Stats & Data

July 23, 2015

Part 3 of 4 of a breakdown of Rachel Dolezal's interview with Vanity Fair. Rant/Reaction

Rachel Dolezal in Vanity Fair: Unbeweavable

Ok, so the unbeweavable line isn’t mine, it actually appeared in the NY Post article by Sophia Rosenbaum. I thought it was funny, though.

This is the third and final blog entry in my series deconstructing the Vanity Fair article about Rachel Dolezal published last Sunday.

We will focus how in a case like this, the order of events is of paramount importance. To understand this concept, we only need to look to Rachel Dolezal’s own account of events in her life, and compare them to the actual, documented events the whole world was witness to. Notice that Rachel coming forward with ‘new/old information’ (new to us, but occurred in the past) only happened AFTER her story broke. Order of events, folks. Order of events.

This particular interview is important because it is the first time Rachel has spoken publicly about herself with more than a few days of preparation. I would hope that for great many a year previous to her big news breaking, Rachel pondered what she would say if and when the cover was blown off her story. However, my gut tells me that Rachel didn’t think that far ahead.

Most people who invest themselves in a deception will have a cover story planned should they get found out. And who knows? Maybe Rachel did have a story for a while at the beginning of her metamorphosis. What is clear now is Rachel was in no way prepared with a response when her infamous interview dropped in June 2015. Maybe she thought no one would ever find out. Maybe she wanted to get caught. This is why last Sunday’s article is so important. Rachel has had almost a month to contemplate her situation. She has had some time to experience the ramifications of her deception. The one thing she hasn’t had is an honest conversation with herself.

One would hope that in her three weeks of quiet, she would have come to her senses and is now ready to engage America in a frank and truthful conversation about her race. One would hope.

Of course, she did not. Instead, Rachel decided to stick to her story and goad America into another internet frenzy. We’re on to you, Rachel. You know that the more outrageous your position, the more galactically impossible your statement, the more we will comment on you and give you the spotlight.

Now, don’t get confused, Rachel. Your story isn’t important news like the Lafayette theater shooting or the Charleston shooting. Your story is more along the lines of Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Amanda Bynes, Ashlee Simpson… Do you get the picture? Donald Trump, Sarah Palin. People who, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, continue to believe their own version of themselves (for more information on super-hyper blindness, please see Fox News’ Sean Hannitty).

At least Amanda and Britney had publicly documented breakdowns, which led to both their respective sets of parents taking legal custody of them to finally get them the help they needed. No such luck for you Rachel. Your parents pulled the real-life version from Peter and the Wolf when Peter was literally thrown to the wolves by his grandfather. It’s not a popular version. They haaaate you. Honestly, no one knows exactly what happened with you and your parents, but I have a feeling everyone is going to know after you come out with your book.

Oh, don’t worry, Rachel,that story is not going to be mentioned by you directly, but you’re basically giving a good puzzle solver the missing piece. That piece? A book-long delve into the white abyss that is Rachel Dolezal. Like I’ve said in the past, your lies will tell us more about you than the truth ever would.

Not to get religious, but this next point is best illustrated through a theological example. There are two kinds of sorrow: worldly sorrow and godly sorrow. If someone gets caught doing something wrong, they usually feel one of these two types of sorrow.

Godly sorrow involves a real change in attitude , as the perpetrator realizes that what he or she did was wrong. They also gain an understanding of how their actions affect others. Ergo, the perp is truly sorry for what they did. Something tells me that Rachel will not be r in her blackcloth and ashes.

Worldly sorrow is when the person get caught, they are sorry because they got caught. Guess which kind of sorrow Rachel is expressing in the Vanity Fair article…

Let’s see, she hasn’t directly apologized for her actions, and now she wishes she would have come forward to her friends to explain the situation. Now she wishes. NOW.

Did she want to explain her identity to others before her unblackening? No.

Her actions clearly show that she was not just interested in keeping her parentage a secret, she went to the extreme measure of reporting false hate crimes against herself to solidify herself as black.

Not just black, but more black than everybody else. Again, if we were to assume all the reports filed by Rachel in her tenure as an ‘ingocnegro’ (Holly Walker from the Nightly Show), then statistically she was harassed ten, TEN times more often than an average African American. She is ten times more black. Unbeweavable.

Once again, we turn to Rachel’s own words to reveal the truth of her actions:

“Again, I wish I could have had conversations with all kinds of people,” she says. “If I would have known this was going to happen, I could have said, ‘O.K., so this is the case. This is who I am, and I’m black and this is why.’”

— Rachel Dolezal, in Vanity Fair

She wishes she could have had a ‘conversation’ with all kinds of people, like the opportunity was taken away from her before she had a chance to explain. She had nine years, NINE YEARS to have that conversation.

Why is she lamenting this?

It’s like a different version of the Scrooge story where Ebeneezer doesn’t listen to the spirits, dies, goes to Hell, then laments that he never had the chance to change. Rachel has had many, many chances to change.

- Ryan Nelson

Ok , I have one more post worth of Rachel Dolezal, so instead of this being a 2 of 3, it is now a 3 of 4.