Outed NAACP for being White......should she be fired?

[franksterr]

the error in ur statement is saying she needs 'to go South to get a taste of being black in a racist space'..heck know...i have studied n lived below the Mason Dixie line since i come farrin...i found the most racist n ignorant people in Corporate America in NEW YORK....i was taken aback wen the VICE PRESIDENT of Operations for an International company i was working for n with said to me that working around black people especially men made her uncomfortable...she and her consort made this black male's life at the company hell n this was late 1990's...he was a darker hue than me n along the 'u not like them' she somehow felt she would be safe opining as such to moi...i left her dumbfounded and corrected after the comment and all the time i worked with her....she was put out to find that in trying to assuage her guilt n try similar tactics wid me to get me to leave didn't work....to the extent that i wrote a rebuttal to an attempt on her part to fabricate some rot in her evaluation of me...i sat at my computer n wrote said rebuttal n when it hit HR the comments were that i HAD HAD TO HAVE SOUGHT LEGAL COUNSEL IN COMPOSING THE DOCUMENT ..SUCH WAS THE LANGUAGE I USED...I SHUT HER DOWN N SHUT HER UP....also,poor thing didn't realize that I had been in the habit of sharing my morning brew of Blue Mtn coffee with the CEO as both of us were usually the first arrivals in the office..he would come down n have coffee with me...n of course we would chat...at a meeting once, he asked my opinion on a particular subject n my terms used n my take were the talk after the meeting across the company...that blond woman was flabbergated upon till she found it necessary to move on....yes, i would have cops shadow me driving home to my upscale neighbourhood while living in Little Rock but I never once had any white down there show me open n blatant racism n condescension as that woman tried with me....i have always found the statement that New York is the melting pot of America laughable n erroneous...fi real...my take experience

Of Course you are right, almost all of America is permeated by racism, but to get the real raw in your face brand, I still think is best to go South.

Can't argue with your experience, though mine have been a little different in that I lived in Georgia for about a year where the Klan march often and openly down my block spewing hate loudly and proudly....then I moved to NY where I lived for 20 yrs and only once saw the Klan on the News try to march.
Yes in the Corporate world their is a lot of bigotry and racism in NY but in my experience it tends to be covert in the sense that the perpetrators try to disguise or hide their racism by not owning it. I can count on my fingers the amount of time I have been racially discriminating against in NY and two times the perpetrators where Black men.....I spent less than one year in Georgia and the amount is too numerous.

So the question maybe do you prefer racism to be openly displayed or covertly done with no one taking responsibility?
Truth is none is good, but one form denotes a certain level of restrictions. If I had to choose one form or the other......I prefer when they have to hide it.

[Gen]

this is what she said in recent interviews today etc

“The reasons for my full-tuition scholarship being removed and my teaching position as well ... were that, ‘Other people needed opportunities and you probably have white relatives that can afford to help you with your tuition,’” she said. “I thought that was an injustice.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rachel-dolezal-naacp-leacder-identify-black-article-1.2259490

this cleard up the Rumour that she was at howard on a a a scholarship.

[Gen]

she did the rounds of interviews today, and brought her biological (and adopted brother) son along

i don't understand why this lunatic would drag her child along in this train wreck to answer questions as well \0/

i mean this is going to be uber cringeworthy in about 5 years when the kid gets to college or even next year when him get to HS

[franksterr]

The question that Matt should have ask is how does she define black as oppose to African American or what is the difference between Black and African American?

To me the difference between black and African American is Black usually means one is a direct descendant of African Slaves in the New World, whilst African American includes that and as well as recent Africans from the continents and the world who are now citizens of the Americas in particular USA.

[evanovitch]

Of Course you are right, almost all of America is permeated by racism, but to get the real raw in your face brand, I still think is best to go South.

Can't argue with your experience, though mine have been a little different in that I lived in Georgia for about a year where the Klan march often and openly down my block spewing hate loudly and proudly....then I moved to NY where I lived for 20 yrs and only once saw the Klan on the News try to march.
Yes in the Corporate world their is a lot of bigotry and racism in NY but in my experience it tends to be covert in the sense that the perpetrators try to disguise or hide their racism by not owning it. I can count on my fingers the amount of time I have been racially discriminating against in NY and two times the perpetrators where Black men.....I spent less than one year in Georgia and the amount is too numerous.

So the question maybe do you prefer racism to be openly displayed or covertly done with no one taking responsibility?
Truth is none is good, but one form denotes a certain level of restrictions. If I had to choose one form or the other......I prefer when they have to hide it.

..the South was forced to see itself as it was N TAKE RESPONSIBILITY due to the light shone on it...The North/ NY had lived in a fools paradise that is still like The Cotton Club premise...

Btw I moved t Stn Mtn in 1977 to attend University in Atlanta...I lived mere miles from that infamous park n I never saw or heard the Klan in the open..n back then that area of Dekalb was still "white"... The flight to Gwinnett etc hadn't started...I know the South...have attended school, lived n worked ....so I wonder if u lived in the South back before the Civil Rights push...

[franksterr]

..the South was forced to see itself as it was N TAKE RESPONSIBILITY due to the light shone on it...The North/ NY had lived in a fools paradise that is still like The Cotton Club premise...

Btw I moved t Stn Mtn in 1977 to attend University in Atlanta...I lived mere miles from that infamous park n I never saw or heard the Klan in the open..n back then that area of Dekalb was still "white"... The flight to Gwinnett etc hadn't started...I know the South...have attended school, lived n worked ....so I wonder if u lived in the South back before the Civil Rights push...

NO.......It was 1987 in Atlanta
to add insult to injury they also had a 24 hr cable channel with just one guy on it the whole time close up spewing hate on and on, and you know what was curious he never blinked....it think it was channel one

[Blackstar*]

The question that Matt should have ask is how does she define black as oppose to African American or what is the difference between Black and African American?

To me the difference between black and African American is Black usually means one is a direct descendant of African Slaves in the New World, whilst African American includes that and as well as recent Africans from the continents and the world who are now citizens of the Americas in particular USA.

However it define, she is neither. How she can dress up in modern-day blackface and lie about hate crimes against her and think that is OK? Oh, she also plagiarised the paintings she selling too.

[evanovitch]

However it define, she is neither. How she can dress up in modern-day blackface and lie about hate crimes against her and think that is OK? Oh, she also plagiarised the paintings she selling too.

word....even more telling to me was when she sued Howard claiming they discriminated against her because she was white...if u seh u have thought u were black fi all this time to the extent that u go to a black institution ..u embrace being black, y wen u face 'adversity' u race the WHITE CARD....if u were identifying as being black u would seh well is eida di odda artwork was better than urs or dat dem like di odda black smaddy more dan dem like u..like how we REAL blacks would mumble along dat way....

but playing the WHITE CARD show her straddling the fence of WHITE PRIVILEGE.... a so mi read it n i is unanimous in that

[franksterr]

However it define, she is neither.

Agreed...just wanted to know what her reasonings(excuse) would have been.

How she can dress up in modern-day blackface and lie about hate crimes against her and think that is OK? Oh, she also plagiarised the paintings she selling too.

Whats the the difference between black face and transracial?
To I one is temporary and offense and the other is permanent and (to some) liberating.

[blugiant]

naacp iss wan oyinbo organization founded by oyinbo to mislead blakks.

[blugiant]

Black Like Her

On June 7th, Elinor Burkett published an Op-Ed in the Times expressing what she portrayed as a feminist’s reluctant skepticism about aspects of the transgender movement. She argued, in part, that the notion of men simply transitioning into women was equivalent to a white person darkening his or her skin and professing to be black. The example was meant as a reductio ad absurdum—but, less than a week later, Rachel Dolezal, the president of the Spokane, Washington, chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and a professor of Africana studies, was unveiled as a white woman who has for some years presented herself and identified as black. On Monday, Dolezal resigned, in a statement that didn’t answer questions about what she referred to as “my personal identity,” though it did refer obliquely to “challenging the construct of race.” That answer is clearly inadequate; many people have challenged the construct of race without lying about their lives. But there is something more worth discussing here.

The easy presumption about Dolezal, who has two white parents and light skin and eyes—and hair that has ranged from blond to brown, though she has worn it in ways that are culturally associated with black women—is that this is an instance in which someone finally pointed out the obvious: the emperor is naked. But, in truth, Dolezal has been dressed precisely as we all are, in a fictive garb of race whose determinations are as arbitrary as they are damaging. This doesn’t mean that Dolezal wasn’t lying about who she is. It means that she was lying about a lie.

Dolezal’s name has been added to a running discussion of racial appropriation. Two weeks ago, Chet Haze, the putative rapper and son of the actor Tom Hanks, took to Instagram with a questionable syllogism. Because hip-hop is, in his view, “not about race,” and because he so closely identifies with the genre, he should be allowed to use the word “nigger” (or its variant “nigga”) without recrimination. His comments recalled the feeble musings of John Mayer, five years ago, when he lamented to Playboy that his level of black cred was high enough, his standing within the race so unimpeachable, that he ought to be able to toss the epithet with the same sort of entitlement as Jay Z. And last week, the Washington Post published a timeline of the career implosion of Iggy Azalea, the white Australian rapper notable for her transparent racial affectations.

Among African-Americans, there is a particular contempt, rooted in the understanding that black culture was formed in a crucible of degradation, for what Norman Mailer hailed as the “white Negro.” Whatever elements of beauty or cool, whatever truth or marketable lies there are that we associate with blackness, they are ultimately the product of a community’s quest to be recognized as human in a society that is only ambivalently willing to see it as such. And it is this root that cannot be assimilated. The white Negroes, whose genealogy stretches backward from Azalea through Elvis and Paul Whiteman, share the luxury of being able to slough off blackness the moment it becomes disadvantageous, cumbersome, or dangerous. It is an identity as impermanent as burnt cork, whose profitability rests upon an unspoken suggestion that the surest evidence of white superiority is the capacity to exceed blacks even at being black. The black suspicion of whites thus steeped in black culture wasn’t bigotry; it was a cultural tariff—an abiding sense that, if they knew all that came with the category, they would be far less eager to enlist.

But this is precisely what makes the Dolezal deception complicated. Artists like Eminem and Teena Marie, white people who were by and large accepted by black people as a legitimate part of black cultural life, nonetheless had to finesse a kind of epidermal conflict of interest. Irrespective of their sincerity, a portion of their profitability lay in their status as atypically white. Dolezal’s transracialism was imbued with exactly the opposite undertaking. She passed as black and set about shouldering the inglorious, frustrating parts of that identity—the parts that allocate responsibility for what was once called “uplifting the race.” It’s an aspect of her story that at least ought to give her critics—black ones, particularly—a moment of pause.

Dolezal is, like me, a graduate of Howard University, a place where the constellation of black identities and appearances is so staggeringly vast as to ridicule the idea that blackness could be, or ever has been, any one thing. What I took from Howard, besides that broadened sense of a world I’d presumed to know, was an abiding debt to those who’d fought on its behalf and a responsibility to do so for those who came afterward. It’s easy to deride Dolezal’s dishonesty—to ridicule her hoax as a clever means of sidestepping the suspicion with which white liberals are commonly greeted—until we reflect on a photograph of Walter White, the aptly named man who served as the second black president of the N.A.A.C.P. Or one of Louis T. Wright, who served as the national chairman of the N.A.A.C.P. board during the Great Depression. In the nineteen-twenties, amid a feud with the organization, the black nationalist Marcus Garvey criticized the N.A.A.C.P. for being a organization whose black and white members were essentially indistinguishable.

The spectrum of shades and colorings that constitute “black” identity in the United States, and the equal claim to black identity that someone who looks like White or Wright (or, for that matter, Dolezal) can have, is a direct product of bloodlines that attest to institutionalized rape during and after slavery. Nearly all of us who identify as African-American in this country, apart from some more recent immigrants, have at least some white ancestry. My own white great-grandparent is as inconsequential as the color of my palms in terms of my status as a black person in the United States. My grandparents had four children: my father and his brother, both almond-brown, with black hair and dark eyes, and two girls with reddish hair, fair skin, freckles, and gray eyes. All of them were equally black because they were equal heirs to the quirks of chance determining whether their ancestry from Europe or Africa was most apparent. Dolezal’s primary offense lies not in the silly proffering of a false biography but in knowing this ugly history and taking advantage of the reasons that she would, at least among black people, be taken at her word regarding her identity.

Race, in this country and under certain circumstances, functions like a faith, in that the simple profession of membership is sufficient. The most—possibly the sole—democratic element of race in this country lies in this ecumenical approach to blackness. We are not in the business of checking membership cards. In this way, Dolezal’s claim on black identity is of a different order than the hollow declaration of a Hollywood scion or anyone else who opted to be Negro for a season. They can plead ignorance. But Dolezal spent four years at an institution steeped in the delicacies of race. If nothing else, she understands the exact nature of the trust she violated.

Despite the interchangeability of the terms “African-American” and “black,” this is a community in which ancestry is one, but clearly not the sole or necessarily even the primary, basis for inclusion. Walter White was only fractionally more African than Dolezal, but black enough to be accepted as not only a member of that community but one of its leaders. There is also a disquieting notion inherent in this approach to identity—that if anyone can indeed be “black,” then we all are, that Morrison and Coltrane and Chisholm and Malcolm are both unhyphenated Americans and indistinct. (And yet, in circumstances where someone named Eric Garner or Walter Scott is looking nervously over his shoulder, they are still vulnerably intelligible.) It putatively means that Chet Haze is as qualified to utter the word “nigga” as anyone for whom dark skin and skewed life chances have given the word connotations Haze would never countenance. It means, most damningly, that black people are not distinctly bound to each other. Yet both of these things—a community rooted in race and a deep-seated skepticism about the very existence of race—coexist.

Rachel Dolezal is not black—by lineage or lifelong experience—yet I find her deceptions less troubling than the vexed criteria being used to exclude her. If blackness is simply a matter of a preponderance of African ancestry, then we should set about the task of excising a great deal of the canon of black history, up to and including the current President. If it is simply a matter of shared experience, we might excommunicate people like Walter White, whose blue eyes were camouflage that could serve both to spare him the direct indignity of racism and enable him to personally investigate and expose lynchings. Dolezal was dishonest about an undertaking rooted in dishonesty, and no matter how absurd her fictional blackness may appear, it is worth recalling that the former lie is far more dangerous than the latter. Our means of defining ourselves are complex and contradictory—and could be nothing other than that. But if the rubric is faulty it remains vital. The great majority of Americans recognize slavery as a figment of history, interred in a receding past. But, for black people, that past remains at the surface—close at hand, indelible, a narrative as legible as skin.

[blugiant]

The Niagara Movement

In that context, it is useful to review the NAACP’s history.

While the NAACP was formed in 1909, its true origins go back four years earlier with the Niagara Movement. In July of 1905 W.E.B. Dubois, the most prominent Black intellectual of the time, called a meeting of the “Talented Tenth,” held in Fort Erie, Ontario because no hotel on the U.S. side would rent them a meeting room.

Twenty-nine people attended to respond to the challenge of a rising Ku Klux Klan, lynching and intense bigotry. Here’s a summary of the Niagara Movement’s central demands:

1. Freedom of speech and criticism. Mainly directed at the internal debate within the Black community between the Talented Tenth layers and Booker T. Washington’s more conservative (“don’t rock the boat”) Tuskegee Institute supporters.

2. An unfettered and unsubsidized press. The goal was to make sure the views of the radicals were widely spread.

3. Male suffrage. To participate fully in the American political system as equals. (Women didn't get the vote until 1920.)

4. Abolition of all caste distinctions based on race and color. The demands were squarely aimed at Jim Crow in the South and de facto racism in the North.

5. Recognition of the principles of human brotherhood as a practical present creed.

6. Recognition of the highest and best human training as a monopoly of no class or race. It emphasized the importance of publicly financed education.

7. Belief in the dignity of labor. The demand was not just for equal employment opportunities but sharp criticism of not only the employers but the discrimination prevalent in the trade unions.

8. United efforts to realize ideals under wise and courageous leadership. Constant protest was approved as the method to secure equal rights.

These goals clashed with the accommodationist politics of Washington (the recognized Black leader for white America) who feared upsetting the white power structure. The Niagara Movement agenda and strategy was radical, advocating direct action protests.

Washington’s policy was to look to friends in government and soft lobbying. His campaign against the Niagara Movement and the “uncompromising Negros” made it impossible to build a broader alliance with white liberals, which led to the Movement’s demise. Its core ideals, however, lived on.

The effort to build a broader civil rights organization led to the formation of the NAACP. After “riots” in Springfield, Illinois, in 1908, a group of Black intellectuals and white liberals issued a call on Abraham Lincoln's birthday, February 12, 1909, leading to the first meeting on May 31-June 1 of the National Negro Committee in New York City. A year later the Committee changed its name to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Principal Objective Still Incomplete

Echoing the focus of Du Bois’ Niagara Movement, the NAACP’s stated goal was to secure for all people the rights guaranteed in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution, which respectively promised an end to slavery, equal protection of the law, and universal adult male suffrage.

The NAACP established its national office in New York City in 1910 and named a board of directors as well as a president, Moorfield Storey, a white constitutional lawyer and former president of the American Bar Association. The only African American among the organization’s executives, Du Bois was made director of publications and research and in 1910 established the official journal of the NAACP, The Crisis.

Its mission: “The NAACP’s principal objective is to ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of minority group citizens of United States and eliminate race prejudice. The NAACP seeks to remove all barriers of racial discrimination through the democratic processes.” (National NAACP web site)

[Blackstar*]

"Being Black in America is not a condition to be trifled with or played around with. It's not that kind of thing. This is not, I repeat, this is not a game"

[franksterr]

I still think she is being deceptive and not yet speaking her authentic truth.....
the question for me is did she do a good job as president of the NAACP chapter?
is She truly comparable to transexual ?
I still am having a hard to processing or understanding the motivations behind wanting to change ones sex having said that, I think she is more akin to a cross dresser.

My Truths (according to Rachel Dolezal)
Race is a fluid construct
Creative non-fiction
Doubts her parentage
Use bronze spray on
resonate with Caitlyn Jenner
Definately not white....nothing about white describes who I am.

Does she really get it????
Racially Human culturally black?