Outrage as NACCP president outed as being 100% Caucasian

First topic message reminder :

Well, this is just bizarre – OK, it’s VERY bizarre – the parents of the President of the local Spokane, Washington, USA NAACP organization have come out to tell the truth about their daughter:  she’s white.  The parents of Rachel Dolezal say she has been lying in every way possible about her race.

The president of a local chapter of the NAACP who has identified as partially black on official documents is “Caucasian by birth,” according to her parents, who are accusing her of misrepresenting her identity.

Rachel Dolezal, head of the NAACP chapter in Spokane, Washington, does not speak to her parents. This week, they told reporters that Dolezal is white, despite how she portrays herself.

“She knows it’s false, but I think she’s told herself as well as she’s told others this erroneous identity of hers enough that by now, she may believe it more than she believes the truth,” Dolezal’s mother, Ruthanne Dolezal, told NBC affiliate KHQ in Spokane. Ruthanne and her husband Larry live in Montana and have not been in contact with their daughter for years.

“She is Caucasian by birth,” Larry told KHQ.

On Friday in an interview with HuffPost Live, Dolezal’s parents added that it wasn’t their daughter’s identification with African Americans that was painful, but “for her to reject us as her parents is what hurts.”

Ruthanne went on to plead to her daughter, “we love you, please tell the truth.”

On Friday, the NAACP said it has a “long and proud tradition of receiving support from people of all faiths, races, colors and creeds.”

“NAACP Spokane Washington Branch President Rachel Dolezal is enduring a legal issue with her family, and we respect her privacy in this matter. One’s racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership,” it said in a statement, adding that it stood behind her advocacy record.

In addition to her position at the NAACP, Dolezal, 37, is the chairwoman of Spokane’s Office of Police Ombudsman Commission, a volunteer appointment. On the application for the job, she identified as white, black, and American Indian.

Prompted by claims from her parents that their family heritage is Czech, Swedish, German and a trace of Native American — but not black — the city is looking into whether Dolezal violated policy by lying about her race on a job application.

“We are gathering facts to determine if any city policies related to volunteer boards and commissions have been violated,” Mayor David Condon and Council President Ben Stuckart said in a statement Thursday. “That information will be reviewed by the City Council, which has oversight of city boards and commissions.”

“I WOULD DEFINITELY SAY THAT YES, I DO CONSIDER MYSELF TO BE BLACK.”

see full video and pictures here:

- See more at: http://yournewswire.com/video-outrage-as-black-naacp-president-outed-as-being-100-caucasian/#sthash.hzcZ6NmN.dpuf

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's a simple plot, child.  Don't lose track.

This whole story is race-baiting by the mother and the Coeur d'Alene Press.  Racists will do anything to bring false premises to the fore.

I have been saying from the start that this is a non-story.  The only thing that gives it a breath of life is the racism that underlies it.

What is racist about saying that your daughter is white?

You said it yourself: race-baiting. Would anyone single out someone just walking down the street, because of her hair style? Of course not...and it would hardly be international news.

The story is highly artificial. It was put together by the Coeur d'Alene Press in juxtaposition with the NAACP, in order to cultivate the interest of racists. They wanted to connect race with mendacity, and came up with a story about a woman and her hair style. Big deal.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What is racist about saying that your daughter is white?

You said it yourself: race-baiting.  Would anyone single out someone just walking down the street, because of her hair style?  Of course not...and it would hardly be international news.

The story is highly artificial.  It was put together by the Coeur d'Alene Press in juxtaposition with the NAACP, in order to cultivate the interest of racists.  They wanted to connect race with mendacity, and came up with a story about a woman and her hair style.  Big deal.  

It's not race baiting to point out a fact. The woman is white - fact. She is pretending she's black - fact.

Do you think that her father is black, and that his family had to flee on a midnight train from the deep south?

Raggamuffin wrote:It's not race baiting to point out a fact. The woman is white - fact. She is pretending she's black - fact.

Yes it is...when the fact is irrelevant.  The real question is, why is it important?  Why does the question come up?  That's the race-baiting part.

Raggamuffin wrote:Do you think that her father is black, and that his family had to flee on a midnight train from the deep south?

What difference does it make?  You are arguing the details of the story when the only question is: Why does the story come up?  Trimmed of all the bullshite, it's just a story about a girl and her hair style.

Who cares?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's not race baiting to point out a fact. The woman is white - fact. She is pretending she's black - fact.

Yes it is...when the fact is irrelevant.  The real question is, why is it important?  Why does the question come up?  That's the race-baiting part.

Raggamuffin wrote:Do you think that her father is black, and that his family had to flee on a midnight train from the deep south?

What difference does it make?  You are arguing the details of the story when the only question is: Why does the story come up?  Trimmed of all the bullshite, it's just a story about a girl and her hair style.

Who cares?

It's not irrelevant to her parents.

It makes a lot of difference. If the story is untrue, the woman is clearly telling everyone that a racial issue occurred when it didn't. That will stir black people up even more - that's race baiting.

This is not about a hairstyle. If you can't see that it goes much deeper than that, you're not very clever.

As I understand it, the journalist who was covering this did so because of the allegation that hate mail had been sent to Rachel Dolezal. The journalist does not believe her, yes?

Like MJ said, "it doesn't matter if your black or White. Cha-ooo!"

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Like MJ said, "it doesn't matter if your black or White. Cha-ooo!"

If it doesn't matter, why pretend to be black when you're white?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Like MJ said, "it doesn't matter if your black or White. Cha-ooo!"

If it doesn't matter, why pretend to be black when you're white?

She's clearly psychologically ill

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If it doesn't matter, why pretend to be black when you're white?

She's clearly psychologically ill

Is a man who thinks they are a woman psychologically ill too?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If it doesn't matter, why pretend to be black when you're white?

She's clearly psychologically ill

Is a brunette who colors her hair blond, also psychologically ill?  Heavy eyeshadow merits out-patient treatment.  A buzz haircut...take two aspirin and call the doctor in the morning.

Bit different to actually claiming to be black when you are white...

Tommy Monk wrote:Bit different to actually claiming to be black when you are white...

No it isn't. It's only big in your mind, tommy. That's because racism is an important matter for you.

As I've said before, race doesn't even exist. Racism does.

She's being racist as she thinks it is important enough to lie about her ethnicity.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Bit different to actually claiming to be black when you are white...

No it isn't.  It's only big in your mind, tommy.  That's because racism is an important matter for you.

As I've said before, race doesn't even exist.  Racism does.

If race doesn't exist, racism can't exist either.

Tommy Monk wrote:Bit different to actually claiming to be black when you are white...

Of course it it. Quill will defend anyone who is black, or who says they're black, even when they're white. He'll condemn anyone who's white, and or anyone who others say is white.

Is it cos he is black by any chance and himself a racist...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:She's being racist as she thinks it is important enough to lie about her ethnicity.

It's not racism to admire and copy a hair style. If a young woman admires Beyonce, is it a crime to emulate her?

Apparently it is in your mind. But then, in your mind all blacks belong in jail, innit?

She isn't just having a hair style, she is wholesale passing herself off as a black woman when she is not.


Even with the made up story rags mentioned.


Quite different from just following a fashion style

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No it isn't.  It's only big in your mind, tommy.  That's because racism is an important matter for you.

As I've said before, race doesn't even exist.  Racism does.

If race doesn't exist, racism can't exist either.

No, and neither minotaurs nor unicorns exist, either.  Lol.

Yes, sadly in some cases, the imagination takes over.  Race is a classic example.  Race is a figment of the white imagination.  To single out skin pigmentation, and then to create a whole class based on that distinction, is really all happening in the white mind.  After all, why not blue/brown eyes?  Why not height?

But whites then act on their imaginations and create classes, on which the then base their prejudices.  In such ways, whites create racism even though race is imaginary.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Bit different to actually claiming to be black when you are white...

Of course it it. Quill will defend anyone who is black, or who says they're black, even when they're white. He'll condemn anyone who's white, and or anyone who others say is white.

Is that why you condemn everyone who is black? Is that your train of thought?

Tommy Monk wrote:She isn't just having a hair style, she is wholesale passing herself off as a black woman when she is not.

And that bothers you, doesn't it?

Tommy Monk wrote:Even with the made up story rags mentioned.

Quite different from just following a fashion style

Only in your mind, tommy. That is the nature of racism. It doesn't exist in the real world, but it is huge in the minds of whites.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course it it. Quill will defend anyone who is black, or who says they're black, even when they're white. He'll condemn anyone who's white, and or anyone who others say is white.

Is that why you condemn everyone who is black?  Is that your train of thought?

Where have I done that? Please provide evidence.

Pathetic responses quill...

Especially as this woman is the president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People...



Which is itself a racist organisation...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Is that why you condemn everyone who is black?  Is that your train of thought?

Where have I done that? Please provide evidence.

In every post on this website you have taken an anti-black, pro-racist stand. I'm surprised you even questioned this. I expected you would try to justify yourself, but not that you would deny your own pleadings.

Will wonders never cease.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Where have I done that? Please provide evidence.

In every post on this website you have taken an anti-black, pro-racist stand.  I'm surprised you even questioned this.  I expected you would try to justify yourself, but not that you would deny your own pleadings.

Will wonders never cease.

That's not evidence, it's just something else you've made up.

To quill, anyone who is not pro black on everything is therefore anti black and racist...

Tommy Monk wrote:To quill, anyone who is not pro black on everything is therefore anti black and racist...

Each one stands on his or her own record. Your record, tommy, clearly exhibits a racist tendency. Ragg's record actually screams it. Lol.

Independent thought and presentation of the truth is only deemed racist by people like you who wish to hide it.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:To quill, anyone who is not pro black on everything is therefore anti black and racist...

Each one stands on his or her own record.  Your record, tommy, clearly exhibits a racist tendency.  Ragg's record actually screams it.     Lol.

Still no evidence ...

You need to start backing up your claims Quill, otherwise you might look silly.

Tommy Monk wrote:To quill, anyone who is not pro black on everything is therefore anti black and racist...

He didn't like me saying that setting fire to cars and wrecking people's property was wrong, and he thinks that means that I'm racist.

You must support this if it is black people doing it... it's anti black and racist to condemn it...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:To quill, anyone who is not pro black on everything is therefore anti black and racist...

He didn't like me saying that setting fire to cars and wrecking people's property was wrong, and he thinks that means that I'm racist.

Once again you didn't listen.

You are a cherry-picker in your argument style. You cherry-picked the Baltimore demonstrations...showing shock at damage to automobiles, but not a care or concern for the actual death of Freddie Gray.

What is the obvious implication? Vehicles are property. Freddie Gray was black. Conclusion: you value property over a dead black man.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Bit different to actually claiming to be black when you are white...

No it isn't.  It's only big in your mind, tommy.  That's because racism is an important matter for you.

As I've said before, race doesn't even exist.  Racism does.

If race doesn't exist, racism can't exist either.

Well.....quite

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He didn't like me saying that setting fire to cars and wrecking people's property was wrong, and he thinks that means that I'm racist.

Once again you didn't listen.  

You are a cherry-picker in your argument style.  You cherry-picked the Baltimore demonstrations...showing shock at damage to automobiles, but not a care or concern for the actual death of Freddie Gray.

What is the obvious implication?  Vehicles are property.  Freddie Gray was black.  Conclusion: you value property over a dead black man.

It was you who didn't listen. You excused arson on the grounds that a man had died. You're comparing the wrong things completely - as usual.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Once again you didn't listen.  

You are a cherry-picker in your argument style.  You cherry-picked the Baltimore demonstrations...showing shock at damage to automobiles, but not a care or concern for the actual death of Freddie Gray.

What is the obvious implication?  Vehicles are property.  Freddie Gray was black.  Conclusion: you value property over a dead black man.

It was you who didn't listen. You excused arson on the grounds that a man had died. You're comparing the wrong things completely - as usual.

I don't think you ever acknowledged that a man had died.  You just went to the horror of destroying property, without care or concern for human life.  A black human life...that is to say.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was you who didn't listen. You excused arson on the grounds that a man had died. You're comparing the wrong things completely - as usual.

I don't think you ever acknowledged that a man had died.  You just went to the horror of destroying property, without care or concern for human life.  A black human life...that is to say.

Yes I did. The thread was about the riots, not Freddie Gray.

You even accused me of not knowing his name, and when I posted it, you pretended you hadn't seen my post.

I find it strange that a lawyer would condone arson and the destruction of property of innocent people ...

Raggamuffin wrote:I find it strange that a lawyer would condone arson and the destruction of property of innocent people ...

I find it even more strange that someone would condone murder.  I believe that is the real point.  You forgive a murder, but express outrage at property destruction...that is a bit twisted.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I find it strange that a lawyer would condone arson and the destruction of property of innocent people ...

I find it even more strange that someone would condone murder.  I believe that is the real point.  You forgive a murder, but express outrage at property destruction...that is a bet twisted.

I haven't condoned murder. Please post evidence that I have.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I find it even more strange that someone would condone murder.  I believe that is the real point.  You forgive a murder, but express outrage at property destruction...that is a bet twisted.

I haven't condoned murder. Please post evidence that I have.

You completely ignored it and went for the poor, little automobiles. You couldn't care less if a human life was lost, provided it was a black.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I haven't condoned murder. Please post evidence that I have.

You completely ignored it and went for the poor, little automobiles.  You couldn't care less if a human life was lost, provided it was a black.  

No I didn't. I said that the officers had been arrested and charged, and that was a good thing. You were the one who completely excused thuggery and arson.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I find it even more strange that someone would condone murder.  I believe that is the real point.  You forgive a murder, but express outrage at property destruction...that is a bet twisted.

I haven't condoned murder. Please post evidence that I have.

You completely ignored it and went for the poor, little automobiles.  You couldn't care less if a human life was lost, provided it was a black.  

Quill, just lately you seem to have lost the plot.
Is everyone here a racist and you're not??

Do you think, because you are so NOT racist (and pretty much hate whites because "we are all racists") that it makes you somehow less racist?

I think you are very troubled actually. And hell-bent on beating yourself up for what some ignorant white people do.

Oh and by the way, I've slept with a few black men in my time and experienced extreme racism by some black people, mainly women, because of that.

Gasp!!!! Wow! And whoopee-fucking-do.
So some white people are racist.
Some black people are racist.

Let them all be ignorant - we are not all racist.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I haven't condoned murder. Please post evidence that I have.

You completely ignored it and went for the poor, little automobiles.  You couldn't care less if a human life was lost, provided it was a black.  

Please post evidence - what you said isn't evidence.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I haven't condoned murder. Please post evidence that I have.

You completely ignored it and went for the poor, little automobiles.  You couldn't care less if a human life was lost, provided it was a black.  

Here's the thread title of the thread where I was talking about arson.

City of Baltimore in flames

You see? No mention of Freddie Gray from you in that thread title. It was about the riots.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You completely ignored it and went for the poor, little automobiles.  You couldn't care less if a human life was lost, provided it was a black.  

Here's the thread title of the thread where I was talking about arson.

City of Baltimore in flames

You see? No mention of Freddie Gray from you in that thread title. It was about the riots.

That's absurd. The uproar in Baltimore was prompted by the death of Freddie Gray.

Are you just playing word games?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Here's the thread title of the thread where I was talking about arson.



You see? No mention of Freddie Gray from you in that thread title. It was about the riots.

That's absurd.  The uproar in Baltimore was prompted by the death of Freddie Gray.

Are you just playing word games?

But the thread was about the riots, so there was nothing wrong with talking about the riots and arson. After all, you were the one who started the thread about Baltimore being in flames. If you didn't want to talk about arson, perhaps you shouldn't have started it.

Lefties don't like common sense logic like that rags...!

Tommy Monk wrote:Lefties don't like common sense logic like that rags...!

Yes - discussing arson in a thread about Baltimore burning is clearly beyond Quill.

But you can't talk about that because it was blacks who were doing it and that would be racist...