For the record, I think the woman is cuckoo. There have been many white people involved in civil rights and the struggles of Black people. There was no need for her to lie and pretend to be Black. Look at Time Wise and his work around white privilege. I hate liars.

NOW, I think the bigger question, taking into account the current cultural zeitgeist of Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner. Simple question. If Bruce Jenner can be transgender, why can't Rachel be transracial?

If you say transracial doesn't exist, there was a time when transgenderism didn't exist. Perhaps she is the first transracial person ever. Someone has to be first.

If you look at her appearance (and choice of hairstyles ), couldn't the same transgender statement of making the "outside match the inside" also apply to Rachel? Could her "insides" be telling her that she's Black?

I don't follow "Awesomely Luvvie," but her posting on this popped up in a search. Here's the article: Rachel Dolezal the Undercover Sista and Performing Blackness

One part that stood out to me:

Also, as far as the transgender comparison. Gender and sex are two different things. One is social and fluid (gender) and the other is biological (sex). Transgender identity is about people who don’t identify as what they were assigned at birth. Rachel was putting on a costume but Caitlyn was taking one off to live her life in a way that was most comfortable.


Could it be that Rachel didn't identify with the "whiteness" that was assigned to her at birth? "Whiteness" is a construct just as "Blackness" is a social construct based upon taxonomical race. Surely "race" can be seen as fluid. Some Black people like R&B and hip hop. Some love rock and classical music.

How many threads have we had on NP about not being a "traditional Black" person or being called "white" because one had certain tastes and opinions?

One last question, who has determined that the "trans" phenomenon only applies to gender? Can people cross all types of lines?