Passing?

[Crackpot]

I suspect that is b cause they don't want to give ammo to the "reverse racism" crowd.

[Lord Jim]

I don't think that's it at all...

Apparently, she's been effective, and she's well liked within the organization...

The fact that she's a mentally disturbed pathological liar doesn't seem to matter much.

[Joe Guy]

About the op;

She has decided that she is an oppressed black woman trapped in the cultural history of a privileged white woman.

Maybe she is transracial and maybe there is a medical procedure for that. She could have an operation and then would be a hero to all wiggers and have her own reality show.

[wesw]

oh no joe....

we are gonna catch hell now....

[Gob]

[MajGenl.Meade]

[liberty]

Well, you don't have to be black to join the NAACP and it has always been an integrated organization. Moreover, what is the test for "race" that determines who is "black"? "Race" is a purely social construct and primarily a matter of self-identification. If she wants to identify as "black," why not? Who cares?

Oh come on Sue , social construct, she constructed her face to appear black. I don’t care what someone does with their own body, but I do agree it is likely she has some kind of psychological problem. I see only two reason to do what she did; one there was something to be gained from it or she is ashamed of what she is, neither seem healthy to me.

And if race is just a social construct, how could she alter her appearance and make people think she is something she is not. And why did she have a black man pose as her father and not want people to see her real parents.

[Gob]

"Race" is a purely social construct and primarily a matter of self-identification. If she wants to identify as "black," why not? Who cares?

I had a very "interesting" (heated) debate with some Cornish "nationalists" about this. One one hand they wanted "local homes earmarked for local Cornish people, at affordable prices" but when you asked them who qualified as "Cornish" they said that "anyone who thinks, feels and believes themselves to be Cornish is Cornish."

Can anyone else see the problem with this?

I self identify as Cornish, as I consider it my spiritual home. Some days though I consider myself a Chinese Jamaican.

[Long Run]

And some of us think of you as a cricket head. This woman's days as a black woman are past, the lack of honesty will be her undoing, even if she self-identifies with the African American community.

[Lord Jim]

Some days though I consider myself a Chinese Jamaican.

I completely understand that...

I have decided to "self-identify" as a Vietnamese...

Which explains my poor driving skills..

[wesw]

of course that is the exact definition of American in my book. I would add.., and believes in the ideals and truths set forth in our founding documents..

[Big RR]

Well, if you reject self-identification as the way to determine race, what is the alternative. Back in the time when Jim Crow mattered to some states, they had racial laws that identified someone as black by virtue of having a black ancestor of a certain degree (hence a quadroon with one black grandparent or octaroon with one balck great grandparent)--do you propose to go back to such racial purity laws again?

As for the OP, this woman might well have had a screw loose, but so what? Is it some important to garner all these posts. Face it, what did she do--lie about something that's really no one's business? If the NAACP wants to institute its own form of racial code, it can try, but it appears to run counter to what it stands for. But if she wants to run around saying she is pink polka dotted, I really don't care.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It used to be so simple



Ah, Big RR. . . my favorite Humpty Dumpty language professor! A word means whatever I want it to mean. No sir... we don't make it so by self-identifying as belonging to ethnicity, or as citizens of which country, or any particular group.

Now Tiger Woods could validly self-identify as either black or Asian - but not Mongolian or Arabic. President Obama could presumably self-identify with a degree of accuracy as either black or white but not as an Aleut. I can prove my self-identification as a USIan because I've a certificate from USian authority to prove it but to declare myself a citizen of France would be a sign of lunacy or mendacity. Oh... lunacy of course... not a good example... Wales then.

I actually don't care what this lady calls herself either - with you on that. She's lying but it doesn't hurt me any, other than in the general sense of observing a possible decline in the ability of society to call a lie what it is. I think it's kind of despicable (if it's not psychotic) to false flag in order to secure a job - even more so to lie in order to gain credibility.

[Big RR]

You make it so simple Meade, so let me ask you, how close must a black ancestor be for a person to be considered black as you think the word should be properly used? A parent, grandparent, great grandparent, or what?

And how "black" must that ancestor be for a person to be considered black--would the child who had a gret grandparent that was an octaroon be black?

Or does it depend whether one has any "black blood" in them, in which case would a person receiving a transfusion from a black person be forever considered black? what about a white boy who becomes blood brothers with a black boy (exchanging maybe a drop of blood)? what about someone who receives a drug prepared from black blood (granted there aren't all that many now due to genetic engineering, but there were/are some).

You insist on the clarity of an ancient definition in face of the modern world, so please apply it and let me have your answers.

And FWIW, it's you insisting that a word must mean what you say it does, not me. Whether I call her black or not is immaterial to me; but it is highly important to you how you define the word.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I dunno, Big RR. I think a person who is three quarters not-black is er... not black*. Just as a USian who is three quarters not-Irish is not-Irish. I think a Caucasian without a shred of evidence to claim a black ancestor is a Caucasian. I don't have to prove other people's claims - they do.

*This seems more recently related to SA apartheid than to the US. Labelling in this country was a function of chattel slavery or simply appearance. Qaudroons, octaroons were not self-identified but externally categorized by "owners" or because they "looked black". Now it's possible (rarely, but it happens) that a person with an ancestor of a different ethnicity may appear themselves to be of that ethnicity. But exceptions/rules you know...

In this case, it appears that a white woman is falsely claiming to be "black", even to the extent of claiming that her parents are not her parents. Maybe she's right. But the appearance is certainly one of falsehood uttered in order to secure preference and/or position.

Talk of blood brothers and transfusions is silly. It's not the blood, it's the sperm and the ovum. Dear Heavens, youngsters! What do they teach them these days?

[Lord Jim]

They've postponed the meeting that the Executive Committee of The Spokane NAACP was planning to have today where Ms. Dolezal was supposedly going to explain herself, and why she has been lying about her ethnic background...

And then maybe she can explain those "racist" letters she received that have no postal stamps on them, which means that either there's a deranged mail deliverer who's been hand delivering those letters in her mailbox....

Or she's been delivering those letters to herself...What seems more likely?...

I have to say I have been bewildered by the NAACP's reaction to this...

The whole, "well of course white people can have leadership positions in our organization" seems to miss the point here by a country mile...

The issue here isn't that she's white...

It's that she's bloody bonkers, completely crackers, a fruit loop, a kookaboo, a total nutcase....

The fact that they have postponed this meeting suggests to me that the bloody bonkers, completely crackers, a fruit loop, a kookaboo, a total nutcase thing may be sinking in...

[MajGenl.Meade]

... unless of course she self-identifies as "not at all crackers".

[Big RR]

Meade--no sense in keeping this going, but I did want to mention a few things:

1. Racial codes were important for chattel slavery and Jim Crow, as well as marriage laws. State laws usually defined person having an ancestor of a certain degree as being of that ethnicity--hence through the 60s in many states a person having a grandparent or great grandparent or even great, great grandparent would be considered under the law to be of that race (no matter what (s)he looked like) and could not marry come one of a different race, or ride in the front of the bus, or ... Some states even went to the point of saying any black blood in you made you automatically black (the play Showboat sort of lampooned this when a white man married to a mixed race woman cut himself and her and let her blood flow into him; the persons in the room all swore he had "black blood" in him, which was good enough to keep the marriage legal and avoid arrest and punishment).

2. It was never matter of "looking black", detailed records of ancestry were maintained ostensible to keep the races pure and unadulterated, and to keep people in their respective places.

3. You seem to be insisting on a precision not contained in the language; what one person might consider qualifies as "black" another will not. You accuse me of trying to hijack language to mean what I say it does (which I maintain I am not doing), but do not provide me any evidence that shows me exactly what the term means.

4. Yes, the woman apparently lied, although I honestly don't know anything about her ancestry. You may insist she somehow "prove" to you (or whomever) that she is telling the truth; but if she doesn't, IMHO it doesn't mean she is lying, only that she feels no compulsion to prove her assertion to anyone. Especially when the assertion is that she is "black" and no one can tell her how she can prove that (unless we accept your definition that one has to me more than one quarter black--presumably having a black parent who is sufficiently black to bring her within your greater than 25% cutoff).

Jim--she may well be "bonkers", but she also doesn't seem like this affected her performance in the positions she was in; maybe that's what they're looking into before they meet.

meade--I'm happy to use objective criteria to define mental illness, which is what I presume you mean by "crackers".

[Lord Jim]

I think the appropriate thing for Ms. Dolezal to do would be to resign and then run again for the leadership of the Spokane NAACP and if she wins , so be it...(apparently she is well respected as a faux African-American activist; if the organization chooses her to be their leader knowing all the facts, that's entirely up to them... )

But there's still the "filing a false police report" thing...

[MajGenl.Meade]

As so often happens, I agree with much of what you say in your last other than to comment that it's not really necessary. Also it's not pointless (to me) to explore our various ideas about things/life/humming birds

1. I already commented on (mostly) Southern definitions that arose from slavery and lamentably survived emancipation.

2. In the northern states, these kinds of records were not kept to such generational and institutional levels. At local levels, people were black because they looked black - it was their appearance in the north - or because everyone knew that mum or dad was black. The US govt census of course identified white/black/mulatto beginning in 1860 or 1850. But in the free states that was either self-identification or the observance of the recorder (appearance). Down south, the poor folks were probably told what colour they were.

As to blood, the ignorance of southern bigots doesn't change a thing about genetics.

3. er, not so much. If your mum is a Scot and your dad is a Scot, you are a Scot. If not, not - you're a mongrel. Of course, in the wider sense where words begin to lose meaning we are all mongrels.

My view is that one cannot "be" what one is HALF not - never mind a quarter. Of course, being half German and half Australian might qualify one for the privileges of being German and/or Australian - citizenship, residence etc.

As I remarked, a person with a black parent and a Caucasian parent may validly self-identify as both in ancestry. But to me, Barak Obama is only black because he looks black (and grew up "black"). If he looked white, then I'd think he was white and I'm sure his life would have been a different one. All this race nonsense is the basis for people who had an ancestor who once met an Ameerind to claim the right to build a casino and not pay taxes.

4. Remind me to employ you as my lawyer since all claims are apparently valid because I say they are and I don't have to prove it. I suppose she could have a genetic test which might show something or other. But first - the parents. Are they "black"? If not, then she isn't. Having been outed as a liar (which you appear to be ready to concede), it is indeed her responsibility to demonstrate to whoever matters (the NAACP chapter) that the lie is not, actually, a lie. She doesn't have to prove it to me though, because I don't care what ethnicity she is. It's more ethics really.

(PS Crackers was a comment arising from LJs post. I had considered calling him out for his non-PC references to differently mentally-capacitated persons but thought self-identifying was more pithy