Tag Archives: Rachel Dolezal

national news

‘Diversity’ needs a broader definition

Rachel Dolezal has quit her post as head of the Spokane, Wash., chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Why is that big deal? She’s the white woman who ran the organization, declared she is African-American, even though her obviously white parents say she lied about her racial identity.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/rachel-dolezal-resigns-as-president-of-naacp-spokane-chapter/ar-BBlaVht

She’s going to move on, I guess, to pursue other interests, as they say.

Here, though, is where I think this story needs to be told in fuller fashion.

Why is it such a bad thing for a white person to head an NAACP chapter? The only serious misdeed here has been Dolezal’s lying about her race. She changed her appearance over many years. She darkened her skin, curled her hair, married an African-American man, with whom she had two children. She “identified” more with black Americans than with white Americans. That’s all fine.

But she lied about her race.

Back to my point. Why did she have to lie to become accepted by the Spokane NAACP chapter?

I’ve noted before that the organization’s name doesn’t stipulate any racial requirement. Individuals can become champions for the “advancement” of a race of people, even though they aren’t of that particular race. Can’t they do that?

The NAACP has white people in its rank-and-file membership. These are individuals dedicated to the cause of advancing the fortunes of Americans whose ancestors once were enslaved by other Americans. Theirs is a noble cause.

It also speaks to the issue of racial diversity. If we are to proclaim the need to diversify the ranks of, say, elected bodies, such as Congress, to include more African-Americans or other “people of color,” then it stands to reason that we could issue calls to diversify the leadership of organizations dedicated to helping ethnic and racial minorities. That would include the NAACP.

So what, then, if Rachel Dolezal is white. Had she merely been truthful about her background, her DNA, her heritage, there ought to be no problem at all with her serving as head of an NAACP chapter.

However, she’s a liar, and liars aren’t to be trusted, no matter their race.

 

national news

Clear it up, Rachel: Are your white parents lying?

rachel

Rachel Dolezal is going to set the record straight Monday … she says.

The head of the Spokane, Wash., chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is going to tell us whether she’s white or black.

This clearly is one of the stranger stories any of us — white or black — has seen in, oh, since the last strange story burst on the scene.

? http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/naacp-leader-to-speak-monday-parents-say-she-lied-on-race/ar-BBl53nJ

Dolezal’s parents, from whom she’s estranged, says their daughter has been lying about her race. She claims to be black. Her parents, who are white, have produced pictures of her as a fair-skinned blond girl. Her hair now is curly; her skin is considerably darker.

She’s been strangely coy about answering a direct and succinct question: Are you white? He answer to a question from a Spokane Spokesman-Review reporter: “That question is not as easy as it seems. There’s a lot of complexities … and I don’t know that everyone would understand that.”

“We’re all from the African continent.”

What the … ? My head is about to explode. Actually, the question seems more than “easy.”

The NAACP is backing Dolezal. Her parents, who live in Montana, said she’s been misrepresenting herself.

I’ve noted already that the NAACP’s very name doesn’t require one to be African-American to join, let alone assume a leadership position. Indeed, the organization was founded by a white person.

But as I look at Dolezal’s picture as a little girl — that’s her in both frames attached to this blog post — she looks pretty darn white to me.

Please, please, Rachel … explain yourself.

 

national news

It’s the lying, Rachel, that causes problems

Rachel Dolezal’s secret is out.

She’s not black. She’s white. Yet she heads the Spokane, Wash., chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

The question of her race/ethnicity has prompted a tempest in the Pacific Northwest.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/naacp-leader-rachel-dolezal-lied-about-being-black-parents/ar-BBl19nt

My view? It’s not that she’s white that ought to be so troublesome. It’s the lying.

She’s contended she’s black. Both of her parents are white. Her childhood pictures show her, as described in the link, as a “pasty blonde” girl. Her appearance today looks much different.

This story might even be weirder than, say, the Dennis Hastert alleged cover-up about hush money.

One question keeps gnawing at me: Do the NAACP membership requirements stipulate someone has to be a “colored person”?

The very title of the organization doesn’t say categorically that NAACP members must be African-American. It says it works toward “the advancement” of “colored people.” White people can do that, too, correct?

The saddest part of the story perhaps is that Dolezal’s parents are revealing the lies as well. The NAACP stands behind her — so far.

As for the question posed to her recently about whether she’s African-American, she offered a sly answer, which is that all humans hail from Africa.

My head is spinning over this one.