We have all heard it by now, Rachael Dolezal, outed by her biological parents as ethnically white. What a bombshell that produced and the media feeding frenzy to follow. Also, how quickly the people who had come to praise her — President of the Spokane, Washington NAACP, etc. — how quickly they turn to condemn her, for (gasp!) lying! At this point, I am not going to defend her actions. Albeit, her work on the behalf of minorities is actually commendable. Nor am I going to second guess why, Ms. Dolezal felt she had to “puff up” her resume, so to speak. Instead, I am going to ask a different set of questions.
Ever hear of snob appeal? 1. That is when you get invited to a social hour in which you are expected to: Dress to the nines in millions of dollars in clothing, jewelry, and accessories. And literally, you are never going to get through the door of a multimillion dollar mansion, if you aren’t wearing your most spendy duds imaginable. Basically, you are trying to out-shine, the woman or man next to you, at this particular party. Now for the kicker: everything you wear is a cheap knock off. Or you are engaged in some other act of “let’s pretend,” so that you can crash this particular party. Don’t laugh, it likely happens more often than any of us knows. Under the circumstances, would we call this “doing a Rachael Dolezal?” 2. Politicians and other notables can literally “buy a degree or a diploma.” With this bit of hype in hand, these men and women in various legislatures or the throughout the business world, have improved by considerable their status of acceptability. That is precisely the key phrase here, “status of acceptability.” So considering even these two examples, Ms. Dolezal would not be any different from other people, who have done the same thing. What is sad about it? Us. We can’t “respect” anyone, who doesn’t meet our narrowly defined set of criteria for “acceptability.”
Jacob H. Fries, editor of the “Inlander,” made plain his own brand of snob appeal. Oh yes, we shall admit that Ms. Dolezal freelanced a number of articles… We shall admit to her being this, and that… But under the circumstances, she “lied” to get accepted into our good graces. Therefore, she no longer writes for this newspaper. Real huffy now, what we want, is the truth! Seriously? George Nethercutt has a really big problem with the “truth,” and he is allowed to publish his blithering nonsense, regardless. So my response to that commentary of Mr. Fries is this: Major Gut Busting LOL!
Shall I do a Rachael Dolezal? Actually it is a fact that as a nascent senior citizen, I established a e-novel writing career. You will find on amazon.com, “Are You a Space Alien? And other adventures, a four part science fiction novel.” Yes, as you will also find in the amazon search engine, “Aesgard Awakening! After Ragnorak, the Gods are Alive!” If I were going to do a “Rachael Dolezal,” I would claim some kind of degree in oh, English, or English Lit. (None actually exists.) Or that I have some certificate of achievement out of a creative writing class. (None actually exists.) That I have a degree as a reporter or a journalist. (No, I do not.) I can name X newspaper that I have worked for, over a number of years. (It would not be true.) This is just so, that I can get “The Inlander” to acknowledge, that I have a sci-fi and fantasy novel on the amazon.com bookshelf. Because otherwise, the only local authors they seem to want to acknowledge exists: Had won awards, were well-beloved (already mentioned in other publications before the Inlander picked up on it), already had a career (freelance or otherwise) in the newspaper, or was related to someone who actually worked for a newspaper. But e-mail a link to the latest e-book (which I most certainly have done) to “The Inlander,” and it is met with * silence *. How about that. In short, even the “truth seeking” Inlander, operates on snob appeal. And Rachael Dolezal, is that gal dressed up to the nines in a lot of cheap knock offs; who dared to crash our party. I think that is a sad reflection on all of us.
Why can we not as a society, just respect each other for ourselves? That our street creds and achievements honestly earned, should simply be recognized on the merit. Apparently this was never the case with Rachael Dolezal. To be recognized, she had to put on a costume and engage in an act. Once that costume was forced off of her, and the act was proclaimed for the cheap theater that it is; “we” decided to become very angry. What for? Would a “white” Rachael Dolezal have been able to take the helm of NAACP in Spokane, Washington? Would a “white” Rachael Dolezal have the street creds needed, to advocate on the behalf of minorities? As for the snooty “Inlander,” they needed Ms. Dolezal to be a minority, before she could have presented them with any legitimate articles. Otherwise, would a “white” Rachael Dolezal have unquestionably passed over? No, this is not “race baiting,” or reverse bigotry. Instead, everyone should see this as it really is: the social psychology of shallow thinking. Rachael Dolezal proved conclusively, that image matters more to us, than the truth. We don’t want the truth; we can’t handle the truth. Because if “the truth” actually mattered more, we would have to accept each of our neighbors as they are, warts and all. Sorry Mr. Fries, even you preferred the image to the individual.