them are issues that I don't think I can talk about in any company without being accused of bigotry against what is widely vaunted as "the least privileged group of people in existence". Most of which do, as you mention, come from a background position of privilege. And isn't that a tangled can of worms.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 14, 2015, 11:44:52 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 14, 2015, 10:05:15 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 14, 2015, 05:39:13 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 14, 2015, 05:31:46 PM
Because they're using it to try to invalidate Jenner. Saying she's not "really" a woman. I feel they're separate issues.
I think it brings up an interesting and uncomfortable part of the conversation. Race is a social construct even more so than gender is. I honestly don't know how I feel about the idea of people identifying as a race other than those of their biological parents; however, there's also not really any getting around the fact that race is completely made the fuck up. This leads me to the uncomfortable point of having to ask myself whether, if I support acceptance of transgender people, I can in good conscience reject the validity of someone who identifies as a race that is not the one their parents identify as.
So no, not really separate issues. It would be less messy if they were.
The general issue isn't wholly separate, but the specifics definitely are. Rachel Dolezal fabricated her back story completely. She claimed that her biological father was black. Told stories about her childhood in Africa, and being abused with a baboon whip there. She backed up her part Native American Identity by lying about being born in a teepee. She wasn't merely identifying as black in the way that Jenner identifies as woman, she was completely inventing and selling a life that wasn't hers.
Those aspects I was completely unaware of, because I really just haven't had time to read up on her story beyond skimming an article or two. I am very leery of most news articles these days, because the tendency to misinterpret, exaggerate, and generally extremize as much as possible is so rampant. Do you have a good article or two that you can recommend?
Nothing great. Much of it's coming from her parents and there seems to be a very hairy dynamic there. There is this profile of her done back in February before any of this came up:
http://easterneronline.com/35006/eagle-life/a-life-to-be-heard/#sthash.90bq13eo.n7WnbCkk.dpbs (http://easterneronline.com/35006/eagle-life/a-life-to-be-heard/#sthash.90bq13eo.n7WnbCkk.dpbs)
QuoteFrom the Montana tepee where she was born in 1977 to empowering the black community in Spokane today, Doležal has lived a life full of experiences "most people normally don't have to go through."
According to Doležal, "Jesus Christ" is the witness on her birth certificate. Her mother believed in living off the land; they lived in the middle of nowhere.
As a child, Doležal and her family hunted their food with bows and arrows. From Montana, she, her mother, stepfather and three siblings moved to Colorado in 1992 for two years. From there, her family moved to Cape Town, South Africa, where her stepfather accepted a religious job opportunity.
"It's a painful thing to talk about my childhood," she paused as she looked down into her hands. "I kind of don't talk about it much." Doležal has no contact today with her mother or stepfather due to a series of events that still haunt her thoughts today. Doležal and her siblings were physically abused by her mother and stepfather. "They would punish us by skin complexion," she said. According to Doležal, the object her mother and stepfather used to punish them was called a baboon whip, used to ward baboons away in South Africa. These whips would leave scars behind, "they were pretty similar to what was used as whips during slavery."
In the article she talks about being hounded by white supremacist groups who would hang nooses in her home, vandalize her property, etc. What kicked off the whole investigation into her background, in fact, was suspicion that she was faking these incidents.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 15, 2015, 12:11:11 AM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on June 14, 2015, 10:55:12 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 14, 2015, 06:37:08 AM
A lot of people are talking about this woman as if she simply lied and took advantage of the system by claiming to be black.
I think that it would take at least a 300-page book to really discuss the complexities of what's going on there. For example, if one can take advantage of the system by claiming to be black, that implies (strongly) that there are privileges that come along with being black that are greater than the privileges that come with being white; enough so that renouncing whiteness can open more doors than simply being white.
As a person who has been told (by my white ex-husband) that I am "culturally white", and (by my white mother) that by identifying as black I am "pretending to be someone I'm not" (which apparently ONLY applies to the African part of my mixed Black and Native American father's ancestry, since she actively encouraged my Native identity throughout my upbringing) I have lots and lots of crazy conflicting feelz about this situation. For one thing, I am happy about the conversation because it makes people actually talk about what race is, in the first place. Is race a social construct, or a biological reality? Can someone raised with black siblings (or by black parents) legitimately identify as black even if they have no immediate Aftrican ancestry? How does that concept apply to Native American or other communities? What actually makes someone white?
I honestly don't know enough about the situation to know whether she lied. Is it a lie to check the "black" box if you identify publicly, socially, and personally, as black? When is it wrong to identify as black? When is it wrong to identify as white? My entire life I have been taught that what matters is what you self-identify as, not blood quantum or appearance. So when does that cease to be the case, and for whom?
So, I wanted to talk about the bolded bit. It seems to me like there is an element of playing the system here, where she got to take advantage of a lot of white privilege, and then took advantage of the systems designed to compensate for white privilege, while still getting to take advantage of being lighter skinned even as she identified herself publicly as mixed-race black. Had she "stayed in her lane" she would have had (potentially) fewer opportunities overall than she got. It's like the cyclist thing, where some assholes on bikes pretend to be pedestrians or traffic depending on which set of rules suits them best at that moment.
But even that's not all of it, because my kneejerk "fuck her" is also grounded in my own resentment that I have to check "white" on the box and not something "more interesting" and then the crazy internal racism that lays bare when I am forced to admit my head still thinks of white as the "default" and everything else as "exotic." And fuck me, I still don't know where the "stop being unconsciously racist" button is. It's embarrassing and I don't even know how to start working on it, and it sucks that this problem is harder to deal with than the internal transphobia, and maybe that's a sign of internal racism, too, because most of the trans folks I've met are white.
And that's not enough either, because mixed race folks should be front and center in talking about this, because whatever the cultural consensus on this whole mess ends up being, they're the ones who are going to be affected by it the most, so while I have a place in talking about white girl problems, I have to figure out how to shut up and listen to the people who are potentially going to be hurt by the discussion.
I guess at the heart of it, what I'm wondering is what is the penalty for checking the wrong box, and for whom?
Taking out the elements that NLDM is talking about that are straight-up fabrications, if a person checks the "black" box on her college application because she identifies as black, for whatever reason -- maybe, to use an example from real life based on someone I know, when she was a kid her best friend was black and her home life was shitty and she spent as much time at her best friend's house as possible, finally moving there permanently at 13, and spending the rest of her life as part of the black community, marrying a black man and having black children -- does that make her a liar? And then, what of the people who identify as Native American because that's what they were told they were growing up, even though they have no proof? Where is that line drawn?
I cannot even really start to go into white privilege in the trans community. There are a ton of privilege issues to unpack, there... and some of them are issues that I don't think I can talk about in any company without being accused of bigotry against what is widely vaunted as "the least privileged group of people in existence". Most of which do, as you mention, come from a background position of privilege. And isn't that a tangled can of worms.
I think what you said earlier was spot on. The more we think about this and what it all means, the more and more completely dissolute "race" becomes, and subsequently, the more beguiling it seems that it's nevertheless such an inescapably meaningful thing. A profoundly meaningful that that has no meaning. Hail Fucking Eris.
It is completely possible that Dolezal is a pathological liar with a personality disorder. However, I am really hesitant to simply take her mother and stepfather's word for gold.
A lot of the things she has claimed are easy enough to verify or disprove. Others, like hunting with a bow or being born in a teepee (that would be a hippie thing, not a Native American thing... nobody lives in fucking teepees but hippies) are going to be purely her word against theirs. But remember, too, that they are denying being abusive and seeking to discredit her, which could as easily stem from their own dishonesty as hers.
I wouldn't be surprised if it were a combination of the two.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 15, 2015, 12:25:17 AM
I think what you said earlier was spot on. The more we think about this and what it all means, the more and more completely dissolute "race" becomes, and subsequently, the more beguiling it seems that it's nevertheless such an inescapably meaningful thing. A profoundly meaningful that that has no meaning. Hail Fucking Eris.
Right? :lulz:
I do like how this had made many people on social media, perhaps for the first, confront the idea that "black" isn't just a racial descriptor, but also a social, cultural and political category.
Then they instantly recoil into the safe space that is humour.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 15, 2015, 12:28:49 AM
It is completely possible that Dolezal is a pathological liar with a personality disorder. However, I am really hesitant to simply take her mother and stepfather's word for gold.
A lot of the things she has claimed are easy enough to verify or disprove. Others, like hunting with a bow or being born in a teepee (that would be a hippie thing, not a Native American thing... nobody lives in fucking teepees but hippies) are going to be purely her word against theirs. But remember, too, that they are denying being abusive and seeking to discredit her, which could as easily stem from their own dishonesty as hers.
I wouldn't be surprised if it were a combination of the two.
The guy she claims is her stepfather is her biological father. That much is verified. But beyond that, everything
they say is suspect, if for no other reason than even if their version is the most true, they still raised a daughter who did
this. I just can't see Ward and June raising the Beaver to do something like this.
Quote from: Cain on June 15, 2015, 12:33:43 AM
I do like how this had made many people on social media, perhaps for the first, confront the idea that "black" isn't just a racial descriptor, but also a social, cultural and political category.
Then they instantly recoil into the safe space that is humour.
The #askRachel hashtag was apparently hilarious to a lot of people. I didn't really get it at all. I think that's telling.
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 14, 2015, 10:54:31 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 14, 2015, 10:25:28 PM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 14, 2015, 10:19:04 PM
In these tense situations, it often pays to take a moment to reflect:
What will the consequences be if we allow this sort of thing to continue?
Bigots will get confused about who to hate, they will solve this by hating everyone. They won't immediately notice but this will make people hate them less. Since the amount of hate a bigot generates is mostly made up of the way others feel about him this will result in a net decrease in hate.
Top down positive discrimination will be abused more often and consequently either more strictly regulated or abolished.
Other than that the price of Texas Instruments calculators will stay exactly the same, the economy will go through another bubble, and Permafrost will keep melting. But that would have happened anyway.
Bigots will use their now legitimized experiences with ethnic tourism to add punch to their arguments that the only barrier between the "black-born" and wealth and privilege is their character...because after all, I was black for 2 years and look at me...and besides there's nothing saying that a dark-skinned black person can't be white, after all.
You are aware that i just steered the discussion and gave you a position to defend, right?
You have just defended the position opposite of mine: The one where people should get locked up for pretending to be of a different race than their parents are.
Unless you know of a way to not allow things without involving The Law, you are effectively strengthening the idea that your race is a thing the government needs to know.
What would a police race-check look like? Will everyone have to practice stereotypical behaviour daily so they can give a convincing show when they are pulled over?
Ummm...I'm going to say no, just to be safe.
I wouldn't be totally convinced that dude is her biological father, given that she was born in 1977 and that apparently her parents DID, according to her mom, live in a teepee for a couple of years before she was born. The fact that they were married has no particular bearing on whether he's her biological father, or on whether she thinks he is.
There's also the question of why, exactly, she apparently had physical custody of her adopted brother. That's kind of odd. I would put money on that something isn't right with that family.
All else aside, a ton of people (not here) have talked about how she "looks white". Well, fuck. So do two of my children. Except that if they claim to be white, they're "passing", and that's bad, right?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 15, 2015, 12:54:54 AM
I wouldn't be totally convinced that dude is her biological father, given that she was born in 1977 and that apparently her parents DID, according to her mom, live in a teepee for a couple of years before she was born. The fact that they were married has no particular bearing on whether he's her biological father, or on whether she thinks he is.
There's also the question of why, exactly, she apparently had physical custody of her adopted brother. That's kind of odd. I would put money on that something isn't right with that family.
All else aside, a ton of people (not here) have talked about how she "looks white". Well, fuck. So do two of my children. Except that if they claim to be white, they're "passing", and that's bad, right?
She does look white, but now I'm finding myself looking at people who are legitimately mixed race and thinking "well, that person looks kinda white in face-structure, too."
You need something to describe the fact that people with certain physical traits in the US are treated differently, but how in the hell do you draw the line between "affected by racism" and "not so much, no?" Shit is fucked up and bullshit. I'm not surprised so many people throw up their hands and just pretend it's someone else's problem.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on June 15, 2015, 01:15:01 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 15, 2015, 12:54:54 AM
I wouldn't be totally convinced that dude is her biological father, given that she was born in 1977 and that apparently her parents DID, according to her mom, live in a teepee for a couple of years before she was born. The fact that they were married has no particular bearing on whether he's her biological father, or on whether she thinks he is.
There's also the question of why, exactly, she apparently had physical custody of her adopted brother. That's kind of odd. I would put money on that something isn't right with that family.
All else aside, a ton of people (not here) have talked about how she "looks white". Well, fuck. So do two of my children. Except that if they claim to be white, they're "passing", and that's bad, right?
She does look white, but now I'm finding myself looking at people who are legitimately mixed race and thinking "well, that person looks kinda white in face-structure, too."
You need something to describe the fact that people with certain physical traits in the US are treated differently, but how in the hell do you draw the line between "affected by racism" and "not so much, no?" Shit is fucked up and bullshit. I'm not surprised so many people throw up their hands and just pretend it's someone else's problem.
Need there be that line, really? We're all affected by racism. In one way or another it is a fuck on everyone's ability to be what they want to be. It was fucking beautiful coming from a mixed background when I was younger. Still is, but not like it was when I viewed it through the eyes of a child...that's my cousin, his name is Cisco, but we call him six-toes. He's "tanner" than me and his hair's black. Everybody says it's brown hair, but I don't get that. That's my cousin Miquelita, we call her Mickie Jo, she's not as tan as me. Our birthday's are two days apart. We have cool parties. That's Kika. She's really old and mumbles in Spanish. I laugh at the way she sounds. That's Tommy, he's tan like six-toes. He's my Padrino. He's also my Godfather. He gets excited to see me and says "heeeeeey, Honky". He has blue cream sodas in his house and gives me money every birthday...
But then, this is all before Six-Toes gets a little older and kids start calling him "Dirty Mexican." And we're family. And he's my only boy cousin. And we play He-Man together. And we're pretty much into all the same things, and think each other are the coolest people we know, and there is something that someone thinks matters that will never, ever be the same between us now...because culture is my Grandma's house, and the Holy Family Fiestas, and Cadillac's with shag dashboards, and forever and always the Denver Broncos...but race...RACE is my cousin being called a Dirty Mexican and me wondering what the fuck that makes me.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on June 15, 2015, 01:15:01 AM
You need something to describe the fact that people with certain physical traits in the US are treated differently, but how in the hell do you draw the line between "affected by racism" and "not so much, no?" Shit is fucked up and bullshit. I'm not surprised so many white people throw up their hands and just pretend it's someone else's problem.
Edited for accuracy.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 15, 2015, 03:34:45 AM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on June 15, 2015, 01:15:01 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 15, 2015, 12:54:54 AM
I wouldn't be totally convinced that dude is her biological father, given that she was born in 1977 and that apparently her parents DID, according to her mom, live in a teepee for a couple of years before she was born. The fact that they were married has no particular bearing on whether he's her biological father, or on whether she thinks he is.
There's also the question of why, exactly, she apparently had physical custody of her adopted brother. That's kind of odd. I would put money on that something isn't right with that family.
All else aside, a ton of people (not here) have talked about how she "looks white". Well, fuck. So do two of my children. Except that if they claim to be white, they're "passing", and that's bad, right?
She does look white, but now I'm finding myself looking at people who are legitimately mixed race and thinking "well, that person looks kinda white in face-structure, too."
You need something to describe the fact that people with certain physical traits in the US are treated differently, but how in the hell do you draw the line between "affected by racism" and "not so much, no?" Shit is fucked up and bullshit. I'm not surprised so many people throw up their hands and just pretend it's someone else's problem.
Need there be that line, really? We're all affected by racism. In one way or another it is a fuck on everyone's ability to be what they want to be. It was fucking beautiful coming from a mixed background when I was younger. Still is, but not like it was when I viewed it through the eyes of a child...that's my cousin, his name is Cisco, but we call him six-toes. He's "tanner" than me and his hair's black. Everybody says it's brown hair, but I don't get that. That's my cousin Miquelita, we call her Mickie Jo, she's not as tan as me. Our birthday's are two days apart. We have cool parties. That's Kika. She's really old and mumbles in Spanish. I laugh at the way she sounds. That's Tommy, he's tan like six-toes. He's my Padrino. He's also my Godfather. He gets excited to see me and says "heeeeeey, Honky". He has blue cream sodas in his house and gives me money every birthday...
But then, this is all before Six-Toes gets a little older and kids start calling him "Dirty Mexican." And we're family. And he's my only boy cousin. And we play He-Man together. And we're pretty much into all the same things, and think each other are the coolest people we know, and there is something that someone thinks matters that will never, ever be the same between us now...because culture is my Grandma's house, and the Holy Family Fiestas, and Cadillac's with shag dashboards, and forever and always the Denver Broncos...but race...RACE is my cousin being called a Dirty Mexican and me wondering what the fuck that makes me.
YUUUUP.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 15, 2015, 03:52:04 AM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on June 15, 2015, 01:15:01 AM
You need something to describe the fact that people with certain physical traits in the US are treated differently, but how in the hell do you draw the line between "affected by racism" and "not so much, no?" Shit is fucked up and bullshit. I'm not surprised so many white people throw up their hands and just pretend it's someone else's problem.
Edited for accuracy.
Yup, my bad.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on June 15, 2015, 03:34:45 AM
Need there be that line, really? We're all affected by racism. In one way or another it is a fuck on everyone's ability to be what they want to be. It was fucking beautiful coming from a mixed background when I was younger. Still is, but not like it was when I viewed it through the eyes of a child...that's my cousin, his name is Cisco, but we call him six-toes. He's "tanner" than me and his hair's black. Everybody says it's brown hair, but I don't get that. That's my cousin Miquelita, we call her Mickie Jo, she's not as tan as me. Our birthday's are two days apart. We have cool parties. That's Kika. She's really old and mumbles in Spanish. I laugh at the way she sounds. That's Tommy, he's tan like six-toes. He's my Padrino. He's also my Godfather. He gets excited to see me and says "heeeeeey, Honky". He has blue cream sodas in his house and gives me money every birthday...
But then, this is all before Six-Toes gets a little older and kids start calling him "Dirty Mexican." And we're family. And he's my only boy cousin. And we play He-Man together. And we're pretty much into all the same things, and think each other are the coolest people we know, and there is something that someone thinks matters that will never, ever be the same between us now...because culture is my Grandma's house, and the Holy Family Fiestas, and Cadillac's with shag dashboards, and forever and always the Denver Broncos...but race...RACE is my cousin being called a Dirty Mexican and me wondering what the fuck that makes me.
From the perspective of people attempting to create institutions that counteract the influence of systemic racism, yes. Is it a good use of the NAACP's time and money improving the lives of kids who can pass, or should they concentrate on the brownest of the brown people? Who counts as "black" or at least "not white" when it comes to diversity hiring requirements? It's a thorny issue philosophically, but saying "race doesn't matter" erases the reality that people with darker skin in this country (and a good number of others) get fucked compared to lighter skinned people, and if you just say "WELL ALL PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE AND RACE ISN'T A THING LALALA" then you can't address the face that darker skinned people are getting arrested more and hired less because you can't see it. Not that I'm accusing anybody here of going to that extreme, but it is where the race is complicated discussion often ends up (see "somebody else's problem" above).
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 15, 2015, 12:54:54 AM
All else aside, a ton of people (not here) have talked about how she "looks white". Well, fuck. So do two of my children. Except that if they claim to be white, they're "passing", and that's bad, right?
In Florida, it's
survival.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 15, 2015, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 15, 2015, 12:54:54 AM
All else aside, a ton of people (not here) have talked about how she "looks white". Well, fuck. So do two of my children. Except that if they claim to be white, they're "passing", and that's bad, right?
In Florida, it's survival.
YEP.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on June 15, 2015, 12:23:46 PM
From the perspective of people attempting to create institutions that counteract the influence of systemic racism, yes. Is it a good use of the NAACP's time and money improving the lives of kids who can pass, or should they concentrate on the brownest of the brown people? Who counts as "black" or at least "not white" when it comes to diversity hiring requirements? It's a thorny issue philosophically, but saying "race doesn't matter" erases the reality that people with darker skin in this country (and a good number of others) get fucked compared to lighter skinned people, and if you just say "WELL ALL PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE AND RACE ISN'T A THING LALALA" then you can't address the face that darker skinned people are getting arrested more and hired less because you can't see it. Not that I'm accusing anybody here of going to that extreme, but it is where the race is complicated discussion often ends up (see "somebody else's problem" above).
This is a real issue, and one that I don't think is being addressed. I am going to be blunt in an ugly way: I am a recipient of light skin privilege, ALONG WITH OTHER PRIVILEGES that have to do with my mother being white and educated. And also with my father being mixed, lighter-skinned and educated. Sometimes it's not obvious where privilege comes from, and I hope that my own example opens at least a few eyes, because I am incredibly privileged.
It may sound strange, but us light skin girls, we tend to bond, because we are placed in a really weird social position.
So I've been thinking about this, and I came to a sort of unpleasant thought: I think there might be a level of privilege to being black today.
At least, social privilege... and within a certain segment of society.
Now, hold on for a second, before you vilify me... I tried to think of it from Dolezal's point of view, and wondered what might attract someone to attempt something like this. I started thinking about the discussion down in the "UNLIMITED 2016 Starting Early With Batshittery" thread, and how I certainly took the visible minority's opinions on freedom of speech more seriously than the white people's, because I had never thought to look at it from their point of view before. Classic privilege at work. And I know I'm not the only person to begin to think in such a manner in recent years. That sort of thinking gives a limited privilege to the voices of minorities (again, to a certain segment of the population... obviously anything a visible minority says is completely disregarded by a large segment, even today. Obviously.), a privilege I can see some people being envious of. I'm a little envious myself, if I'm honest enough to admit it.
If Dolezal felt nobody listened to her, perhaps she thought if she pretended to be a different race at least liberals with white guilt would listen to her?
Or am I talking out my ass?
(edited for clarity)
You can have privilege in some spheres whilst still being screwed over in others. It isn't zero-sum.
This topic has been really interesting to read, and I'm sure as hell my thinking on this is going to change. I've been thinking about it for a couple days and I'm still up in the air.
I think the trouble I'm having is the line between identifying with a culture that has a geographical/historical context and deciding that you 'are' that race. Where and how that should matter isn't an easy thing to think about. I know my grandfather, for instance, in the later years of his life converted to Buddhism and became fascinated with traditional Japanese artwork - which he felt closely spoke to ideas he'd been working with for decades far more than most western artists.
He would not have called himself Japanese with all the extra stuff that entails, but he certainly felt a strong connection and kinship with elements of that culture and I think that's a good thing to explore.
There's also a clear genetic basis for some elements of race which are linked to physiology not culture - and not just skin pigmentation, but risk of heart disease, skin cancer, certain allergies etc. You can't do away with race entirely any more than you can do away with sex entirely. Can you do away with culture/heritage in the same way we hope to do away with gender? Maybe... but I'm not sure what that would look like. My gut reaction says that anything that allows people to feel free to define their identity however they like is a good thing, but it is definitely a messy subject when you start getting down to practicalities.
Quote from: Hoopla on June 15, 2015, 09:46:57 PM
So I've been thinking about this, and I came to a sort of unpleasant thought: I think there might be a level of privilege to being black today.
At least, social privilege... and within a certain segment of society.
Now, hold on for a second, before you vilify me... I tried to think of it from Dolezal's point of view, and wondered what might attract someone to attempt something like this. I started thinking about the discussion down in the "UNLIMITED 2016 Starting Early With Batshittery" thread, and how I certainly took the visible minority's opinions on freedom of speech more seriously than the white people's, because I had never thought to look at it from their point of view before. Classic privilege at work. And I know I'm not the only person to begin to think in such a manner in recent years. That sort of thinking gives a limited privilege to the voices of minorities (again, to a certain segment of the population... obviously anything a visible minority says is completely disregarded by a large segment, even today. Obviously.), a privilege I can see some people being envious of. I'm a little envious myself, if I'm honest enough to admit it.
If Dolezal felt nobody listened to her, perhaps she thought if she pretended to be a different race at least liberals with white guilt would listen to her?
Or am I talking out my ass?
(edited for clarity)
Can I ask why you might
not listen a bit more to a segment of the population about issues that effect them specifically? The fact that our Ron Paul appeared to be packing some serious racism issues aside?
I think that there is a small segment of the white population that listens harder when a person of color addresses an issue. I suspect it's a statistical minority, but I can't know for sure.
I think there is a social perception that a disproportionate endowment is reserved for people of color in college. I can also tell you from experience that it is harder to get funding than is generally assumed, that most "black" scholarships are not limited to people who are black, and that for social reasons that start long before high school very very few black students pursue college, and those who do generally do not pursue the sciences.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on June 15, 2015, 10:21:58 PM
You can have privilege in some spheres whilst still being screwed over in others. It isn't zero-sum.
This topic has been really interesting to read, and I'm sure as hell my thinking on this is going to change. I've been thinking about it for a couple days and I'm still up in the air.
I think the trouble I'm having is the line between identifying with a culture that has a geographical/historical context and deciding that you 'are' that race. Where and how that should matter isn't an easy thing to think about. I know my grandfather, for instance, in the later years of his life converted to Buddhism and became fascinated with traditional Japanese artwork - which he felt closely spoke to ideas he'd been working with for decades far more than most western artists.
He would not have called himself Japanese with all the extra stuff that entails, but he certainly felt a strong connection and kinship with elements of that culture and I think that's a good thing to explore.
There's also a clear genetic basis for some elements of race ancestry which are linked to physiology not culture - and not just skin pigmentation, but risk of heart disease, skin cancer, certain allergies etc. You can't do away with race ancestry entirely any more than you can do away with sex entirely. Can you do away with culture/heritage in the same way we hope to do away with gender? Maybe... but I'm not sure what that would look like. My gut reaction says that anything that allows people to feel free to define their identity however they like is a good thing, but it is definitely a messy subject when you start getting down to practicalities.
fixed that for you.
The relationship of gender and sex is FAR less abstract than the relationship of race and ancestry.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 16, 2015, 12:04:09 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on June 15, 2015, 09:46:57 PM
So I've been thinking about this, and I came to a sort of unpleasant thought: I think there might be a level of privilege to being black today.
At least, social privilege... and within a certain segment of society.
Now, hold on for a second, before you vilify me... I tried to think of it from Dolezal's point of view, and wondered what might attract someone to attempt something like this. I started thinking about the discussion down in the "UNLIMITED 2016 Starting Early With Batshittery" thread, and how I certainly took the visible minority's opinions on freedom of speech more seriously than the white people's, because I had never thought to look at it from their point of view before. Classic privilege at work. And I know I'm not the only person to begin to think in such a manner in recent years. That sort of thinking gives a limited privilege to the voices of minorities (again, to a certain segment of the population... obviously anything a visible minority says is completely disregarded by a large segment, even today. Obviously.), a privilege I can see some people being envious of. I'm a little envious myself, if I'm honest enough to admit it.
If Dolezal felt nobody listened to her, perhaps she thought if she pretended to be a different race at least liberals with white guilt would listen to her?
Or am I talking out my ass?
(edited for clarity)
Can I ask why you might not listen a bit more to a segment of the population about issues that effect them specifically? The fact that our Ron Paul appeared to be packing some serious racism issues aside?
I think that there is a small segment of the white population that listens harder when a person of color addresses an issue. I suspect it's a statistical minority, but I can't know for sure.
I think there is a social perception that a disproportionate endowment is reserved for people of color in college. I can also tell you from experience that it is harder to get funding than is generally assumed, that most "black" scholarships are not limited to people who are black, and that for social reasons that start long before high school very very few black students pursue college, and those who do generally do not pursue the sciences.
I didn't mean to imply I didn't listen more to that segment, just that that angle hadn't exactly occurred to me before that thread. It should have been obvious, but it wasn't. Like a blind spot. There's that privilege.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 16, 2015, 12:16:19 AM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on June 15, 2015, 10:21:58 PM
You can have privilege in some spheres whilst still being screwed over in others. It isn't zero-sum.
This topic has been really interesting to read, and I'm sure as hell my thinking on this is going to change. I've been thinking about it for a couple days and I'm still up in the air.
I think the trouble I'm having is the line between identifying with a culture that has a geographical/historical context and deciding that you 'are' that race. Where and how that should matter isn't an easy thing to think about. I know my grandfather, for instance, in the later years of his life converted to Buddhism and became fascinated with traditional Japanese artwork - which he felt closely spoke to ideas he'd been working with for decades far more than most western artists.
He would not have called himself Japanese with all the extra stuff that entails, but he certainly felt a strong connection and kinship with elements of that culture and I think that's a good thing to explore.
There's also a clear genetic basis for some elements of race ancestry which are linked to physiology not culture - and not just skin pigmentation, but risk of heart disease, skin cancer, certain allergies etc. You can't do away with race ancestry entirely any more than you can do away with sex entirely. Can you do away with culture/heritage in the same way we hope to do away with gender? Maybe... but I'm not sure what that would look like. My gut reaction says that anything that allows people to feel free to define their identity however they like is a good thing, but it is definitely a messy subject when you start getting down to practicalities.
fixed that for you.
Okay, could you define your terms a bit? My understanding is that ancestry would be specific individuals in your lineage and race the more general geographic area those ancestors hailed from (e.g in my case white anglo-saxon).
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 16, 2015, 12:21:28 AM
The relationship of gender and sex is FAR less abstract than the relationship of race and ancestry.
How so? My gender identity can bear no relationship to my physical sex at all. However, my ancestors are directly related to my race, and that can have implications medically which would exist outside of any societal context.
Quote from: Hoopla on June 16, 2015, 03:01:38 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 16, 2015, 12:04:09 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on June 15, 2015, 09:46:57 PM
So I've been thinking about this, and I came to a sort of unpleasant thought: I think there might be a level of privilege to being black today.
At least, social privilege... and within a certain segment of society.
Now, hold on for a second, before you vilify me... I tried to think of it from Dolezal's point of view, and wondered what might attract someone to attempt something like this. I started thinking about the discussion down in the "UNLIMITED 2016 Starting Early With Batshittery" thread, and how I certainly took the visible minority's opinions on freedom of speech more seriously than the white people's, because I had never thought to look at it from their point of view before. Classic privilege at work. And I know I'm not the only person to begin to think in such a manner in recent years. That sort of thinking gives a limited privilege to the voices of minorities (again, to a certain segment of the population... obviously anything a visible minority says is completely disregarded by a large segment, even today. Obviously.), a privilege I can see some people being envious of. I'm a little envious myself, if I'm honest enough to admit it.
If Dolezal felt nobody listened to her, perhaps she thought if she pretended to be a different race at least liberals with white guilt would listen to her?
Or am I talking out my ass?
(edited for clarity)
Can I ask why you might not listen a bit more to a segment of the population about issues that effect them specifically? The fact that our Ron Paul appeared to be packing some serious racism issues aside?
I think that there is a small segment of the white population that listens harder when a person of color addresses an issue. I suspect it's a statistical minority, but I can't know for sure.
I think there is a social perception that a disproportionate endowment is reserved for people of color in college. I can also tell you from experience that it is harder to get funding than is generally assumed, that most "black" scholarships are not limited to people who are black, and that for social reasons that start long before high school very very few black students pursue college, and those who do generally do not pursue the sciences.
I didn't mean to imply I didn't listen more to that segment, just that that angle hadn't exactly occurred to me before that thread. It should have been obvious, but it wasn't. Like a blind spot. There's that privilege.
I didn't mean to imply that you didn't listen, but rather that there was nothing wrong about doing so. What I got from the exchange was that you saw that people who were more directly affected by an issue were more likely to have an opinion that differed from yours, so you took a moment to re-evaluate. That's just good thinking.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on June 16, 2015, 06:23:45 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 16, 2015, 12:16:19 AM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on June 15, 2015, 10:21:58 PM
You can have privilege in some spheres whilst still being screwed over in others. It isn't zero-sum.
This topic has been really interesting to read, and I'm sure as hell my thinking on this is going to change. I've been thinking about it for a couple days and I'm still up in the air.
I think the trouble I'm having is the line between identifying with a culture that has a geographical/historical context and deciding that you 'are' that race. Where and how that should matter isn't an easy thing to think about. I know my grandfather, for instance, in the later years of his life converted to Buddhism and became fascinated with traditional Japanese artwork - which he felt closely spoke to ideas he'd been working with for decades far more than most western artists.
He would not have called himself Japanese with all the extra stuff that entails, but he certainly felt a strong connection and kinship with elements of that culture and I think that's a good thing to explore.
There's also a clear genetic basis for some elements of race ancestry which are linked to physiology not culture - and not just skin pigmentation, but risk of heart disease, skin cancer, certain allergies etc. You can't do away with race ancestry entirely any more than you can do away with sex entirely. Can you do away with culture/heritage in the same way we hope to do away with gender? Maybe... but I'm not sure what that would look like. My gut reaction says that anything that allows people to feel free to define their identity however they like is a good thing, but it is definitely a messy subject when you start getting down to practicalities.
fixed that for you.
Okay, could you define your terms a bit? My understanding is that ancestry would be specific individuals in your lineage and race the more general geographic area those ancestors hailed from (e.g in my case white anglo-saxon).
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 16, 2015, 12:21:28 AM
The relationship of gender and sex is FAR less abstract than the relationship of race and ancestry.
How so? My gender identity can bear no relationship to my physical sex at all. However, my ancestors are directly related to my race, and that can have implications medically which would exist outside of any societal context.
Race is a combination of appearance, culture, and ancestry. Ancestry is a function of genetics. You can be, for example, white in every cultural and identity aspect, and still be a carrier of sickle-cell because of your ancestry.
Thanks for clearing that up- that isn't at all what I got from 'race'.
I'm going to have to go back and reread the thread again with that in mind, now. You probably did just fix most of my confusion, though.
I loved this phrase para Templeton about how chimps genetic distribution is tree-like, while human genetic field is trellis-like and less distinct, lacking clear genetic divisions (branches) between groups. So fucking cool.
How deep does this rabbit hole go? (http://thehardtimes.net/2015/06/16/rachel-dolezal-now-claiming-to-be-founding-member-of-bad-brains/)
:lulz:
Thought this might interest some people here. I'm working so no deep thoughts, but I thought this was more at PD's level than most media discussion about the issue (regardless of if you agree or not):
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/06/15/jenner-dolezal-one-trans-good-other-not-so-much
Quote from: Cain on June 17, 2015, 07:33:44 PM
Thought this might interest some people here. I'm working so no deep thoughts, but I thought this was more at PD's level than most media discussion about the issue (regardless of if you agree or not):
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/06/15/jenner-dolezal-one-trans-good-other-not-so-much
Great food for thought.
Quote from: Cain on June 17, 2015, 07:33:44 PM
Thought this might interest some people here. I'm working so no deep thoughts, but I thought this was more at PD's level than most media discussion about the issue (regardless of if you agree or not):
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/06/15/jenner-dolezal-one-trans-good-other-not-so-much
Oh that was GOOD. I will need to do a full re-read to absorb it all, but he managed to touch on a number of really significant complexities.