Our Sarcasm To The New Republic’s Deep Thoughts!!!!! HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

image

Good heavens!  So, there’s this bit of absolute lunacy …..

Rachel Dolezal Embodies White America’s Fears

Who are we allowed to become? Children growing up today are likely to believe they can be anyone they want to be, and parents and teachers have grown fond of the phrase “Whatever you are, be a good one.” The emerging narratives of transgender children dovetail perfectly with this philosophy, children whose parents do not force them into a lockstep performance of the gender they were assigned at birth have become visible members of society. Yet the increased presence of transgender issues in our national conversation has prompted some to wonder—with or without their tongue in cheek, or in check—whether this is merely a sign of the times, a side effect of the chaos of modern life. If you can be born male and “become” female, some argue, then can’t you become anything else you want? And if you can be transgender, then can’t the label “transracial” apply, just as legitimately, to someone like Rachel Dolezal?

Well, yes, if the lunacy of believing you can actually, in reality, change your gender, then, you can absolutely change your racial identity. 

There’s more in the article …..

Dolezal has been in the national spotlight for a week now, and in that time the public’s opinion of her has never quite shifted, as it so often does in stories like these, to simple outrage. ….

Well, no, Sarah (the author of this idiocy), conservatives won’t be outraged because they’re laughing too hard.  Leftards are confused as to how to respond, because they’re too embarrassed by this lunacy.  However, there are some people of color who are very, very, outraged.  But, that’s their own problem, as well.  If you support idiotic organizations such as the NAACP, this is what you’ll reap. 

One of the great fallacies that often arises in public discussions of transgender rights and identity is the idea of “becoming” someone: “becoming” a woman, “becoming” a man, as if the life of a transgender person is just one big bar mitzvah. Given the opportunity to tell their own stories, transgender people often explain that this has never been the case—that they have, rather, been mislabeled from the start, and are only stripping away the layers of false identity that have accrued around them without their consent.

It hardly seems a coincidence that Dolezal used the same phrasing Tuesday in a hotly anticipated interview with Matt Lauer on “Today.” When Lauer asked whether Dolezal was African-American, Dolezal responded, “I identify as black. … This goes back to a very early age, with my self-identification with the black experience.” At five years old, she said, “I was drawing self-portraits with the brown crayon instead of the peach crayon.” …..

… Thinking about Dolezal, one is reminded of Ferdinand Demara and Frank Abagnale, two American men who took on dozens of separate careers and identities, and wanted little nothing more, it seemed, than to simply avoid living without the safety of a mask. Anyone can identify with the desire to be someone—anyone—else, and acknowledging this within ourselves makes it easy for us to understand the people who are actually successful at making these fantasies flesh. ….

…. Dolezal pretended—and likely is still pretending—to be not just a black woman, but an African-American. She lays claim to a highly specific heritage, one as defined by pain and injustice and ongoing trauma as it is by any other cultural hallmark, and defined not just alongside whiteness, but against it. ….

… The Scandinavian-looking blonde girl in the photos Dolezal’s parents supplied does not automatically contradict the idea that Dolezal might actually have African-American heritage. ….

…. Ultimately, Rachel Dolezal’s story seems like a story about fear. It expresses the fear all white Americans have, or should have: fear of acknowledging our own cultural history as creators of trauma and inflictors of abuse; fear of acknowledging the guilt inherent in this narrative, and, even more staggeringly, taking on the task of alchemizing guilt into something useful. Dolezal’s story also expresses, in its most redemptive moments, the love and respect she truly seemed to have for African-American culture—and the weakness that allowed her to see it not as a culture she wanted to use her white privilege to advocate for, but as a shelter in which she could hide from herself.

Well, there is, I must say, a fear.  And, it scares me at times, but, I’m one who confronts my fears.  Peering into the mind of a leftard is one such fears.  And, yes, it hurts and is painful for me.  This lady is so far gone, I can’t see where she’ll ever get back to reality. 

While she brushes upon some very hard truths, she doesn’t acknowledge these hard truths.  She seems more focused on the transgender issue than the race issue and she tries to tie them together, in typical leftarded fashion.  So, let me start with the transgender issue …..

There’s no such thing.  Forget trying to co-opt experiences, that’s utter idiocy.  The author acknowledges the “fantasies” and “pretending”, and that’s all there is to “transgender” people.  It’s complete and utter fantasy and pretending.  You see, I’m a male.  It doesn’t matter how much I would want to be a female, I can’t ever be one.  Sure, I could have my pecker cut off, and have a hole carved out where one isn’t suppose to be.  I could have boob implants, and take hormone shots.  I could wear dresses and makeup ….. but, none of that is going to change what’s in my DNA.  It would help pretending and the fantasy, but, that’s all it will ever be.  It’s physiology and biology.  It’s physics and anatomy.  IDK, can you shove a working uterus into a man?  No?  Well, then STFU!  You can’t be a woman!  You lunatics!

In the same manner, you can’t change your race.  In both race and gender issues, though, you can change how you perceive and consider them.  Again, I don’t know, for sure, if there wasn’t some black in my families’ heritage.  I’ve always allowed that there could be …. but, I’m not concerned about the sickle cell, so ….

I do wonder, though, exactly what these lunatics mean by “African-American heritage”?  Does it include the “African-Americans” who migrated here after the Emancipation Proclamation?  If it does, then, there are two very unique heritages.  But, then, even those who migrated here between say 1865 –1950 would have an entirely different heritage than those people who have a heritage from people who migrated since 1950.  But, then, each and every one would have a different heritage depending upon the place of origin within the US. 

Like the transgender issue, there is no such thing as a unique “African-American heritage”.  It simply doesn’t exist.  Yes, there are people who share a similar skin pigment.  But, then, there are people half-way around the world who do, as well, and they’ve almost nothing in common with the ones who share the skin pigment, here. 

But, while we’re on this subject ……

It expresses the fear all white Americans have, or should have: fear of acknowledging our own cultural history as creators of trauma and inflictors of abuse; fear of acknowledging the guilt inherent in this narrative, …

Well, I suppose, if one wishes to dwell in self loathing, that’s one way to do it.  I, OTOH, wish to dwell in reality.

Here’s the facts.  White America freed slaves over 150 years ago.  White America created an environment which allowed for the election of a Black president.  Well, they didn’t just create the environment, they codified it in law.  Indeed, today, we’re so racially harsh that nearly every person on the continent of Africa wants to come to the US.  That’s how bad we are.  Inflictors of abuse and creators of trauma …. or, in the case of the author of this article, creator of drama ….

The fact of the matter is, in all races, there are people who abuse and cause trauma.  I should have a specific sense of guilt because someone of my race did?  I’m pretty sure, not.  But, if that’s the standard …. well, slavery is still institutionalized in Africa, as it always has been through recorded history …  as a White person, I’m so ashamed?  I’m guilty?  Of what? 

On the US side, yes, there is still bigotry in this nation, and, it’s a disgrace.  There are still, actually, people in this nation insisting that people pay homage based on the race of people.  It’s disgusting!

Yeh, there were some very bad White people out there.  Sorry, I don’t identify with them, so, it’s impossible for me to feel guilty about the things they did.  And, more to the point, I don’t own it.  Even if my ancestors engaged in such things, that’s not me.  But, I know my parents.  I know what they taught me.  I knew my grand parents, and know what they were about.  Even if the sins of the fathers should be visited upon the children (there’s no blood guilt), me and mine are good. 

Now, to anyone else, if you choose to feel guilt about how America came to free slaves, give everyone a right to vote, own property, and have an equal voice in our governance, by all means, take the guilt and own it.  That’s your idiocy and stupidity, it isn’t mine.  You people need to quit projecting your bs on the rest of us. 

I would wager a bet that the majority of the people who believe White Americans should feel guilty is because they’re attempting to project their own guilt.  They beg, plead, insist, that people feel guilty because it alleviates them from taking responsibility as an individual.

 

h/t Twitchy

Advertisements
This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Our Sarcasm To The New Republic’s Deep Thoughts!!!!! HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  1. leftinflagstaff says:

    As we already knew, the recent ‘trans- whatever’ glorification confirms which side is really anti- science.

  2. Jim Masterson says:

    >>
    . . . taking on the task of alchemizing guilt into something useful.
    <<

    “Alchemizing guilt into something useful?” (What a stupid way of putting it.) Is that like sending threatening emails to yourself and claiming you’re a victim of racial bigotry? (Sending those emails–even to yourself–is a crime. I bet she’ll be prosecuted–not!)

    Jim

  3. gator69 says:

    How is this for a unique African American exoerience?

    In 1830, a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more.

    According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states.

    Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. Black Duke University professor John Hope Franklin recorded that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

    In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves. The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation.

    Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000.

    In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860, 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings. In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners.
    (Source: Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984.)

    Fact 5: In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the US census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

    The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

    The figures show conclusively that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters in pre-Civil War America. The statistics outlined above show that about 28 percent of free blacks owned slaves—as opposed to less than 4.8 percent of southern whites, and dramatically more than the 1.4 percent of all white Americans who owned slaves.

    Oopsy!

    • Mark Luhman says:

      gator69 spouting truth like that may not be good for your heath, after all it does not fit into the lefts world view. The left likes to kill people who don’t hold their world view, in the twenty century the left managed to kill over 200 million, of course the modern left will never admit to that. Yet they are advocating kill us global warming deniers.

      • gator69 says:

        They are already trying to enslave us, so the next step cannot be that far off.

        Speak truth to power! (Whatever that means)

    • cdquarles says:

      Thank you, Gator. This, folks, is the real history of Southern slavery. What are the odds that youngun’s, today, get taught this (outside of family stories)?

      • gator69 says:

        My mother was raised in Macon Georgia, and my faher in Miami Florida, and niether of them are/were racists. Both were supporters of MLK Jr and both had black friends. The South has been smeared by the North for generations, mostly because the North won the Civil War, and subsequently wrote the nation’s history books. And “Roots” was fiction, even Henry Louis Gates admits this.

        http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2013/01/21/alex-haley-lance-armstrong-of-literature/

        I have seen worse racism in northern states than in the Deep South. Another part of our history that has been hidden from Americans are the race riots that occurred in the northern states after the Civil War, when blacks migrated north.

        • cdquarles says:

          Indeed so, often perpetrated by ‘labor’ unions. Some of my family members were directly affected by this, for a number of them went North to find jobs; and when they outcompeted the ‘superiors’, they were resented.

          I also note, too, that most of the ‘race’ riots happened outside of the Old South. Sure, there were other violent incidents within the Old South, but they had been declining. That great migration may have had something to do with that, for better or worse.

  4. Mark Luhman says:

    Like marriage equality, you can pretend that you have it you are gay with so called “gay marriage” , but at this point and time there is no way a gay couple can produce and offspring in which both have equally contributed genetically to that offspring DNA. In gay marriage the offspring can pretend that he has two parents of the same sex but biology does not allow for it, the reality is he/she does have two parent either the sperm or egg donor is missing in his/her life, and in a gay marriage the child will be denied either a male or a female perspective, again a gay man may think in the female bell curve yet he still is a man, the say is true for a gay female, she might be more masculinity than most women yet she is not a man and has no chance of her thinking like a man, science has taught us that, but again liberal keep denying it, yet biology is a bitch.

  5. Lars P. says:

    ROFL, sorry but I think she is perfectly right in a way – I mean she forces people to look in the mirror – and reduces the argument of the culture of guilt ad absurdum.
    Was there not an action to “walk in her shoes” for the army to walk in high heels to see how it is? So what best way for a white person to understand how bad is it to be black if not becoming black herself and identify?
    We all come from the primordial Eva – at least science and church seem to agree on this so where is the problem?

  6. Lars P. says:

    Lumo’s take on it and the “transracial” theme, with some explanation on the origin of the name which sounds like “well slept” or so:
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/06/what-rachel-dolezals-transracial.html

    • gator69 says:

      Rachel Doleza was simply taking a page from the Ward Churchill playbook

      At various times, according to press reports, Churchill has described himself as Cherokee, Keetoowah Cherokee, Muskogee, Creek and most recently Meti. In a note in the online magazine Socialism and Democracy he wrote, ”Although I’m best known by my colonial name, Ward Churchill, the name I prefer is Kenis, an Ojibwe name bestowed by my wife’s uncle.” In biographical blurbs, he is identified as an enrolled member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees. But a senior member of the band with access to tribal enrollment records told Indian Country Today that Churchill is not listed. George Mauldin, tribal clerk in Tahlequah, Okla., told the Rocky Mountain News, ”He’s not in the data base at all.”

      According to Jodi Rave, a well-known Native journalist and member of the Mandan-Hidatsa-Arikara Three Affiliated Tribes, Churchill was enrolled as an ”associate member” of the Keetoowah by a former chairman who was later impeached. The one other known member of the same program, since discontinued, was President Bill Clinton. Rave said that she made this discovery as a student in a journalism class at the University of Colorado. She was also in a class taught by Churchill. When her article came out, she said, he dropped her grade from an A to a C minus.

      Suzan Shown Harjo, a columnist for ICT who has tracked Churchill’s career, said that aside from the in-laws of his late Indian wife, he has not been able to produce any relatives from any Indian tribe.

      http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=9669

      Interesting that Slick Willy was another recipient of the ”associate member” status, making him the first black and first Native American POTUS. And if Hillary wins, she will be the first transgender POTUS. 😉

  7. gator69 says:

    The thing about race is that, scientifically, there is no such thing. As far back as 1950, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) released the conclusions of an international group of anthropologists, geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists that stated that the concept of race was not a scientific entity but a myth. Since then, one scientific group after another has issued similar conclusions. What we use to determine race is really nothing more than some haphazard physical characteristics, cultural histories, and social conventions that distinguish one group from another. But, for the sake of communication, we will continue to misuse the word, myself included, in order to discuss our social issues so everyone understands them. As far as Dolezal is concerned, technically, since there is no such thing as race, she’s merely selected a cultural preference of which cultural group she most identifies with. Who can blame her? Anyone who listens to the Isaac Hayes song, “Shaft,” wants to be black—for a little while anyway (#who’sthecatwhowon’tcopout).
    -Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

    http://time.com/author/kareem-abdul-jabbar/

    Great! So time to do away with “Race” as well as “Gender” on job applications, and no more quotas or “Black lives matter”. No more “Equal Opportunity”, no more “Affirmative Action”, and no more talk of “Reparations”.

    Dr Jabbar has spoken!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s