Further Observations On The NAACP’s Self-Made African-American Exec

"I think I am black, therefor I am."

“I think I am black, therefor I am.”

When I wrote about Rachel Dolezal’s strange and provocative racial charade as my first post of the day, I had not read any other commentary on the subject. I was surprised at the degree to which the subject subsequently dominated the web, as well as the rapidity with which many, though not all, of the themes  raised in my various questions were echoed elsewhere—parallels with Elizabeth Warren and Caitlyn Jenner among them. Now that there are some other reactions, as well as some statements from the active participants in this cultural mess—and it is a mess–let me add to my commentary.

1. Some commentators, like Instapundit Glenn Reynolds, appear to think the story is a joke. The tone of some of my earlier comments was intended to be ironic, but this is no joke, and the issues it forces society to deal with, or go into denial regarding, which itself is no joke, are important and perhaps represent a cultural tipping point.

2. Rachel Dolezal represents a crisis for the sloppy thinkers of the left. (There are sloppy thinkers on the Right, too, but this story doesn’t expose them.) They need to choose their words carefully, and so far, I have seen no evidence of that. Modern progressive cant is thoroughly polluted with false constructs, hypocrisy, double standards and absurd mandated beliefs regarding diversity, tolerance and fairness, and this story exposes much of it. I wonder if the progressive activists even realize the bind they are in? It is a dilemma they created themselves by assuming that the pile of contradictions they were amassing would be ignored forever if they threatened and insulted anyone who pointed to it. Dolezal just made their shallow exploration of their own truths untenable.

3. Are minority designations, protected groups and presumed victims of discrimination discreet, immutable classes deserving constant recognition and special protected status? Or are they merely “constructs” that individuals can assume or remove, like an overcoat?

4. A Facebook friend replaying to the post argued, “Gender identity and racial identity is a false equivalent.”  Yes, that’s a nice retort, except that it is empty of argument. Why? If they are a false equivalent, I’d say that is because gender is a great deal more substantive than race. Why can Bruce Jenner become accepted as a woman, and the world ordered to so accept her without a smirk, but Rachel Dolezal can’t just decide that she feels black, and have that decision respected in law and culture? My friend has not offered an answer  yet. I do not expect one.

5. One of those contradictions that some commentators picked up on that I did not was this: if someone can change their gender and their race at will, why can’t a gay man “choose” to be heterosexual, an option that gay activists have condemned as heresy and bigotry when it is suggested. If they can choose, and have that choice respected, like Rachel chose to be black, then why can’t there be professionals who help gays make that choice?

6. Similarly, is there a need and a demand for professionals who can school whites to get in touch with their inner-African, and thus be eligible for affirmative action benefits? Since Asian-Americans are being systematically discriminated against by university affirmative action policies, can they solve the problem without lawsuits by just declaring themselves black?

7. Slate’s Jamelle Bouie, who, if he has ever written a piece that wasn’t a parody of the worst of progeessive racialist jibberish, I missed it, offers  predictably unpersuasive rationalizations to Dolezal’s act.. Highlights:

  • “We don’t have a language for this kind of white-to-black ‘passing.'”

Sure we do, Jamelle. Fraud. Lying. Deception. Good and appropriate words all. And maybe even “insanity.”

  • “A Nigerian immigrant might not identify with black Americans, but she’s still “black,” regardless of what she says, and if she gets pulled over by the police, that identity will matter most.”

Because, of course, all police are racists. The racist is Bouie.

  • “A black American with dark skin and African features could identify as white with her friends, but in society, she’s black, regardless of how she feels.”

She doesn’t feel “white,” or think of herself as “white,” unless she’s deluded like Donezal. Presumably she can spend all her time in a white social structure, and still be able to distinguish what she sees in the mirror.

  • “In her favor are key parts of her life. Dolezal has identified as black for almost 10 years.”

So what? If I identify as Napoleon Bonaparte for 10 years, that doesn’t make me Emperor of France.

  • “She’s been heavily involved in the local black community, and a leader on issues important to black people.”

So have a lot of whites, none of whom actually claimed to be black, because that would be presumptuous and ridiculous. Nobody seriously argued that Bill Clinton was our first black President, just that he was the closest thing to one yet. For example, I would argue that Hillary Clinton would be the closest thing to our first weasel President, but that would not make her an actual weasel.

  • “She has no apparent black ancestry—a real difference from blacks who pass—but she’s adopted a kind of black culture almost wholesale.”

So what?

  • “If Walter Francis White is black, and Mordecai Wyatt Johnson is black, then why can’t Rachel Dolezal be black, even if her connections were manufactured?”

Uh, Jamelle? White and Johnson ARE black. She’s not. She just says she is, like they  passed for white. That’s why.

  • “She says she’s black, but we don’t know if she’s always black.”

Wait, what? She’s never black, you idiot!

  • “If it’s troubling, it’s at least partly because it feels like Dolezal is adopting the culture without carrying the burdens.” 

No, it’s troubling because she’s not black, and has been falsely portraying herself otherwise.

Slate does have a useful exposition of the few recorded case of white Americans claiming to be black.

8. If progressives want to die on this wall, they sure picked a bad spot. Dolezal’s brothers, the actual blacks in the family, told the Washington Post that she claimed custody over her brother, referring to her youngest adopted brother as her son, and alleged that “[Rachel] turned Izaiah kind of racist. Told Izaiah all this stuff about white people, made him really racist toward white people.” Mediaite finds that Dolezal once told the New York Times that as a multi-racial individual, she would be afraid to be around a large group of tea party members.

This all hints of mental illness, unless the theory is that if you hate and fear whites enough, that will make you black.

9. In another interview with Sky News, Dolezal expressed contempt for those questioning her racial identity, saying, “I don’t give two shits what you guys think”—at least she gives one shit— and that it’s more important for her to clarify the confusion with the black community than to “explain it to a community that I, quite frankly, don’t think really understands the definitions of race and ethnicity.”

Dolezal and her open embrace of magical thinking as reality risks should force progressives to confront other, less spectacular but equally dishonest examples of  employing fantasy and denial as foundations for belief. Notable among them is the bizarre abortion mindset in which a mother who regards her unborn child as a living human being should have the life of that child fully protected by the law, yet a pregnant woman who wants to abort a fetus in the same stage of development can claim that her child isn’t a being at all, but just an inhuman parasite, and demand that the law respect her assessment. A fetus is a himan being or not, and what the mother believes is irrelevant, just a Dolezal is white, no matter what her derangement or scheme have led her to assert.

10. Though Spokane is investigating the apparent scam, as it should, since the city appointed Dolezal believing they were appointing a black woman—ah, how simple this would be if governments didn’t make color or race a qualification for anything!—the NAACP responded with evasive double-talk, saying,

“For 106 years, the National  Association for the Advancement of Colored People has held a long and proud tradition of receiving support from people of all faiths, races, colors and creeds. NAACP Spokane Washington Branch President Rachel Dolezal is enduring a legal issue with her family, and we respect her privacy in this matter. One’s racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership.  The NAACP Alaska-Oregon-Washington State Conference stands behind Ms. Dolezal’s advocacy record.  In every corner of this country, the NAACP remains committed to securing political, educational, and economic justice for all people, and we encourage Americans of all stripes to become members and serve as leaders in our organization.”

The issue isn’t whether a white woman can be an advocate for civil rights, and the NAACP knows it. That’s a straw man. The issue is that a high-ranking NAACP official is a fabulist and a liar, and this raises questions about her credibility and that of every organization that employs her or allows her to speak for it. It seems that the NAACP cannot mature to the point where it will be honest about misconduct by its members. This is sad, and it also is destructive.

122 thoughts on “Further Observations On The NAACP’s Self-Made African-American Exec

  1. “If progressives want to die on this wall, they sure picked a bad spot.”

    Where is this “wall” you speak of that liberals are dying on?

    As the comments roll in on this situation, you find Jon Stewart expressing bafflement and muted anger at Dolezal; you find Charles Blow finding her delusional. The New York Times op ed pages generally make three points, pretty much what you find from all liberals:

    a. she’s a bit of a nut job
    b. there’s some white privilege stuff going on here
    c. this is a good opportunity to see “race” as cultural not biological

    I see nothing that supports your claim of “a crisis for the sloppy thinkers of the left…Modern progressive cant is thoroughly polluted with false constructs, hypocrisy, double standards and absurd mandated beliefs regarding diversity, tolerance and fairness, and this story exposes much of it.. dilemma they created themselves by assuming that the pile of contradictions they were amassing would be ignored forever if they threatened and insulted anyone who pointed to it. Dolezal just made their shallow exploration of their own truths untenable.”

    To quote Jon Stewart – Whaaaaaatt?

    • It’s all there, Charles. I didn’t say EVERY progressive would die on that wall, but plenty tried, until Dolezal herself made it impossible. Many more, even if they disagreed, took her as a serious figure. Blow, a professional race-baiter (and racist) is smart enough to know that she represents a threat to his occupation. Naturally he wanted her to go away.

      And the dilemma she illustrated remains: if race is “just a construct,” than affirmative action is indefensible, group identity is based on myth, diversity is based on skin color, and the entire racial-group identification huckster game being played with such success is all smoke, mirrors, and power for profit. You deny that there is a powerful “black culture,” and Dolezal either proves that someone is black if they say so, or that being black has no meaning. You don’t see this as a problem for the intellectually objective and honest?

      • First of all, “It’s all there.” Really? Name one. Who is dying on that wall?

        You are missing a very simple logical point on the issue of race as cultural. The FACT that race is a cultural not a biological construct does NOT mean that people can’t be racist – they’re just racist on the basis of cultural constructs. Where’s the contradiction?

        When you say, “Dolezal either proves that someone is black if they say so, or that being black has no meaning.” that’s just silly, and common language proves it.
        –Nobody agrees that “someone is black if they say so,” neither liberal nor conservative, black nor white.
        –And no one agrees that “being black has no meaning.”
        So if you see a contradiction there, you’re alone.

        No, I certainly don’t see this as a problem for the intellectually objective and honest. I am having serious trouble finding a problem here at all.

        • You do realize that you are asserting substance without substance I assume.

          Things are either real, or they are not. If people are discriminating on the basis of something unreal and unsubstantial, the way to stop it is to show it isn’t substantive.This is logic 101; The entire illogic of racial politics is summed up by this debate: race doesn’t matter, but it matters more than anything. We should traet everyone teh same, but blacks are different. Blacks want to be different to get special treatment, but don’t want to be treated differently, They have a different culture, but the different culture has no effect on the race’s persistent problems in America, and its racist to even suggest otherwise. Meanwhile, there are special awards , positions and set asides for blacks, except that being black depends on who is being.

          Clear as a bell, right? No, the point of the game is not to think about it too hard, and to marginalize and demonize any one who does.

          The United Sates is about recognizing and treating individuals as individuals, and no, race should, doesn’t, and must not “matter.”

          • “Things are either real, or they are not.”

            OK, then: Bill Clinton was the first black President. Real or not?

            You are continually making basic philosophic mistakes by force-fitting things into categories that ought to be distinct.

            Is ancestry real? Of course it is.
            Do races differ genetically? Not in any significant way, no.
            Is racism real? Of course it is.
            Is there a such thing as “black culture?” Of course there is.

            So where is the problem? You say the left believes that “we should treat everyone the same, but blacks are different.” WHY do you see this as a contradiction?

            One is an “ought” statement of aspiration and ethics; the other is a factual, empirical statement. An “is” does not make an “ought,” nor vice versa.

            I find your illogic most apparent when you say, “race should[n’t], doesn’t, and must not “matter.”

            Do you not see the distinction between “is” and “ought” again? There’s no question it SHOULDN’T matter, but somehow you jump right to denying reality in claiming that it already DOESN’T matter. What planet are you living on?

            • Sure, I see the difference between is and ought. I also see the hypocrisy of those who believe “ought” working so hard to maintain a belief in “isn’t.” If civil rights advocates have integrity, they will argue for policies that are consistent with race-neutrality and irrelevance, not the opposite. They don’t have integrity. Dolezal’s charade would be impossible if they did.

            • “Things are either real, or they are not.” OK, then: Bill Clinton was the first black President. Real or not?

              Unreal, stupid, and exactly why Dolezal assumed what she did made sense. It’s just that she wasn’t a Nobel Prize winner, so she didn’t get a pass.

              Here’s the Wiki entry:

              Clinton drew strong support from the African American community and made improving race relations a major theme of his presidency.In 1998, Nobel laureate Toni Morrison called Clinton “the first Black president”, saying, “Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas”.Noting that Clinton’s sex life was scrutinized more than his career accomplishments, Morrison compared this to the stereotyping and double standards that blacks typically endure.

              Got that? And why didn’t liberals and Democrats say, “What nonsense!”? Why did the media not treat this as it would have treated the exact same idiocy if Rush Limbaugh had said it?

              You think raising this supports your argument??

              • Are you kidding? Of course it supports my argument! Liberals didn’t ignore it or call it nonsense, they embraced it! It was a great joke among liberals.

                Here from a Salon article on just that writing by Toni Morrison:
                “In her now-famous defense of a scandal-plagued Bill Clinton, Nobel prizewinner Toni Morrison, went so far as to call him “our first black president. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime…It certainly was tongue-in-cheek on Toni Morrison’s part. Anyone who reads the totality of what she said clearly understands that she’s painting a picture.”

                That theme got asked of Barack Obama on a CNN presidential debate, and received great laughter from the crowd. It was trotted out as a joke by black and white comics alike.

                Like many jokes, it contains some double-edged, double-entendre kinds of humor. Black humor in particular contains a lot of self-deprecation, which is why it was told there.

                And as to what would have happened had Rush Limbaugh said it instead of Toni Morrison – DAMN RIGHT there would have been an outrage, because – and this is another trope you keep stumbling on – black/white doesn’t easily reverse. You can’t assume “what if a white/black person had said X” and find them interchangeable. They are different. The speaker makes a difference.

                You know that yourself, otherwise you wouldn’t have used the example for effect. The fact that a black woman first made the joke, and in such a deeply humorous-cum-ironic way, made it OK for others to make the joke. Had Limbaugh said it, it would not have been the same at all.

                “Why did the media not treat this as it would have treated the exact same idiocy if Rush Limbaugh had said it?” See above: because it makes a difference who’s doing the talking: Rush or Toni.

                “You think raising this supports your argument??” Absolutely.

                • You are utterly and basely asinine and devoid of any reliability. Holy crap.

                  This is the typical smug aggorant left wing “we can have our jokes and you can’t, when we need to say it’s a joke…but we’ll sure as hell use it as a ‘valid’ premise if it advances our nonsense” defense if I’ve ever seen it.

                  Charles, do you sleep at night because you are ignorant or do you sleep at night because you truly believe these lies are for the greater good or do you just not sleep at night knowing the complete dishonest contradictions your maintain to furnish your heinous worldview?

                    • Charles,

                      I this case I don’t want to use substance. Jack has utterly assaulted your worldview with logic, substance and truth. My commentary cannot hope to add to this discussion. I am truly flabbergasted how someone with supposed discernment can really believe what you asset with not one rational defense.

                      I can’t add to Jack’s razor like destruction of your “views”.

                      I really care that people don’t wander the word zombified believing the kinds of things you believe. Hence I made the commentate and asked the question asked.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.