>The problem with this woman is that she took
>generalizations of what it means to be a blk women and that
>was stupid and short sighted. Her definition is so limiting.

What was her definition?

>And at the end of the day she can run back to her whiteness
>and be ok. Same with anyone who's white that grew up around
>mostly blk folks. They might culturally identify as blk but
>they aren't ethnically and will not be treated as such in
>society.

well first of all, what does "ethnically black" even mean? Black
is not an ethnicity. Also, Rachel was considered to be racially black - because in America - we consider a wide range of hues/skin tones/features to be within the parameters of "black". Further, If we're saying that it's even possible to culturally identify with being 'black' then that's an admission that it's a concept amenable to fluidity.

As for her "running back to her whiteness" - what experience do you have with being perceived as 'white', identifying w/ something else - and then 'running back to whiteness'? How do you know what that's like such that you are qualified to speak on that? And you say that they "will not be treated as black in society." Well, wasn't Rachel Dolezal treated as "black" until this morning?

>It's easy to say that we are conventional to ideas of race
>when you're in a position of privilege and you are the
>majority. When we are given equal citizenship perhaps we can
>talk about fluidity.

Interestingly - this argument is never used in a trans-gender analysis. Meaning, I don't hear you (or others in this thread) saying things like: "it's easy to say we are being conventional about gender when you're in a position of privilege. When women are afforded equal rights in society then we will talk about gender fluidity."

Yet, women still aren't treated as equal and are subjected to patriarchal hierarchy and conventionalism, but that doesn't stop us from exercising a fluidity analysis as it pertains to gender.


-->