I was struck by a short interview I heard the other night on the BBC World Service with an American woman - a plain-speaking actual black woman who knows whereof she speaks and tells it as it is.
In a few incisive sentences she makes clear and plain what is wrong with what the impostor did.
I was struck by a short interview I heard the other night on the BBC World Service with an American woman - a plain-speaking actual black woman who knows whereof she speaks and tells it as it is.
In a few incisive sentences she makes clear and plain what is wrong with what the impostor did.
I was struck by a short interview I heard the other night on the BBC World Service with an American woman - a plain-speaking actual black woman who knows whereof she speaks and tells it as it is.
In a few incisive sentences she makes clear and plain what is wrong with what the impostor did.
Yes - it is the deliberate and vocal appropriation of experience that she has not had that bothers me. Negating the genuine experiences of those she purports to respect. The woman is a fraud. No integrity. As "expert" as she is, she knows damn well that what she's doing is wrong.
Not only that, I was reading that she actually went around lecturing and questioning others about their ethnicity! And of course pretended to have experienced racial attacks and hate mail. This is not someone " innocently" going too far with a fantasy.
"US media reported on Tuesday that in 2002 she sued the historically black Howard University for discriminating against her for being white.
She subsequently claimed to be the victim of hate crimes for being black.
Ms Dolezal, then known as Rachel Moore, received a Master of Fine Arts degree from Howard University 13 years ago.
Court documents obtained by the Smoking Gun website show that she sued the university for "discrimination based on race, pregnancy, family responsibilities and gender".
As part of her claim, she alleged that some of her artwork had been removed from an exhibition in order to favour black students.
She said the art was removed from the 2001 exhibition because Howard University was "motivated by a discriminatory purpose to favour African-American students over".
The case was dismissed in 2004, with no evidence found that Ms Dolezal had been discriminated against. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2005. She was ordered to pay costs of $2,728.50 (£1,752) to Howard." White in 2002 yet Speaking to NBC, she said that from the age of five she "was drawing self-portraits with the brown crayon instead of the peach crayon".
"if you can't beat them, then join them" springs to mind. It seems her colour changes when her needs change.
Except we don't know she was doing that, as many things she said didn't seem to happen.
Indeed.
I think she just says all the 'right' things (or rather, the 'things du jour'). Basically takes a textbook approach to her identity and its development.
I can imagine that with three adopted black brothers she felt very left out though.
Perhaps it was just one of their childhood crayonings she copied, before she'd reached the Turner stage. ;-)
I think she just says all the 'right' things (or rather, the 'things du jour'). Basically takes a textbook approach to her identity and its development.
I can imagine that with three adopted black brothers she felt very left out though.
Perhaps it was just one of their childhood crayonings she copied, before she'd reached the Turner stage. ;-)
I work in licensing, which often sees lawsuits involving allegations of plagiarism. It's interesting to note that when a person is accused of plagiarising a creation, investigators tend to check the person's earlier works - to see whether there's a history of plagiarism - because it's found that when the proven plagiarists started plagiarising, usually during their early teens, they usually can't stop doing it.
I work in licensing, which often sees lawsuits involving allegations of plagiarism. It's interesting to note that when a person is accused of plagiarising a creation, investigators tend to check the person's earlier works - to see whether there's a history of plagiarism - because it's found that when the proven plagiarists started plagiarising, usually during their early teens, they usually can't stop doing it.
Hmm, that is interesting. I mean, I was joking about the crayoning, but there will be a looong history of this I'm sure. Bet not many plagiarists go as far as plagiarising a whole identity though!
Hmm, that is interesting. I mean, I was joking about the crayoning, but there will be a looong history of this I'm sure. Bet not many plagiarists go as far as plagiarising a whole identity though!
:D:D Actually, some plagiarists did appear to have invented their backgrounds. I read a really interesting article about this in an issue of I think the JAEBR (Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research) a few years ago.
If I remember rightly, the authors found that the majority of alleged plagiarists - in this case, the academics who had been caught plagiarising - had a tendency to falsify their credentials and amend their personal backgrounds to fit their preferred personae.
Except we don't know she was doing that, as many things she said didn't seem to happen.
True, she could be making the whole thing up.
Let's assume that she is lying about being transethnic, doesn't the fact that she went to such lengths to appear black utterly destroy the doctrine of 'white privilege'?
She’s been flip-flopping her race and fabricating bias in every identity she chooses. And yet instead of asking “Have you been dishonest?” Today preferred to focus on, “What race are you today?” That’s like Wells Fargo asking a bank-robber, “Are you withdrawing or depositing?”
As I said earlier it seems her colour changes when her needs change. If there's any major backlash from the black community I wonder if she'll still declare herself as black?
Love Montel's quote "That’s like Wells Fargo asking a bank-robber, “Are you withdrawing or depositing?” "
As I said earlier it seems her colour changes when her needs change. If there's any major backlash from the black community I wonder if she'll still declare herself as black?
Love Montel's quote "That’s like Wells Fargo asking a bank-robber, “Are you withdrawing or depositing?” "
The lady has lost her job, she is a laughing stock, she has been subject to an internet lynching. Does she need any more? I think it is wrong to keep kicking someone once they are down.
Now that she has resigned can't people just stop this witch hunt against her. It is not like she is a murderer or a rapist. By all accounts before she was outed she was doing good, and working for black rights. Now the media attention is turned to her rather than police beating black teenagers or shooting unarmed people, as if she is the biggest threat to black people and race relations......
As for her parents she might not be trustworthy. But neither are they. They had an ulterior motive to discredit her witness statement in a case of child abuse.
Personally I am with Al Sharpton and Whoopi Goldberg on this one.
The lady has lost her job, she is a laughing stock, she has been subject to an internet lynching. Does she need any more? I think it is wrong to keep kicking someone once they are down.
Now that she has resigned can't people just stop this witch hunt against her. It is not like she is a murderer or a rapist. By all accounts before she was outed she was doing good, and working for black rights. Now the media attention is turned to her rather than police beating black teenagers or shooting unarmed people, as if she is the biggest threat to black people and race relations......
As for her parents she might not be trustworthy. But neither are they. They had an ulterior motive to discredit her witness statement in a case of child abuse. Personally I am with Al Sharpton and Whoopi Goldberg on this one.
She put herself in the spotlight. No-one's fault but her own. Simple remedy don't read other people's comments if it upsets.
She put herself in the spotlight. No-one's fault but her own. Simple remedy don't read other people's comments if it upsets.
She didnt put herself in the spotlight, her parents did.
As for not reading the comments , it doesnt upset me because it is not about me, but it doesnt stop me thinking the 15 minutes of hate that happen when someone makes a transgression that gets alot of media attention is wrong and one of the worse qualities of human nature that we have.
BTW Have you read Jon Ronson? He has written about this phonomenon
She didnt put herself in the spotlight, her parents did.
As for not reading the comments , it doesnt upset me because it is not about me, but it doesnt stop me thinking the 15 minutes of hate that we get online about her or anybody else is wrong.
Her parents were asked to verify their relationship to her by a reporter who was writing an expose. They told the reporter (this is the hard part, so hang tough) the TRUTH about their daughter's childhood and home life and debunked stories she was telling about herself. The expose and her life unraveling were coming any day as it was because her story telling had raised red flags.
She didnt put herself in the spotlight, her parents did.
As for not reading the comments , it doesnt upset me because it is not about me, but it doesnt stop me thinking the 15 minutes of hate that happen when someone makes a transgression that gets alot of media attention is wrong and one of the worse qualities of human nature that we have.
BTW Have you read Jon Ronson? He has written about this phonomenon
Do you think if there was any malice intended they wouldn't have come forward before now? They were asked a question and they answered it. Her fibs were exposed. No sympathy for her.
Her parents were asked to verify their relationship to her by a reporter who was writing an expose. They told the reporter (this is the hard part, so hang tough) the TRUTH about their daughter's childhood and home life and debunked stories she was telling about herself. The expose and her life unraveling were coming any day as it was because her story telling had raised red flags.
Yeah it was just a happy coincidence that they had just ordered a fresh copy of her birth certificate;-)
And another happy coincidence that they are doing all the media rounds including making interviews to international tv stations. It is just such a shame that they are only interested in talking about their daughter and what colour crayons she used when she was a child over 30 ago but when asked about the child sex abuse case that another daughter has made they suddenly dont want to amswer any more questions.
Do you think if there was any malice intended they wouldn't have come forward before now? They were asked a question and they answered it. Her fibs were exposed. No sympathy for her.
See my above answer, there was absolute malice intended due to a case of sexual abuse that Rachel was testifying in.
Comments
No she's not like Caitlynn Jenner. Caitlynn wasn't caught lying about her childhood experiences.
See Dolezal's "The Shape Of Our Kind" atop this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/15/rachel-dolezal-art_n_7586972.html
or in her 'Art Pal' page linked in:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/16/did-rachel-dolezal-rip-off-a-painting-called-the-slave-ship/
J.M.W. Turner's 1840 "The Slave Ship":
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Slave_Ship
In a few incisive sentences she makes clear and plain what is wrong with what the impostor did.
The intro to the interview starts at 50 mins in:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02t673c#auto
That was very interesting and the woman is quite articulate. Thanks for linking it.
Yes - it is the deliberate and vocal appropriation of experience that she has not had that bothers me. Negating the genuine experiences of those she purports to respect. The woman is a fraud. No integrity. As "expert" as she is, she knows damn well that what she's doing is wrong.
Not only that, I was reading that she actually went around lecturing and questioning others about their ethnicity! And of course pretended to have experienced racial attacks and hate mail. This is not someone " innocently" going too far with a fantasy.
Yikes. And she tried to sue Howard U for not offering her a job as art instructor.
Speaking to NBC, she said that from the age of five she "was drawing self-portraits with the brown crayon instead of the peach crayon".
This is startlingly similar to the way that transgender people describe their childhood, maybe transethnicity is real after all?
"US media reported on Tuesday that in 2002 she sued the historically black Howard University for discriminating against her for being white.
She subsequently claimed to be the victim of hate crimes for being black.
Ms Dolezal, then known as Rachel Moore, received a Master of Fine Arts degree from Howard University 13 years ago.
Court documents obtained by the Smoking Gun website show that she sued the university for "discrimination based on race, pregnancy, family responsibilities and gender".
As part of her claim, she alleged that some of her artwork had been removed from an exhibition in order to favour black students.
She said the art was removed from the 2001 exhibition because Howard University was "motivated by a discriminatory purpose to favour African-American students over".
The case was dismissed in 2004, with no evidence found that Ms Dolezal had been discriminated against. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2005. She was ordered to pay costs of $2,728.50 (£1,752) to Howard."
White in 2002 yet Speaking to NBC, she said that from the age of five she "was drawing self-portraits with the brown crayon instead of the peach crayon".
"if you can't beat them, then join them" springs to mind. It seems her colour changes when her needs change.
Yet "2002 she sued the historically black Howard University for discriminating against her for being white."
Except we don't know she was doing that, as many things she said didn't seem to happen.
Indeed.
I think she just says all the 'right' things (or rather, the 'things du jour'). Basically takes a textbook approach to her identity and its development.
I can imagine that with three adopted black brothers she felt very left out though.
Perhaps it was just one of their childhood crayonings she copied, before she'd reached the Turner stage. ;-)
I work in licensing, which often sees lawsuits involving allegations of plagiarism. It's interesting to note that when a person is accused of plagiarising a creation, investigators tend to check the person's earlier works - to see whether there's a history of plagiarism - because it's found that when the proven plagiarists started plagiarising, usually during their early teens, they usually can't stop doing it.
Hmm, that is interesting. I mean, I was joking about the crayoning, but there will be a looong history of this I'm sure. Bet not many plagiarists go as far as plagiarising a whole identity though!
If I remember rightly, the authors found that the majority of alleged plagiarists - in this case, the academics who had been caught plagiarising - had a tendency to falsify their credentials and amend their personal backgrounds to fit their preferred personae.
True, she could be making the whole thing up.
Let's assume that she is lying about being transethnic, doesn't the fact that she went to such lengths to appear black utterly destroy the doctrine of 'white privilege'?
http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/the-rachel-dolezal-interview-that-wasnt-a-hidden-cost-of-the-exclusive/264999
As I said earlier it seems her colour changes when her needs change. If there's any major backlash from the black community I wonder if she'll still declare herself as black?
Love Montel's quote "That’s like Wells Fargo asking a bank-robber, “Are you withdrawing or depositing?” "
The lady has lost her job, she is a laughing stock, she has been subject to an internet lynching. Does she need any more? I think it is wrong to keep kicking someone once they are down.
Now that she has resigned can't people just stop this witch hunt against her. It is not like she is a murderer or a rapist. By all accounts before she was outed she was doing good, and working for black rights. Now the media attention is turned to her rather than police beating black teenagers or shooting unarmed people, as if she is the biggest threat to black people and race relations......
As for her parents she might not be trustworthy. But neither are they. They had an ulterior motive to discredit her witness statement in a case of child abuse.
Personally I am with Al Sharpton and Whoopi Goldberg on this one.
She put herself in the spotlight. No-one's fault but her own. Simple remedy don't read other people's comments if it upsets.
BIB: Good for you.
She didnt put herself in the spotlight, her parents did.
As for not reading the comments , it doesnt upset me because it is not about me, but it doesnt stop me thinking the 15 minutes of hate that happen when someone makes a transgression that gets alot of media attention is wrong and one of the worse qualities of human nature that we have.
BTW Have you read Jon Ronson? He has written about this phonomenon
Her parents were asked to verify their relationship to her by a reporter who was writing an expose. They told the reporter (this is the hard part, so hang tough) the TRUTH about their daughter's childhood and home life and debunked stories she was telling about herself. The expose and her life unraveling were coming any day as it was because her story telling had raised red flags.
Do you think if there was any malice intended they wouldn't have come forward before now? They were asked a question and they answered it. Her fibs were exposed. No sympathy for her.
Yeah it was just a happy coincidence that they had just ordered a fresh copy of her birth certificate;-)
And another happy coincidence that they are doing all the media rounds including making interviews to international tv stations. It is just such a shame that they are only interested in talking about their daughter and what colour crayons she used when she was a child over 30 ago but when asked about the child sex abuse case that another daughter has made they suddenly dont want to amswer any more questions.
See my above answer, there was absolute malice intended due to a case of sexual abuse that Rachel was testifying in.