Stats & Data

7Funny
1Die
201
Views
July 20, 2015
Published
Description

Rachel Dolezal's most recent public words come from an article about her in Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/07/rachel-dolezal-new-interview-pictures-exclusive). Besides commenting in an email to a Washington reporter about Joshua Dolezal's abuse charges being dropped, this is the first time she has publicly spoken about herself. Brace yourselves, she's in it for the long haul...

Rachel Dolezal in Vanity Fair:
Rachel Tries to Save Face

image.jpg

Rachel stands defiantly outside her home

It ain’t over. Not by a long shot. Rachel Dolezal has determined that she will need to be dragged from the public’s attention with her teethmarks on the spotlight.

In her first public comments about her personal life since her banner day at the NBC studios, Rachel spoke with Allison Samuels, a staff writer for Vanity Fair.

(http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/07/rachel-dolezal-new-interview-pictures-exclusive).

The only other time Ms. Dolezal has spoken to media since her interviews at NBC was when she commented in an email to a Washington reporter about Joshua Dolezal’s abuse charges being dropped.

So for most of a month all the Rachel-haters had to sit on their hands while they waited anxiously for some news morsel,some unpublished scrap that they could jump on, point to, and say: “This is what’s wrong with society!”

Those of us who were patient were rewarded with this new Vanity Fair article, and, baby, did Rachel deliver. In the article, she delivers a classic Rachel stream of nonsensical quotes that will satisfy even the most bloodthirsty of trainwreck watchers.

Enough of the set up, time to show the inconsistencies from ‘Rachelworld.'The best place to start is in Rachel’s own words:

“It’s not a costume,” she says. “I don’t know spiritually and metaphysically how this goes, but I do know that from my earliest memories I have awareness and connection with the black experience, and that’s never left me.“

— Rachel Dolezal

Ok…where to start…where to start…ahm, well, I guess I’ll talk about this because no one has really made an issue of how she identified as black as early as five years old.

Upon hearing that, I immediately started thinking back to my younger years and wondering: “Did I know I was White when I was five?"Hmm…

Of course not! I didn’t even possess the cognitive skills to process what race even means when I was five! Let alone the question of how "Rachel the self-identified Black Five-year-old” knew to identify with another race besides what she was literally surrounded with in principally white Montana.

Ok, let’s try something:let’s assume for a second that what Rachel says is true. She felt black at age five. Granted her family and neighbors at the time did have some black people (one of the articles mentioned the Dolezal had black friends over to visit during Rachel’s childhood). Besides these meetings and sometimes viewing blacks in the media, little Rachel was in a 90-95% white world. So where would Rachel get this idea that there was something else to prefer besides the only people she’d ever really been exposed to? That she even had the option to think about this is, again, unthinkable for even a very advanced five year old.

Children don’t question their world at that age. They accept the world as they encounter it, reinforced mainly by what parents say. That Rachel seems to possess this superhuman ability to identify with African American culture at an early age is an insult to black people and five year olds. She says race is not biological , or inherited, but basically she is saying she was born black, which would mean her blackness was inherited, which is very biological.

Rachel, this isn’t the biological buffet of social anthropology. You don’t get to pick and choose a philosophy that works for you in one situation (like race is not biological), then cite your own ‘intuition to blackness’ as biological in nature. It has to be. Rachel, you have never cited any environmental factors to suggest that this pull to blackness was external in origin in any way. So if it’s not environmental, it must by needs be biological. This is basic psychology 101.

You don’t just get to say that race is a social (non-biological) construct and then in the same breath cite biology as the reason for your blackness. The only reason a five year old would know they were another race on the inside without it being taught to them by another person is that it is biological.

Uh oh. Rachel. The Academia Gods aren’t happy with you at all. You committed the worst sin of all. Instead of using knowledge and study to improve yourself and help others, you'ved used academia and confusing language to super-intellectualize your own position and imply that if people were smarter about race and ethnicity, they would understand and accept you.

Rachel Dolezal studies black people like a serial killer studies human behavior. In studying human behavior, a serial killer does not look to gain knowledge to help others and perhaps make the human experience better. A serial killer studies human behavior to find weakness, points of exploitation. Empathy for a serial killer’s prey is only used insofar as it helps the killer gain access to others.

Rachel Dolezal: the first white person ever to appropriate (and thus make un-cool) the word ‘black.’ She knows she can’t say ‘African American’ anymore.

Advertisement