You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 04:35:09 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Rachel Dolezal Controversy  (Read 8639 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Haloriel

  • Original Beauty | Alluring Erudite | Perfervid Romanticist
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Location: Ogling your gluteus maximus with a most respectful air, of course. One part devious.
  • Gender: Female
  • Dance with me, darling. I'll show you the stars.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Rachel Dolezal Controversy
« Reply #125 on: June 19, 2015, 07:48:14 PM »
Cycle is pretty intelligent, isn't he?

Yes!  I've actually enjoyed reading some of the post in this thread, and I actually concurred with yours, while I did not openly say as such. Even though I can only claim 1/4 black heritage (both of my parents are 1/4), I claim it proudly with the rest of me.  ;D

Offline la dame en noir

  • A resident pansexual woman. That weird black girl. The Cosplayer and the Loud Mouth.
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2012
  • Location: Georgia
  • Gender: Female
  • "Shepard-Commander" - Legion ME2
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: The Rachel Dolezal Controversy
« Reply #126 on: June 19, 2015, 07:55:36 PM »
Yes!  I've actually enjoyed reading some of the post in this thread, and I actually concurred with yours, while I did not openly say as such. Even though I can only claim 1/4 black heritage (both of my parents are 1/4), I claim it proudly with the rest of me.  ;D

Mixed heritage is a beautiful thing and the only way I can seeing this world finding some sort of harmony.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Rachel Dolezal Controversy
« Reply #127 on: June 19, 2015, 08:23:42 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: June 19, 2015, 08:41:53 PM by kylie »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Rachel Dolezal Controversy
« Reply #128 on: June 19, 2015, 09:01:00 PM »
I was merely making a statement.  Sorry if you read into more than the words that were on the screen.

Offline consortium11Topic starter

Re: The Rachel Dolezal Controversy
« Reply #129 on: June 20, 2015, 12:51:59 PM »
Alrighty moving onto the whole problematic Caitlyn Jenner/Dolezal comparison. Read this article please. It breaks down, a little bit, the fact that the differences in the brain chemistry of people who are transgendered is actually observable. It is absolutely not true that difference in brains between black and white have been observed. Until you can provide legitimate science to prove that black and white brains are notably different in the same way that male and female brains are different, and also prove that white people are born with ‘black’ brains, please leave this particular point alone.

Just a follow up with a point that struck me.

Isn't this (and I speak as an observer from the outside looking in) actually quite a controversial position among the trans* community? The idea that there is a "scientific test" (for lack of a better term) that demonstrates someone is trans* seems to fall into the transfundalmentalist/transmedicalist/"Truscum" position... and I'm aware that that position is actually considered transphobic by some in the community. If we say that there are demonstrable differences in a trans* person's brain chemistry to a non-trans* person's then we're saying that someone who lacks that difference is therefore non trans*. That sort of gatekeeping is controversial; the article here from the SJWiki goes into it in some more detail.

Offline Aneveite

Re: The Rachel Dolezal Controversy
« Reply #130 on: June 22, 2015, 10:30:01 AM »
Just a follow up with a point that struck me.

Isn't this (and I speak as an observer from the outside looking in) actually quite a controversial position among the trans* community? The idea that there is a "scientific test" (for lack of a better term) that demonstrates someone is trans* seems to fall into the transfundalmentalist/transmedicalist/"Truscum" position... and I'm aware that that position is actually considered transphobic by some in the community. If we say that there are demonstrable differences in a trans* person's brain chemistry to a non-trans* person's then we're saying that someone who lacks that difference is therefore non trans*. That sort of gatekeeping is controversial; the article here from the SJWiki goes into it in some more detail.

I agree that it's controversial, and a test does nor should it be equated to a person's identity... but the problem is people who argue specifically against trans rights don't care about that. They only care about the biological, and won't listen to any other sort of evidence... and while it is very much transmedicalist or whatever, it is also something that we can still present before people who outright deny the existence of transgender people. It lets us say: here is proof that we exist, that this isn't just some weird thing that we are pretending, granted, we don't understand the science behind it that well, nor should we necessarily endeavor towards reaching a state where we can just test for it... but it is there. At least a portion of the trans community /can/ be verified by science.

I feel that is the point at which it is useful, not as a method of gatekeeping, but as a way to state 'here is scientific data that we exist, here is hard evidence that being transgender is not the same as trans ethnic', etc, etc. Which sucks, because we shouldn't have to argue every step of the way that our being isn't a social construct or a figment of our imagination... but it is there, and it is a tool to use for that end.

Offline Remiel

Re: The Rachel Dolezal Controversy
« Reply #131 on: June 22, 2015, 07:14:21 PM »
So I have to admit that, prior to reading this thread and doing some research, I was confused by all the anti-Rachel Dolezal sentiment.   

After reading some of the responses in this thread, however, and doing some research,  I think I get it now.  The issue isn't so much that Dolezal self-identified as black, but that she did so fraudulently and for her own profit.  And in a context of cultural appropriation, where mainstream society likes to mass market the creations of black artists and musicians while vilifying the creators, it was equivalent to ripping the scab off a fresh wound.

Thank you, la dame en noir, for linking me to this Montel Williams post which I found particularly enlightening.

Offline la dame en noir

  • A resident pansexual woman. That weird black girl. The Cosplayer and the Loud Mouth.
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2012
  • Location: Georgia
  • Gender: Female
  • "Shepard-Commander" - Legion ME2
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: The Rachel Dolezal Controversy
« Reply #132 on: June 22, 2015, 08:31:40 PM »
You're welcome! I'm glad you understand instead of bashing me lol.