NAACP Activist Rachel Dolezal Not Black, Parents Say

NAACP Activist Rachel Dolezal Not Black, Parents Say

But if she identifies as black, who are we to say she's not? Or does that only work for some biological limitations?

If there is one thing we’ve learned from the media coverage of the last week, it’s that one’s “identity” is true, regardless of the biological reality. So if a man deeply think-feels himself to be woman, he’s a woman. We even saw that the Washington Post set up an automated tool to shame any Twitter user who referred to Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner using reality-based pronouns.

The sports and political correctness network ESPN is not only giving an award (for “courage,” natch) to Jenner, but anyone who notes the absurdity of such a designation (on either sports grounds or courage grounds), is denigrated.

And political elites have also celebrated the idea that whatever one feels himself to be is something that is so true that every knee must bow to it.

So as sad as the following situation is, it is a bit too well timed for our current age:

You can read the details at BuzzFeed or The Spokesman-Review. Here’s a news report that sums up the situation:

Dolezal is a professor of Africana Studies at Eastern Washington University. She claims to have been a victim of nine hate crimes. She has referred to herself as black and has claimed a black man as her father. A white couple claiming to be her parents — and having the wedding photos to corroborate such a claim — say that’s not true.

It’s a deeply disturbing story that an NAACP activist would be transforming her appearance to pass as a black woman. As if cosmetic changes to appearance, such as “natural” hair, as she put it, and what appears to be more of a spray tan than melanin, are sufficient for such a claim.

But again, that’s what I say as a person who thinks the media and other elites have been participating in a grand game of “The Emperor’s New Clothes Are Resplendent With Beauty!” when it comes to Jenner’s cosmetic modifications of his body and appearance.

How do people who enable Jenner’s “truthful” expression of his “real” identity as a woman support Dolezal?

Pardon the French here but I thought this a telling exchange between someone asking the question and a woman unable to respond coherently:

That’s not going to cut it. Either one’s think-feelings in their head must be universally acknowledged by everyone else as real — down to Washington Post reporter Caitlin Dewey attempting to shame people into conforming their speech to these think-feelings with robotic corrections — or we can return to a place where objective reality has some meaning.

On that note, this is kind of funny:

I have no doubt that the elites will tell us that Jenner’s think-feelings are more valid than Dolezal’s, and that this explanation will be tied to some discussion of privilege and cultural appropriation that will twist itself in knots.

But why is Jenner’s application of make-up an act of courage when Dolezal’s application of spray-tan not? It can’t only be due to the alleged deception on the part of Dolezal vs. the openness of Jenner, though that is certainly a valid distinction. I have a hard time believing that activists would be fine with Dolezal’s activist/academic minstrel show if only it were more open. But some consistency is in order. Dolezal shouldn’t be punished simply for being on the vanguard of the transracialed movement. And Dewey needs to get her bot working to shame people who don’t beep-bop-boop their way to support of same.

UPDATE: The Washington Post’s Caitlin Dewey responds to requests she be consistent about identity trumping reality:

So if you’re keeping track at home, the explanations for why Rachel Dolezal is a problem but transgenderism is to be celebrated are:

1) “Literally f— yourself”
2) “LOL”

When you’ve got nothing, you’ve got nothing!

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway
Related Posts