Shades of Rachel Dolezal

ShaunKing.jpg


Shades of Rachel Dolezal. Turns out Shaun King, Black Lives Matter organizer and Daily Kos “justice correspondent,” who claims he is biracial and suffered racist abuse from “resident rednecks of my school” as a boy, is just another white liberal trying to make a living in the grievance business.

This post was last modified on August 19, 2015

J.P. Travis: Born and raised in Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976 graduate of University of Michigan, father, grandfather, husband, founder and CEO of Travelyn Publishing (http://www.travelynpublishing.com/), and passionate anti-government believer in individual liberty.

View Comments (46)

  • So if he married that other "bi-racial" chick from last month here, would their kids still be white?

    • According to the black grievance industry, when a biracial man fathers a child with a white woman, the child, no matter how light-skinned, is still black, with all the racial disadvantages and affirmative-action benefits of the darkest child in America. Just one of the reasons I find the whole issue of race so ridiculous. We all have African blood if you go back far enough. At what point will people like Shaun King stop milking the race game and spreading divisiveness? When their children are only 5% black? 1%? When?

          • Uhm... never heard of them LOL but thanks... they are kind of scary though I am not even going to lie!

          • LOL I was nowhere near being alive, my parents were in high school and they were barely getting to know one another at the time. Mom was probably interested in another guy and Father in another girl at the time. It was a long ass time before I came along. As for the song... meh... LOL sorry but not hot.

          • Nope sorry... :-) It has a good beat. I will ask my Mom although I doubt it, because after all we are from a different country and the music she was into at the time may have been different. She told me when she was a young child she liked the Beatles... she didn't understand them but she liked the beats and her older siblings would listen to them a lot. Not sure what was she was into as a teen and in high school... what is this 70's? Maybe she liked disco? :-/

          • Yep, '70's music. Edgar Winter came out with two hits: this, and Frankenstein. I liked Frankenstein better. The LP was weird; he was freakishly pasty, and the title was "They Only Come Out at Night."

            However, at least Edgar doubled the usual one-hit-wonder's output.

          • Interesting he saw himself as a freak .. although of course albinos fare better at night than in the day...

          • Then I am officially an old fart Kimmy, I was in High School when the song Frankenstein came out...LOL!

          • My Mom just had a birthday and she tells me that she is now really starting to see her age... :-( she was so sad when she said that... I told her she looks great!

    • Oprah could sue him I suppose. The scholarship came from her. But if she did sue she would have to admit she's a racist herself, someone who doesn't want white kids to have a college education. Awkward.

      • Well not necessarily. She has the right to give her money to whomever she wishes and to have standards even if on personal/exterior appearances as she earned that money, she paid taxes on it already and she is not taking money from other people (taxpayer funds). So she doesn't have to be qualified as a racist if she wishes to give her own money to a specific group of people. It won't be awkward at all, because he took money away from Black young man or woman whom could have had the opportunities in life had they gotten the grant. If she decides to sue I would support it and if there is legal issues here, he could and should do time or pay a heavy fine for fraud. I also would be okay with a white only grant from a white benefactor/philantropist as it is his or her money and he or she can do whatever he or she wants with his or her money. Unless they specify hatred against non-Whites I wouldn't qualify them as racists, if all they want is for poor whites to have a chance at education and a lot of poor whites could use a leg up too. This white privilege sh*t doesn't exist for poor whites in this country. If I had the money I would have grants for black hispanic females who are (legal) immigrants and/or first generation... as a way to pay it forward and in thanksgiving for the opportunities that I have had, I hope that no one would consider me racist for that especially since there is no racist nor sexist intent in my actions nor in my heart.

        • "I also would be okay with a white only grant..."

          No college in America would allow it. Black grants? Fine. White? Not a chance. That's the reality.

          • I am not talking about anything other than what I am okay with. If people do it or not that is their business. I am okay with having a very specific grant if I ever am in a position where I can do it, and I am okay with others doing the same.

          • Yeah, I agree, I'm okay with those things too. Like Augusta being at an all-white country club for so many years. I was fine with that if that's what they wanted, but I was also fine with the PGA saying, "We're not going to have the Masters at a segregated country club anymore so change your policy or lose the golf tournament." Ideally, that's how I would like to see things change, through private actions and private pressures. People think Jackie Robinson integrating baseball was such a profound moment, brought about by the courage of the Brooklyn Dodgers, but the fact is the pressure of reality was forcing major league baseball to make the change. The doggone "Negro leagues" were fielding teams so good, MLB were afraid people would realize they didn't have the best product anymore. Negro league barnstormers would often beat major league teams. If word of that got around, that would make people suspect they were missing something. I like to think integration was inevitable simply through the power of the market. People back then wanted to see Satchel Paige, white people as much as black people. He drew HUGE crowds -- HUGE -- wherever he pitched. I have to believe MLB saw that and thought, "Shoot, we need to get that guy in the league. Think of the money we'd make."

          • "... I was fine with that if that’s what they wanted, but I was also fine with the PGA saying, “We’re not going to have the Masters at a segregated country club anymore so change your policy or lose the golf tournament.” ... Ideally, that’s how I would like to see things change, through private actions and private pressures."

            There you go. As long as the private actions and pressures are not unconstitutional nor criminal in nature and are truly private in nature without improper use of the court system.

            I am okay with gays and gay owned businesses and gay compatriots boycotting Christian businesses... not okay with the use of the court system to improperly seize property and to destroy the constitutional right to pursuit of happiness. I am sure that is the route they use because they know that their numbers will never make a dent as Christian businesses will have millions of potential customers at all times. Not okay with people calling Christians telling them they are going to be killed and thus Christians going into hiding. None of that okay. Intimidation is a form of assault as far as I am concerned, because it is close to terrorism.

            I personally never saw the point of Blacks sitting in restaurants that refuse to serve them, they were taking space of paying patrons and maybe they hope to make a dent on the profits of the business, but I always thought there were many other ways to get the changes that were needed when it came to that, but the way the bus situation in my opinion was handled was good (refusing to ride the bus by going about in other ways and having compatriots to the cause driving them etc., which then was found that Blacks were primary customers of the bus lines, which meant that unless they made up for the customers lost, they had to change their policies or close business or have fewer buses/routes). That was a (or would have a been a perfect) true private actions and private change, but of course they created yet a new law to fix the problem which in my opinion led to even more laws that lead to even more problems that we have now.

            Your PGA and MLB examples are good because unless I don't know something, no new laws were created to fix anything. It was truly handled privately. It was up to the clubs and teams to decide what was best for the bottom line and it just so happen that they did "the right thing" socially, without new laws.

          • After forcing Augusta to allow other races, the PGA did it again to Augusta over allowing female members. Again, I could see both sides and figured it was none of my business. I don't blame Augusta for choosing to have a male club, but I also didn't blame the PGA for saying, "Hey, we also have the LPGA and have female fans and we don't want to hold one of our three biggest tournaments at a club that doesn't allow women." So now Augusta allows women.

            Personally I didn't care which way it went. The Masters is a nice tournament and has a lot of tradition, but I don't really understand why it's considered one of the four top tournaments in the world.

          • Yeah these matters should be handled privately as much as possible as long as everyone has the right to say what they have to say and the other has the right to change policies or stick by them freely.

Related Post
  1. DALLAS POLICE SHOOTING: ‘ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE ASSAULT VEHICLE AND TROOP TRANSPORT’
  2. Kim Jong-un was a child prodigy
  3. Top GOP Leader Promises Total Amnesty In 2015