Rachel Dolezal lies about being black. Leads NAACP chapter. Teaches Africana class.

[Jidoe]

I prefer to follow both religious and scientific law in these matters, personally. There is just too much stupidity in numbers (Society).

I really don't want to turn this into a religious flame-war, but there is far more stupidity in religious doctrine/numbers than any societal law. The reason, by the way, isn't because I hate religion or the concept of God, but rather because religious law is the societal laws that were written 2000 years ago (or more). Current societal laws are far more fitting to these times.

[Malacasta]

Hey Jidoe,

I am sorry I expressed myself badly, I actually liked most what you wrote (though I absolutely disagree with your assertion about feminists and transgender people)

I don't see how this can be considered a "simple case of racism." Who is being racist here?

Again, sorry for not explaining his position better. He thinks what Dolezal did was racist, end of story.

I finally found an article that articulates many of the thoughts that are running through my head. I'll preface it with a quote from a different article in The Atlantic

Kalief Browder died, like Renisha McBride died, like Tamir Rice died, because they were born and boxed into the lowest cavity of that hierarchy. If not for those deaths, if not for the taking of young boys off the streets of New York, and the pinning of young girls on the lawns of McKinney, Texas, the debate over Rachel Dolezal's masquerade would wither and blow away, because it would have no real import nor meaning...

"I think race is oppression," writes Richard Seymour, "and nothing else." Indeed. It is the oppression that matters. In that sense, I care not one iota what Rachel Dolezal does, nor what she needs to label herself. I care solely, totally and completely about what this society does to my son, because of its need to label him.

Unraveling the Rachel Dolezal controversy

[Jidoe]

Hey Jidoe,

I am sorry I expressed myself badly, I actually liked most what you wrote (though I absolutely disagree with your assertion about feminists and transgender people)
[/URL]

It's alright. And the comment about feminists are just my observations from feminist groups on Facebook. I've seen them berate transgenders one too many times for absolutely no reason.

[Blog]

Originally Posted by Malacasta
The desire to revel in schadenfreude and destroy relatively private people (there have been so many examples of this in the last few years) and how this impacts on society.

I think at least part of the problem here is people don't know how to apologize, or don't care to (implying they are not sorry) and it makes the hole deeper and the whole thing worse.

If many would just say "I'm sorry, I was wrong" then it wouldn't be such a big issue, instead we often get excuses or non-apologies like I'm sorry you feel that way, which just invites another news cycle of how bad or whatever that person is. Maybe I missed it, but I don't believe Rachel Dolezal has genuinely apologized and admitted she made a mistake on this.

Whoever it was that said Rachel D. shouldn't be news is correct.

[Malacasta]

Societal Law will state that so long as I am not intruding upon anyone else's rights, I can live however I please. That's both the pro and the con to living in the USA. If one bases their entire arguement on Societal Law, then theoretically, I can put on a batman costume, change my name to batman, and I will become batman.

I think you're using a glib analogy to pretend that Societal Law is a thing you can just ignore because it's so silly.
To successfully identify as batman socially, you would also have (among other things):

• several billion dollars
• an Olympian physique
• an arsenal of bespoke weapons and gadgets
• an relationship with the police which allowed you to go all vigilante on folks
• an array of super villains to fight

What essential qualities determine that a person socially belongs to a 'race' or 'a gender'? If you meet those qualities, are accepted as a member of that group, and believe that you belong to that group, then the question as to whether or not you should be able to legitimately identify as a part of that group if a fair one, and not at all like calling yourself batman.

Religious Law will go either way depending on your practice. As a conservative Christian, this would fall under the pretext of "lieing". The above cases and similar cases would not be something I could indulge in logically. If this was a Church-State, this would trump both other laws and such arguments would be a non-issue.

What Jidoe said, also, the arguments wouldn't become a non-issue, they'd become an issue of the theocracy oppressing those who identified themselves in ways that the theocracy didn't approve of.

Scientific Law states genetics and chromosomes will govern what a person truly is. Preference doesn't play any real role. You can't exactly throw science out of the window. Me (white) and my wife (asian) can't throw science into the wind and have a black baby. Science is what it is.

There are instances of seemingly 'white' families who have had 'black' looking children. There are 'white' looking people who discover that they have fairly 'black' ancestry. How many 'African', 'Nordic', 'Slavic', 'Irish', 'Semitic', 'Melanesian', 'American Indian', 'Indian Asian', 'Far East Asian', 'Koori', 'Maori' ... (or is that 'Black', 'White', 'Asian'?) genes need to be in your DNA before 'Scientific Law' determines that you are a particular race?

There is so much that science doesn't understand about the way and the extent that genetic information is expressed in behavior and phenotype. There is still enormous debate about nature versus nurture. There no denying, however, that both behavior and phenotype exist across spectrums - even when we know that two individuals share a crude genotype such as XY. Schwarzenegger and Laverne Cox have XY chromosomes, but they are poles apart in terms of behavior and appearance.

There is no 'Scientific Law' that explains a 3 tier racial world, or a 10 tiered racial world. And when genetic types like XY can result in such vast differences in expression, then I really can't see much value in talking about the science of XY at all (except perhaps in terms of health).

[Malacasta]

There's nothing that can be said that means a goddamn thing, is there? It's just going to keep happening.

[Sier]

What essential qualities determine that a person socially belongs to a 'race' or 'a gender'? If you meet those qualities, are accepted as a member of that group, and believe that you belong to that group, then the question as to whether or not you should be able to legitimately identify as a part of that group if a fair one, and not at all like calling yourself batman.

Perhaps. However, I have difficulty believing that any arguments a transgender might have would be such a criteria. If I were to decorate my bedroom with dolls, put up pink curtains, change my sexual preferences, and undergo a painful operation, I see this as nothing more as a painfully acquired costume. The rules and criteria for belonging to this group are ultimately made by society, which is where societal law come into play. The only real difference is that there is no "Batman Club" waiting for me with said checklist.

What Jidoe said, also, the arguments wouldn't become a non-issue, they'd become an issue of the theocracy oppressing those who identified themselves in ways that the theocracy didn't approve of.

Yea, this would be the con I was speaking of. Let's assume some random religion took over the country. I seriously doubt this religion would have the same views as my own. Odds are high that they would heavily conflict, and I myself would be imprisoned.

I like to tell myself that I don't "Oppress" people whose lifestyle I do not agree with. I do, however, reserve the right to pity them quietly.

There are instances of seemingly 'white' families who have had 'black' looking children. There are 'white' looking people who discover that they have fairly 'black' ancestry. How many 'African', 'Nordic', 'Slavic', 'Irish', 'Semitic', 'Melanesian', 'American Indian', 'Indian Asian', 'Far East Asian', 'Koori', 'Maori' ... (or is that 'Black', 'White', 'Asian'?) genes need to be in your DNA before 'Scientific Law' determines that you are a particular race?

I suppose that's a fair question. A genetics test my brother informed me that I am .5% South African. There is no current quota for identifying as an African American, but if I attempted to do so there would be a lot of head-scratching and confusion. We all have a bit of everything in us in the end.

Perhaps the smart thing to do would be not to have these silly divisive groupings, and organizations dedicated to furthering a certain race in society.

[Kailen]

My question is not whether she lied or not, but rather why do we care so much about her? Why is it a public thing?

Because the White Majority, can't imagine why someone would wan't to forgoe their white privilege in America, to identify with the historically downtrodden black folks. This is what the big hoopla is about. Almost everything in America is geared to the majority, commercials, sports, and laws. Why ever would any sane person ever forgo this blessing in AMERICA? I'm also afraid that this might be an unbelievable concept for many within this thread, but I hope not.

[Kailen]

Why should we care so much about a pathological liar that has done nothing to hurt any of us?

I agree with this idea, and was what I was asking from the start to some degree.

My answer is that there are a lot of people making money out of the whole "white privileged" theme. The mere thought that a white person can be not just an integral part, but also a leader, of a black community, hurts people's butts. In the same way extreme feminists are pushing away transgenders from the battle of feminism.

I think I already encroached this idea, but flipped this statement on its head, but I'll add to this. The concept of Race in the Western world was established in America after Bacon's Rebellion. This was a way to keep poor whites, black, and native americans from uprising again. There were certain privileges allocated to ensure this, gun ownership, land grants, etc.. But, If I remember correctly you don't subscribed to the idea of class, or the segregation of people based on race. So, I won't waste to much energy explaining.

[Kailen]

Originally Posted by Malacasta
The desire to revel in schadenfreude and destroy relatively private people (there have been so many examples of this in the last few years) and how this impacts on society.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't believe Rachel Dolezal has genuinely apologized and admitted she made a mistake on this.

Spare me the hypocrisy, This country is kind of built on not apologizing, and neglecting the truth. This is a hard argument to make.

1) Black Wall Street
2) The Great Compromise
3) The Scarborough Boys

These are mere specs of dust amongst the pile. Dare, I say Privilege?