It is better to fight beside someone than it is to presume that they cannot fight for themselves.
Did she say
she really presumed that, or is that being imputed to her? For that matter, do
all varieties of Black get to stand up publicly for themselves to effect, or do they also choose spokespeople (and politicians, the list goes on) who are relatively "clean" and vetted and perhaps even more 'White'/sometimes more 'mixed' in skin or cultural externals? Which would not make it all good that such is done under some pressure, but it might explain a tad why Dolezal herself would feel it makes some sense to try, with or without the separate concerns about deception -- it doesn't have to be entirely
a chicken and egg "Is she just totally evil?
" when this stuff is going on already.
Again I see it as a little more fuzzy, and I'm not willing to dump every question it raises at the doorstep of "just shouldn't have done it" when this seems so incredibly complex to me. Groups try to claim some people as "allies," but they try to keep a lid on everything they might say at the same time. I mean call stuff right or wrong for sure if you like. Toss in some reasons and particulars if you can/have the energy just lately. But the bland "Nobody should say anything simply because
they're not us" when one doesn't agree with what comes out? That goes a bit far.
Sure there are problems with this. But I am having a hard time seeing just what Dolezal has done as I understand it so far, as deserving of the same term that got placed on White entertainers from at least many decades ago. I really don't think it's all such a comparable situation off the bat. Did the White entertainers even pass to a significant portion of the Black community? Did Dolezal do what she did on TV for people's laughs? There may be certain similarities in the outcome, but isn't this being a bit shotgun with a very charged label?