NAACP - Dolezals - Fraud AA allegations

[umsami]

Kareem Abdul Jabbar posted this.   Edited to add for clarity.....everything below are his statements, not mine....and these are just two paragraphs out of many.  Read the entire article. :)

 

http://time.com/3921404/rachel-dolezal-naacp-race-kareem-abdul-jabbar/http://time.com/3921404/rachel-dolezal-naacp-race-kareem-abdul-jabbar/

 

"The evidence against Dolezal does seem pretty damning. Her birth parents have decided to express their parental love by outing her in response to a legal dispute they have with her (#returnworld’sbestparentstrophy). They offered photos of a farm-fresh Rachel looking like she just stepped out of the General Store in Mayberry and a white-on-white birth certificate. Some siblings have also attested that she’s not black, though she was raised alongside four adopted black children. Dolezal herself has just stepped asidefrom her position at the NAACP.

 

Despite all this, you can’t deny that Dolezal has proven herself a fierce and unrelenting champion for African-Americans politically and culturally. Perhaps some of this sensitivity comes from her adoptive black siblings. Whatever the reason, she has been fighting the fight for several years and seemingly doing a first-rate job. Not only has she led her local chapter of the NAACP, she teaches classes related to African-American culture at Eastern Washington University and is chairwoman of a police oversight committee monitoring fairness in police activities. Bottom line: The black community is better off because of her efforts."

[idnib]

5th amendment covers criminal cases only. You can plead the 5th in a civil case so as not to incriminate yourself, but it is taken as a civil admission.

 

I understand. I was just speaking generally. I think it's a shame that people think someone is hiding something if they decline to speak to the press and invite (these days) the entire globe into their business, or that it means they are in denial. They may be working behind the scenes through more private channels to deal with things. Speaking under oath is different, I agree.

[gardenmom5]

I am trying to see this story from multiple sides.

 

I have "passed" as Indian in a few situations here in India where being seen as Indian meant I could go someplace with my family without additional hoops to jump through.  I didn't affirmatively lie, but I pulled a sari over my lighter color hair and kept my blue eyes downcast.

 

Did I somehow unintentionally offend the entire notion of Indianness when I did that?  I didn't think so at the time.

 

OBVIOUSLY all her lying was wrong, terrible, very very bad.

 

But I am more interested in the reaction to how she chose to live her life.  Who she chose to associate with.  What she chose to study.  The causes she chose to dedicate her life to.

 

 

 

People seem equally upset by the cultural, appearance, professional choices she made than by the lies she told.

 

 

 

she lied. she *did NOT "just"* misrepresented herself.  she made FALSE claims of being the victim of a *crime*.  repeatedly. (the irony being her lawsuit against howard university for discriminating against her because she was white).  her lies hurt other people and made their lives more difficult.  they are still in process of hurting other people.   she has completely destroyed her credibility on a witness stand as there are government documents contradicting her claims.

 

if it was *really* "JUST" about race - she could have weaved and dyed her hair, spray tanned her skin and lived like an aa woman. and people wouldn't care nearly as much. however,  she didn't do *only* that.  she lied about her parentage as well as her parents themselves - accusing them OF CRIMES, she lied about her history, she made up a history aimed at garnering sympathy and "credibility" in the aa community.  she put herself as a leader in the aa community, specifically as an oppressed black woman who was the victim of repeated (non-existent) hate crimes. 

 

she has many hallmarks of a serious personality disorder.

[Jean in Newcastle]

 is chairwoman of a police oversight committee monitoring fairness in police activities. "

Not any more.  They are asking for her resignation - not because she lied about being black but because the result of an investigation showed that she was unethical in leaking confidential information as part of that committee.  Two others who were also involved (and who did not lie about their race) are also being asked to resign.  

[gardenmom5]

 

 

 . Perhaps some of this sensitivity comes from her adoptive black siblings. 

 

and perhaps as someone suggested elsewhere - she felt her adopted siblings received more attention from her parents and this is an off-the-deep-end sibling rivalry expressing deep anger at her parents.

[umsami]

and perhaps as someone suggested elsewhere - she felt her adopted siblings received more attention from her parents and this is an off-the-deep-end sibling rivalry expressing deep anger at her parents.

 

Just to clarify.... the way you quoted my post, it makes it seem as if I wrote that.  That statement was by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. 

[umsami]

Not any more.  They are asking for her resignation - not because she lied about being black but because the result of an investigation showed that she was unethical in leaking confidential information as part of that committee.  Two others who were also involved (and who did not lie about their race) are also being asked to resign.  

 

Similar complaint...not sure why you and gardenmom5 are choosing one small line from his entire statement and making it appear as if I wrote it?  Strange.

[gardenmom5]

as for a white woman dressing in a sari?  big deal.  My aunt lived in india for 40 years. she taught at a Christian school, ate indian food, and wore a sari.  even today in deepest wet and cold PNW (there's a pretty large indian population here), she usually wears a sari.  it's her "normal" dress (she fits a sweater in there somewhere - but so do many of the indian women I see walking around.).  she also walks everywhere.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Similar complaint...not sure why you and gardenmom5 are choosing one small line from his entire statement and making it appear as if I wrote it?  Strange.

I'm not trying to make it appear like you wrote it.  I thought it was very clear that you quoted him.  But I was responding to one sentence of his.  Let this be a public declaration that I am responding to this part of what you quoted from Kareen Abdul-Jabbar.  I assume that people will be reading posts in context of the entire thread sequence.  

[gardenmom5]

Just to clarify.... the way you quoted my post, it makes it seem as if I wrote that.  That statement was by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. 

 

It wasn't clear the 2nd paragraph was a continued quote.  it seemed like it was your comment upon his quote.

 

and like Jean - that was one part of that quote to which I was responding.

 

 I don't understand why anyone (re: KAJ) would be so fervent in defending such a proven liar.

[umsami]

as for a white woman dressing in a sari?  big deal.  My aunt lived in india for 40 years. she taught at a Christian school, ate indian food, and wore a sari.  even today in deepest wet and cold PNW (there's a pretty large indian population here), she usually wears a sari.  it's her "normal" dress (she fits a sweater in there somewhere - but so do many of the indian women I see walking around.).  she also walks everywhere.

 

No big deal to you, but for some Desis, it's cultural appropriation...and they don't like it.  They don't care that your Aunt lived in India for 40 years.  They hate the fact that Oprah has her own brand of chai....the commercialization of yoga....oms everywhere...and the fact that Gwen Stefani used to love bindis.   Others could care less.  I think part of it, of course, has to do with colonialization.   

 

Similarly, there are African-Americans who look at what Dolezals accomplished and her passion, and feel that is more important than the lies.  Yet there are equally those who do not think that her accomplishments should outweigh her lies.  

 

I will say, though, it was through some of my black friends that I saw that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar article.  I have not heard much  condemnation of Rachel through them.  The people who seem the most outraged are my friends who tend to lean right.  These are also the types who like to post about reverse discrimination, etc... and then tend to be loving this because of their perception that this somehow hurts liberals. 

 

For me, I think Rachel didn't need to lie.  That's the sad part.  She could still have her job.  She has black siblings, and biracial kids of her own.  That could have been her story as to why she wants to work for the NAACP.   In a non-24 hour news cycle environment, it probably would have stayed local...and it would be something she could apologize for and overcome.  I don't think that's possible today, however.   

[umsami]

It wasn't clear the 2nd paragraph was a continued quote.  it seemed like it was your comment upon his quote.

 

and like Jean - that was one part of that quote to which I was responding.

 

 I don't understand why anyone (re: KAJ) would be so fervent in defending such a proven liar.

 

Change in font was not me, but the opening quote started with the first paragraph and closing quote ended on the last.  

 

He says it himself.  Read the article.   That her work and her accomplishments mean more than the lies.  She did a lot of good....he talks about giving her a pass in the article (likens it to Clinton).  

 

Put it this way, who benefits the most from her disgrace?  African-Americans or those who would rather they not have an effective advocate on their side? (She was apparently good at her job and in her role with the NAACP.)

[Cammie]

as for a white woman dressing in a sari?  big deal.  My aunt lived in india for 40 years. she taught at a Christian school, ate indian food, and wore a sari.  even today in deepest wet and cold PNW (there's a pretty large indian population here), she usually wears a sari.  it's her "normal" dress (she fits a sweater in there somewhere - but so do many of the indian women I see walking around.).  she also walks everywhere.

 

I'm not sure I get your point?

[SKL]

Kareem Abdul Jabbar posted this.   Edited to add for clarity.....everything below are his statements, not mine....and these are just two paragraphs out of many.  Read the entire article. :)

 

http://time.com/3921404/rachel-dolezal-naacp-race-kareem-abdul-jabbar/http://time.com/3921404/rachel-dolezal-naacp-race-kareem-abdul-jabbar/

 

"The evidence against Dolezal does seem pretty damning. Her birth parents have decided to express their parental love by outing her in response to a legal dispute they have with her (#returnworld’sbestparentstrophy). They offered photos of a farm-fresh Rachel looking like she just stepped out of the General Store in Mayberry and a white-on-white birth certificate. Some siblings have also attested that she’s not black, though she was raised alongside four adopted black children. Dolezal herself has just stepped asidefrom her position at the NAACP.

 

Despite all this, you can’t deny that Dolezal has proven herself a fierce and unrelenting champion for African-Americans politically and culturally. Perhaps some of this sensitivity comes from her adoptive black siblings. Whatever the reason, she has been fighting the fight for several years and seemingly doing a first-rate job. Not only has she led her local chapter of the NAACP, she teaches classes related to African-American culture at Eastern Washington University and is chairwoman of a police oversight committee monitoring fairness in police activities. Bottom line: The black community is better off because of her efforts."

 

The implication being that white people can't / don't / shouldn't take on leadership roles relating to civil rights, teach classes about cultures they weren't born into, or discuss police fairness?

 

Why would the NAACP not have hired her as a white woman, if her efforts were so valuable to the black community?

 

 

[gardenmom5]

 

Put it this way, who benefits the most from her disgrace?  African-Americans or those who would rather they not have an effective advocate on their side? (She was apparently good at her job and in her role with the NAACP.)

 

how about those she accused of crimes?

[gardenmom5]

It's interesting, isn't it ? I remember way back, when I lived with a sitar player :) feeling weird when I'd go with him to concerts and see other white people dressing Indian. I felt like he erred on the right side of appreciation - Anglo by birth, with an affinity for Indian culture, he spent a lot of time in India and elsewhere...he even took classes with Ravi Shankar...never once did he speak for Indians, or pretend to be Indian, or deny his Western heritage, but at the same time he lived a life greatly influenced by India and her culture.

 

I think it's something to do with specificity...owning the details of one's own life and cultural background...no matter how much time I spent in the immigrant Anglo Indian community, for example, no matter how knowledgeable I became about it, or identified with it, I still have a heritage of having grown up as white, as a citizen from birth....which makes my experience difference from theirs....I can't speak for others and their experience...

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure I get your point?

 

I was responding to what Sadie said. (and someone else)  I neglected to quote it.

my aunt never claimed to be indian. wearing a sari was the clothing of choice in that environment. and far easier to obtain. she's comfortable with them, and now finds western clothing uncomfortable.

[SKL]

I understand. I was just speaking generally. I think it's a shame that people think someone is hiding something if they decline to speak to the press and invite (these days) the entire globe into their business, or that it means they are in denial. They may be working behind the scenes through more private channels to deal with things. Speaking under oath is different, I agree.

 

Based on the article linked by Unsinkable, a reporter called the parents out of the blue and asked them ... something.  If you had gotten a phone call and the person on the other end asked you, "are you the mother of [your kid's name]?" what would you say?  I would say "yes" without even asking who the caller was.  I would probably follow up with "why do you ask" and then things would get iffy.  But the "yes" would already have happened at that point.

 

"Is that daughter white/black" might also not seem like a dangerous question if you had some white kids and some black kids, as was the case here.

 

It's not like they asked if their daughter was a prostitute.  The questions, at least initially, might have sounded totally benign since the parents didn't know something was brewing in their daughter's town.

[Stacia]

Re: the parents making the choice to talk or not to talk to the reporter in the first place....

 

I'm not sure I see it as outing her or of just feeling it was right to tell the truth. From what I've read, it sounds like they were called re: an article being written re: a supposed mail hate crime that Dolezal experienced, possibly with a hint that there was more to the story or stuff being hidden. Personally, I'm guessing the parents were totally thrown off-guard answering the phone & having a reporter ask a question. I mean, this was all before the media storm (hindsight is 20/20). They haven't had much contact w/ their daughter in years, suddenly get a phone call re: the mail hate crime/what race is their dd? In that situation, I don't think I'd have the presence of mind to stall, or offer a 'no comment', or whatever. It seems a pretty straightforward, fact-checking type of question for a reporter to ask & I think the natural response is to answer rather than thinking of a way to not answer.

 

Older people are often the target of phone scammers as they are more susceptible to suggestion & questions too. Not that the reporter was scamming them, but perhaps their age also made them more naturally apt to reply honestly than offer a 'no comment' in our FB/Twitter/media frenzy age (which is not how it was for the Dolezal parents for the majority of their lives). Kwim?

 

Just another possible perspective (which could be completely wrong; I am speculating entirely)....

 

ETA: SKL, I think we were posting at the same time!

[SKL]

Change in font was not me, but the opening quote started with the first paragraph and closing quote ended on the last.  

 

He says it himself.  Read the article.   That her work and her accomplishments mean more than the lies.  She did a lot of good....he talks about giving her a pass in the article (likens it to Clinton).  

 

Put it this way, who benefits the most from her disgrace?  African-Americans or those who would rather they not have an effective advocate on their side? (She was apparently good at her job and in her role with the NAACP.)

 

Does KAJ actually have evidence that she did a great job at the NAACP?  Honestly, his comments don't make much sense to me.  The fact that she made a big stink about racist attacks that did not actually happen would seem to be a huge setback to the local civil rights movement.  Perhaps KAJ wrote his article before he read of the extent of her lies and frauds.

 

I mean, if it was really just a matter of white people being irritated about her tanning and hair style, I would agree.  But that is silly.  Lots of white women rock that style (or elements of it).  I've never seen anyone raise an eyebrow over that, at least not in the past few decades.  Lots of white women champion civil rights.  That's nothing controversial or newsworthy.  That's also not what this is.

[Stellalarella]

I am trying to see this story from multiple sides.

 

I have "passed" as Indian in a few situations here in India where being seen as Indian meant I could go someplace with my family without additional hoops to jump through.  I didn't affirmatively lie, but I pulled a sari over my lighter color hair and kept my blue eyes downcast.

 

Did I somehow unintentionally offend the entire notion of Indianness when I did that?  I didn't think so at the time.

 

Is it cultural appropriation when white people do yoga?  When they drink chai?

 

Or when they have dreadlocks (my brother has had them for 25 years, identifies with the Rastafarian community on many issues, and is undeniably white.)

 

OBVIOUSLY all her lying was wrong, terrible, very very bad.

 

But I am more interested in the reaction to how she chose to live her life.  Who she chose to associate with.  What she chose to study.  The causes she chose to dedicate her life to.

 

I have a degree in South Asian Studies.  I could easily have continued on to be a professor in Indian Studies.  I speak an Indian language.  I have been involved in numerous South Asian advocacy groups.  I even have a nose ring.  I'm white.

 

I have an Indian husband.  I have two children who clearly look more Indian than not Indian.

 

People seem equally upset by the cultural, appearance, professional choices she made than by the lies she told.

 

Is it not possible that people can feel more "at home" in a culture other than the one they are born into?  Is it wrong to say that there is an African-American culture that has a strong pull for many people? 

 

I'm really just thinking out loud because I struggle with the concept of cultural appropriation - knowing what it means and the boundaries of it.  What is appropriation and what is appreciation?  What characteristics can only be assumed by people born into that particular culture and what characteristics can be adopted by others without causing offence?

I appreciate your questions.

Here is a link to a video of an MSNBC video interview of Donezal.  Melissa Harris Perry asks Donezal about cultural appropriation. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419906/dolezal-interview-isaac-cohen

[Cammie]

And of course the Pearls come into play (is there anything these people don't have a link to?)

 

https://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/the-media-is-doing-exactly-what-rachel-dolezals-abusive-homeschooling-parents-want/

[Cammie]

And certain journalists are writing that the parents may not have simply "innocently" discussed their daughter.  Ulterior motives are being alleged:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rachel-dolezal-older-brother-accused-child-molestation-article-1.2257560

[creekland]

 

People seem equally upset by the cultural, appearance, professional choices she made than by the lies she told.

 

Is it not possible that people can feel more "at home" in a culture other than the one they are born into?  Is it wrong to say that there is an African-American culture that has a strong pull for many people? 

 

I'm really just thinking out loud because I struggle with the concept of cultural appropriation - knowing what it means and the boundaries of it.  What is appropriation and what is appreciation?  What characteristics can only be assumed by people born into that particular culture and what characteristics can be adopted by others without causing offence?

 

I'm sure some do, but then again, there are some who constantly criticize what anyone wears if it doesn't meet their approval.  There are some who criticize girls who play like boys and vice versa.  There are many who expect females to be into crafts, clothes, shopping, and love stories or men to be into sports, cars, and video games.  When individuals aren't that way, they can be vicious with their comments - or assume that gender issues are the problem.

 

I suspect the same thing is going on in this situation with some people (don't recall seeing it on this thread though), and yes, they probably also get upset when ANYONE doesn't live as they approve.

 

I see us all as citizens of the world and as part of the human race.  Individuals choose their own path, at least, once they've reached maturity to be able to consciously do do.

 

Her lies bother me - nothing more. 

 

And I'll live the way I want to even though many don't consider me a true "lady."  ;)

 

As an aside, two of my guys have natural darker complexion, esp when tanned, and the other is fair skinned.  When we were on a beach in HI all three were out in the water playing with boogie boards.  I was on shore watching Spinner Dolphins offshore.  Two older ladies walked by me and one asked the other if she was ready to leave.  "In a minute," started the reply, "I want to get some pictures of those native boys in the water first."  Out of curiosity, I looked over at where she was taking pics.  Native boys?  They were MY boys, born in FL, raised (mostly) in PA.  This was our first trip to HI!  I never felt the need to correct her, but our family fondly refers to the incident fairly often and we smile.   :coolgleamA:   "Two native boys playing with their Haole cousin!"  Since we often traveled off season, we've wondered how many other scrapbooks they are in and with what labels!

[ErinE]

And certain journalists are writing that the parents may not have simply "innocently" discussed their daughter. Ulterior motives are being alleged:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rachel-dolezal-older-brother-accused-child-molestation-article-1.2257560

Rachel Dolezal (a proven liar) is claiming the parents spoke out in retaliation. The initial reporter, in his follow-up article, said he sought out the Dolezals with a quick internet search.

[umsami]

This is the part I don't understand. How and why does this type of story end up being about republicans vs democrats? Why do news outlets talk about how this hurts democrats? I'm still waiting for them to find out Hilary emailed this lady and invited her to the Benghazi show. Lying, molestation, deceit -- those are not things that should be categorized by political parties. The media certainly has found a way to get its viewers' knickers twisted, though

 

Because we're a very polarized society right now.... and for some, everything is about politics.  The sad thing is, the candidates/parties aren't that far apart.  Nor are most Americans on many issues.   You'd never know that watching/reading some of the media, though.   Hate makes $$$.  

[SKL]

Because we're a very polarized society right now.... and for some, everything is about politics.  

 

I think this particular issue is one where people are voicing opinions regardless of politics.  True, there are some who can't resist, but I don't think that's true for the majority in this case.  It strikes me as odd that "political" keeps coming up in this discussion.  This person did multiple wrongs against her own people, and it's not like this is some kind of societal trend.  It's not like this is somehow going to sway votes.

[Cammie]

Rachel Dolezal (a proven liar) is claiming the parents spoke out in retaliation. The initial reporter, in his follow-up article, said he sought out the Dolezals with a quick internet search.

 

Other journalists are confirming that there is a case in which Dolezal is in opposition to her parents.  It is a case that is active with hearings that are pending.  That doesn't mean that the intitial reporter didn't just call them up.  However, it does tend to tarnish the whole "the parents are just innocent dupes" in this line of thinking.

[SKL]

Other journalists are confirming that there is a case in which Dolezal is in opposition to her parents.  It is a case that is active with hearings that are pending.  That doesn't mean that the intitial reporter didn't just call them up.  However, it does tend to tarnish the whole "the parents are just innocent dupes" in this line of thinking.

 

What difference does it make that the parents admitted she is their daughter and white, vs. the investigative reporters having to work a little harder to find the information?  It was going to come out.  The rumors had been flying around for years.  There was plenty of evidence and it would not have been difficult to find.  The parents did not create this situation.  I really think the parents' role in it is irrelevant.

 

Also, if they really wanted to tarnish her image, they could have said a lot worse things than they did.  The quotes I read were actually supportive of how she identifies with the black American culture.  They do stop short of agreeing that she is black, but I don't see the problem with that.

[December]

Ok, I can definitely see a reporter calling and asking if so and so is your daughter, so you answer honestly, but turning over childhood pictures to the journalist?  To me, that suggests they went about this with the goal of outing her.  They weren't just innocently answering a question if they went out of their way to turn over pictures.

[SKL]

I still don't get the use of the verb "outing" in this situation.  Saying your daughter is white isn't "outing" her.  There is no good reason for anyone to hide from being white.

[SKL]

But on the other hand, I could understand wanting to build a case that she is extremely and convincingly deceptive (and maybe out of reality) when she's accusing the family of horrible things.

 

Still, sharing a little girl photo is pretty benign in the grand scheme of things.

[creekland]

If my kid is saying lies about us, I see no reason not to provide proof of the truth if asked.  It would be the same if it were a neighbor, friend, acquaintance, or anyone.

 

I'm sort of dumbfounded that this is even a debate to be honest.

 

Do some truly believe we're just supposed to let the lies keep going on just because we're the parents and we don't want anyone to think our kids could possibly be wrong?

 

From what I've seen, NO ONE (related) is saying she shouldn't have been doing the good things she was doing.

[Catwoman]

And certain journalists are writing that the parents may not have simply "innocently" discussed their daughter. Ulterior motives are being alleged:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rachel-dolezal-older-brother-accused-child-molestation-article-1.2257560

Ultimately though, the parents' motivations don't matter.

 

Had Rachel Dolezal not been a liar, she would have had nothing to fear from either her parents or the media.

 

The blame for Rachel Dolezal's downfall and public humiliation falls squarely on her own shoulders.

[Spy Car]

This morning I'm thinking I'd prefer a white person who might be a little mentally off but works for equal rights for black folks, rather than a crazy who shoots up a black church.

 

Bill

[Runningmom80]

I'm pretty sure everyone prefers that.

[Catwoman]

This morning I'm thinking I'd prefer a white person who might be a little mentally off but works for equal rights for black folks, rather than a crazy who shoots up a black church.

 

Bill

Why would you compare those two people?

 

One is a liar. The other is a coldblooded mass murderer.

 

I doubt anyone would "prefer" the murderer over the liar.

[idnib]

If my kid is saying lies about us, I see no reason not to provide proof of the truth if asked.  It would be the same if it were a neighbor, friend, acquaintance, or anyone.

 

I'm sort of dumbfounded that this is even a debate to be honest.

 

Do some truly believe we're just supposed to let the lies keep going on just because we're the parents and we don't want anyone to think our kids could possibly be wrong?

 

From what I've seen, NO ONE (related) is saying she shouldn't have been doing the good things she was doing.

 

Sorry, is this directed to me?

 

If so, I was referring to the original question by the reporter before this story broke, not what happened later when the daughter started telling lies and such.

 

I'm fine with being the crazy one because I wouldn't discuss my child's race or parentage with a stranger who called me on the phone claiming to be a reporter. Who even knows who they are, or what their story angle is? Perhaps later, when the story comes out, a family or their rep might release a statement explaining their side. But just talking to an unknown  reporter about something controversial that's going to be viewed/discussed literally a million times...not gonna happen.

 

It's not okay to take my surprise that people discuss their children's parentage with random callers and turn that into something it's not. I don't think the parents should keep quiet about her lies. I think they should go about it in a different manner, either by thoughtfully releasing information and/or through legal channels such as testifying at her brother's trial, etc. I've said that more than once, I think.

 

I'm dumbfounded there are so many people who, knowing their child was possibly doing something something unethical, would tell a reporter before they told anyone else.

[creekland]

Sorry, is this directed to me?

 

...

 

I'm dumbfounded there are so many people who, knowing their child was possibly doing something something unethical, would tell a reporter before they told anyone else.

 

No.  It was just a general statement.

 

I also feel certain the reporter wasn't the first to know.  I suspect friends/family and others who knew her were.  These things are kinda tough to keep secret among those who know folks growing up - which is why the storyteller has to move elsewhere to get their stories believed.

 

The reporter was likely one of the first outside of her circle to know - or at least - make their knowledge public.

 

Why it went viral on the internet is anyone's guess.  Why does anything in particular catch the public's interest?  Most of the time I'm left scratching my head with that connection.

[idnib]

No.  It was just a general statement.

 

I also feel certain the reporter wasn't the first to know.  I suspect friends/family and others who knew her were.  These things are kinda tough to keep secret among those who know folks growing up - which is why the storyteller has to move elsewhere to get their stories believed.

 

The reporter was likely one of the first outside of her circle to know - or at least - make their knowledge public.

 

Why it went viral on the internet is anyone's guess.  Why does anything in particular catch the public's interest?  Most of the time I'm left scratching my head with that connection.

 

Thanks for clarifying. I meant telling anyone outside the circle. Obviously people who knew her growing up and knew her family were aware. I guess I would tell her employer or college before I'd tell a reporter.

 

It is anyone's guess, but I'm not at all surprised a story about a white woman masquerading as a black woman and heading up an NCAAP chapter went viral. It's a crazy story, plus everyone wants to see what she looks like and if they too would have been fooled. Maybe those of us from the 80s have too many memories of Soul Man.  :D

[SKL]

Yes, I would tell people about my kids' parentage if they were my bio kid.  Everyone does that.  I have never heard of anyone declining to "admit" that their kid is their kid to anyone, ever.  Or that their bio kid is the same race they are.  I've heard of people being sensitive about questions re their transracially adopted kids, but never about bio kids.  Thankfully the world hasn't gone that paranoid yet.

[idnib]

Yes, I would tell people about my kids' parentage if they were my bio kid.  Everyone does that.  I have never heard of anyone declining to "admit" that their kid is their kid to anyone, ever.  Or that their bio kid is the same race they are.  I've heard of people being sensitive about questions re their transracially adopted kids, but never about bio kids.  Thankfully the world hasn't gone that paranoid yet.

 

OK. You understand I'm not talking about a chat at the park or in line at the store or at a party, don't you? If it wasn't Ramadan, and if I didn't hate talking on the phone, I might be tempted to randomly call 15 households, identify myself as a news reporter, and ask them about their kids' race and if their kids were their bio kids. I wonder how many would just tell me without asking why or wondering if it was a good idea to give me this information. None, apparently. I'm sure the news reporters are at least thankful nobody (besides me) is that paranoid yet.   :D

 

I would be interested to see what people actually do when the rubber meets the road, so to speak, and it's their own family's business.

 

Anyway this is a stupid derailment and I'm sorry I started it and remained sucked into it. Everyone has a right to tell news reporters whatever they want about their family. 

 

I'm done with this topic (speaking with journalists, not the Dolezal story) but it's the non-flouncing kind of exit.  :)

[creekland]

OK. You understand I'm not talking about a chat at the park or in line at the store or at a party, don't you? If it wasn't Ramadan, and if I didn't hate talking on the phone, I might be tempted to randomly call 15 households, identify myself as a news reporter, and ask them about their kids' race and if their kids were their bio kids. I wonder how many would just tell me without asking why or wondering if it was a good idea to give me this information. 

 

I did not understand your distinction at first.  Sorry about that.  I was thinking you were saying parents should be completely "no comment" and let whatever lies are out there continue, because, well, it's family and family business.

 

With your experiment, I would strongly suspect your results would differ between those without any sort of similar issue (kids massively storytelling and in the process dragging parents through the mud ) and those dealing with it.

 

In the first case, you'd be hitting people out of the blue and they'd wonder what was up - triggering a suspicious mindset.  In the second, the parents would be sighing and mentally feeling, "not again," then giving their side of the story as asked.

 

Compare it to a family dog.  If the dog is "normal" and stays in his house/yard with nary an incident, the owner is going to be taken by surprise if they get a call from anyone asking about him and the dug up flowers in Mrs. Smith's yard.  The first thought is likely to be a prank call.  If the dog normally escapes and gets into mischief, the owner is going to pick up the phone, sigh, and ask, "ok, what'd he do this time?" again, without giving it a second thought.

 

Both dogs could be terrific dogs regarding anything else (playing with kids, etc).  It has no bearing on that.