It just keeps getting better.
Commenter Steven just pointed out that Rachel Dolezal had advocated a boycott of Exodus because it cast white actors as Africans.
Evidently she felt it was just not right for white people to pose as black.
Yesterday, Dolezal was interviewed by Matt Lauer about her long masquerade. What I took away from that was how Dolezal seemed to be completely without embarrassment or shame. Lauer asked her some fairly pointed questions, and she answered in a matter of fact tone, with a lot of obfuscatory language.
When asked if she were African-American, Dolezal replied, "I identify as black…..I did feel that at some point I would need to address the complexity of my identity….."
(Wrong: she is white, period.)
When asked about Albert Wilkerson, the black man Dolezal passed off as her father, she replied, "He actually approached me in north Idaho. And you know, where, we just connected on a very intimate level as family. Albert Wilkerson is my dad. Any man can be a father, not every man can be a dad.”
(Wrong: Wilkerson is not her biological father, nor did he raise her. He is not her father, period.)
When asked about the critics who said she was merely in blackface, Dolezal replied, “I have a huge issue with blackface. This is not some freak ‘Birth of a Nation’ mockery blackface. This is on a very real, connected level — how I’ve actually had to go there with the experience, not just a visible representation.”
Listen to that misleading language: she had to go there (i.e., become black). Evidently it was forced upon her, and she had no choice.
When Lauer showed Dolezal a picture of herself as a blonde, light-skinned young girl and asked if that was a Caucasian or African-American girl, she replied, "“I would say, visibly, she would be identified as white by people who see her.”
The correct answer, of course, would have been, "Caucasian." But Dolezal larded her answer with so many meaningless qualifiers that she made it sound as if there were extenuating circumstances involved. First, "I would say," as if this were only one person's opinion. Second, "visibly," as if Lauer might have been asking in any other sense. Third, "would be identified," to emphasize the theoretical nature of the discussion and to allow for another layer of possible mistakes, since, as we all know, misidentifications occur all the time. And fourth, "by people who see her," as if it's necessary to clarify that she is not referring to people who don't see her.
This is how sociopaths talk. Even when caught red-handed, they explain away their lies with more lies, and they couch their answers with a lot of flowery language that you have to wade through to get to their real meaning.
And, they never feel embarrassment or shame.
The whole thing was reminiscent of Lance Armstrong's interview with Oprah after he was found out; he, too, didn't betray even a glimmer of embarrassment or shame.
Nor surprising in either case: sociopaths are incapable of feeling either emotion.