Another "Black Activist" Outed As White

Assuming for a moment that the sites that first published stories about this got it completely wrong... so what?

[snip tl,dr]
So what?

So what if some of the right wing blogger sites post completely fraudulent and whack job stuff?

Do you take anything Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, or Rush Limbaugh have to say on face value? There are plenty of nut jobs on the right and the left. Breitbart's site is one of them.

You can post til the cows come home, the lies about Planned Parenthood were blatant and purposeful. The Breitbart web page would have no qualms posting completely fraudulent stuff if it fit their political agenda.

End of story. I agree to disagree.
 
Given the human propensity for both travel and having sex with the locals, anyone claiming to be a pure anything is fooling themselves. Technically speaking, we are all of mixed heritage.

True to an extent, and yet at the same time it is also true that humanity diverged into three primary genetic groups due to tens of thousands of years living in isolation and in very different environments, living very different types of lives.

The era of any sort of contact between those groups is thought to be within the last 10,000 years at most, I believe. And really, almost none in the first half of that. Most has been in the last 2,000 years out of that. For the other 8,000 it was very minimal. Even for most of that 2,000 it has been very minimal.

This was enough to create three distinct groups, even if there is still bleed over between them and even if there are subgroups of those three groups.

According to the metrics of both Ancestry.com and 23andme.com I am 100% European. Of course, biology is messy, and they are limited to looking at what we can see of genetics now, today. We cannot see all the interactions and migrations of the distant past. Though we can often discern them from molecular genetics, etc.

My results on 23andme.com list the following percentages for the groups they give you results on:

100% European
Northern European
~90% British & Irish
~5% French & German
~1% Scandinavian
0.0% Finnish
~10% Broadly Northern European
Southern European
0.0% Sardinian
0.0% Italian
0.0% Iberian
0.0% Balkan
0.5% Broadly Southern European
0.0% Eastern European
0.0% Ashkenazi
0.2.% Broadly European


0.0% Middle Eastern & North African
0.0% Middle Eastern
0.0% North African
0.0% Broadly Middle Eastern & North African


0.0% Sub-Saharan African
0.0% West African
0.0% East African
0.0% Central & South African
0.0% Broadly Sub-Saharan African


0.0% South Asian

0.0% East Asian & Native American
0.0% Japanese
0.0% Korean
0.0% Yakut
0.0% Mongolian
0.0% Chinese
0.0% Broadly East Asian
0.0% Southeast Asian
0.0% Native American
0.0% Broadly East Asian & Native American


0.0% Oceanian

0.0% Unassigned

Btw, before I'm accused of it - I am not posting this simply to be like "look how pure I am, rawr!" - I am posting it to refute the idea that nobody is entirely white or whatever. That's something you hear a lot of people saying and although as I said, biology is messy, I think within the bounds of human beings and the way we have chosen to categorize ourselves, it is completely fair to say that some people are in fact fully European or fully East Asian or fully Sub-Saharan African.

Ultimately it all comes down to what we, as humans, decide is true about these categories and classifications because they exist to express and represent things which are meaningful to us. That will always be somewhat subjective, though it can also be firmly rooted in biological reality as well, in this case.

I am also posting it because I think getting your DNA tested is a really cool, interesting use of $100 and I would recommend it to everyone. I figure if they see my results they'll have a better concept of what you get for your money, and may be motivated to do it too. I think it's neat. You get a lot more detail than what I've posted, btw.

The color scheme of the various sub-groups is based on the color scheme they use, with some concessions for legibility, and is not meant to indicate anything other than helping distinguish the broad groups and reflecting 23andme's own color choices.

I withheld my exact percentages (on the European subgroups denoted with the ~ symbol) because it's kind of personal info.
 
Last edited:
I believe it.

Chalk another deceit up to Breitbart and the right wing blogosphere.

Assuming for a moment that the sites that first published stories about this got it completely wrong... so what?

. . .
If you want to talk about the vile nature of tabloid journalism, and the fact that we even consider peoples' personal lives to be a valid target of journalistic inquiry... then you and I could probably find a lot of common ground on that topic. Then again, it probably is somewhat legitimate for people to be interested when it seems like someone may be misrepresenting themselves and their identity when they're involved in an identity based movement. It may be legitimate for the media to try to get to the bottom of that. That's a topic for debate.

. . .
I have failed to detect this horrible journalistic malfeasance and deceit you seem to have detected.

At this point, I think he'd be a perfect guest for Henry Louis Gates' "Finding Your Roots" program.

For my own part, I think what they did was a partisan attack, but not necessarily deceitful. After all, the man listed as his father on his birth certificate, the man he is named after, is a white man. It's not unreasonable to assume that the information on a birth certificate is correct until evidence is given otherwise. That's not just a rumor or speculation, it's a legal document.

Why is is partisan? Well, these are conservative media and he is a liberal. They wanted to embarrass him by exposing him as a phoney. They figured they had enough evidence to run the story, so they did. According to their story, they did do the correct journalistic practice of asking King himself for comment, and he didn't respond. That doesn't indicate shoddy journalistic practice on their part:
King did not return multiple requests for comment via email and social media. He has since blocked us, too.

So they ran what they had.

At the same time I can understand why he didn't want to talk to them. As he says in his essay:
For my entire life, I have held the cards of my complicated family history very close to my chest. I preferred to keep it that way and deeply resent that I have been forced to authenticate so many intimate details of my life to prove who I really am. This, in and of itself, is a form of violence.
They put him in a position where, in order to disprove one embarrassing allegation, he would have to reveal something else embarrassing about his mother.

The same sources who falsely reported my family history—including Breitbart, the Daily Caller, and The Blaze—have also falsely reported that my wife and I were never in a brutal car accident, that I lied about how many kids we have (we have 5 now, but have had more/less because we've fostered, adopted, housed many of our nieces and nephews), that I lied about my race to get a scholarship from Oprah, that I lied about how many back surgeries I’ve had, and more. All of those things were completely and totally false, but have simply been ignored at my expense.
Well, if these things were all false, did they at least reach out to him for comment? It seems that at least Breitbart did, and he wouldn't answer and instead blocked them on social media. So they published what they had.
 
Why is is partisan? Well, these are conservative media and he is a liberal.

This is an inevitable dynamic though, isn't it?

How many race-based, identity-based activists are there who aren't on the left and aren't promoting progressive agendas?

There aren't a lot of people on the right of the spectrum who would even be eligible to possibly be someone like this.

I mean I guess the only person I could think of is Nicky Haley, off hand. If it came out that she didn't actually have Indian heritage, and the right wing sites avoided covering it... maybe then we'd have a contradiction to look at. But that's a pretty weak sauce example honestly. I struggled to come up with anything. I don't think she even makes a big point of her heritage. She probably downplays it. I really don't know that much about her.

By the nature of the political landscape, anyone who is trying to flaunt their minority victim status cred is going to be a leftist.

Anyone bragging about being part Cherokee or saying they're black or expecting kudos for being gay or transgender or whatever, is going to tend to be a lefty. I guess Bruce Jenner is apparently a conservative, but conservatives certainly aren't the ones cheering him on in his recent transformation.

I just think it's worth pointing out that the fundamental dynamics at play here may be clouding our ability to determine if this really was a partisan attack. I mean I guess kind of... if you want to call it that, sure, whatever.
 
This is an inevitable dynamic though, isn't it?

How many race-based, identity-based activists are there who aren't on the left and aren't promoting progressive agendas?

There aren't a lot of people on the right of the spectrum who would even be eligible to possibly be someone like this.

I mean I guess the only person I could think of is Nicky Haley, off hand. If it came out that she didn't actually have Indian heritage, and the right wing sites avoided covering it... maybe then we'd have a contradiction to look at. But that's a pretty weak sauce example honestly. I struggled to come up with anything. I don't think she even makes a big point of her heritage. She probably downplays it. I really don't know that much about her.

By the nature of the political landscape, anyone who is trying to flaunt their minority victim status cred is going to be a leftist.

Anyone bragging about being part Cherokee or saying they're black or expecting kudos for being gay or transgender or whatever, is going to tend to be a lefty. I guess Bruce Jenner is apparently a conservative, but conservatives certainly aren't the ones cheering him on in his recent transformation.

I just think it's worth pointing out that the fundamental dynamics at play here may be clouding our ability to determine if this really was a partisan attack. I mean I guess kind of... if you want to call it that, sure, whatever.

Yeah, it is an inevitable dynamic. To expand on what I was saying, I think the partisanship here runs both ways. He might have been more willing to respond to their inquiries if they had come from a neutral or lefty media interlocutor. I wonder whether this might have played out differently if he had answered their questions. I don't believe even Breitbart is so partisan that they necessarily would have run the story, or at least would have published his responses, if he had given them satisfactory answers to their questions. Instead, he ignored them so they just ran what they had. And he was forced to respond indirectly anyway via his own blog. Maybe (remote chance, but not zero) he could have talked them into not publishing it because he wanted to keep the information about his mother private. He would have had to reveal it to them, but maybe that would be enough to convince them that he wasn't lying about his race and deserved some privacy regarding his family history.

Partisan is just partisan, which is different from deceitful, and both sides are partisan almost by definition. Although I like it when liberals and conservatives can set partisanship aside and deal with each other as human beings who just happen to have a different opinion, this is relatively rare.
 
Last edited:
For my own part, I think what they did was a partisan attack, but not necessarily deceitful. After all, the man listed as his father on his birth certificate, the man he is named after, is a white man. It's not unreasonable to assume that the information on a birth certificate is correct until evidence is given otherwise. That's not just a rumor or speculation, it's a legal document.

One problem - Breitbart is at this point well-known for pushing deceitful stories - such s the phony Acorn sting videos, the phony Shirley Sherrod video, and several phony Planned Parenthood sting videos. At this point, it should be assumed that they're being deceitful, particularly if the issue involves black people or abortion.

And that's the actual problem at hand - we know who they are and what they do, and yet supposedly responsible news sites are still taking them at their word, which only discredits them.
 
For my own part, I think what they did was a partisan attack, but not necessarily deceitful. ...
You're waaaay too generous. Do you think they tried at all to verify the story or do you think they simply drooled over it instead?

Give me break. :rolleyes:
 
One problem - Breitbart is at this point well-known for pushing deceitful stories - such s the phony Acorn sting videos, the phony Shirley Sherrod video, and several phony Planned Parenthood sting videos. At this point, it should be assumed that they're being deceitful, particularly if the issue involves black people or abortion.

And that's the actual problem at hand - we know who they are and what they do, and yet supposedly responsible news sites are still taking them at their word, which only discredits them.
Exactly! How quickly everyone forgets.
 
You're waaaay too generous. Do you think they tried at all to verify the story or do you think they simply drooled over it instead?

Give me break. :rolleyes:

Wasn't reaching out to Mr. King exactly that?

Wasn't it these horrible right wing sites which made first contact with the investigating officer and such, too?

Seems like there was an attempt to verify.

Also seems like this is a story which would interest any media, not just right wing - given how into the Dolezol saga they all were.
 
Good enough for me.

Short story is, the man listed on his birth certificate is not his biological father.

This is clearly different from Rachael Dolezal. We can look at photos of her from the past where she was clearly white. Not seeing that here.

Here's what his wife posted on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/RaiKing/posts/10155908400310548?pnref=story
And in hindsight, there's a clear hint in his wife's reaction that Shaun's mother had an affair: "Out of respect for his mother".

Another difference with Dolezal is that immediately, a few of King's classmates came to his defence, testifying about the fight he had at school. Not a single person came to Dolezal's defence.


Wasn't reaching out to Mr. King exactly that?

Wasn't it these horrible right wing sites which made first contact with the investigating officer and such, too?

Seems like there was an attempt to verify.

Also seems like this is a story which would interest any media, not just right wing - given how into the Dolezol saga they all were.
Can't really fault them for running the story if they did that. But it put Shaun King in an uncomfortable bind. Would Breitbart have complied if he'd answered "My mom had an affair with a black man. I appreciate if you keep this quiet"? You be the judge of that.

There's a couple of minor points where they obviously did not do due diligence. The car crash. The Oprah scholarship; Shaun King writes that Morehouse applied for the scholarship, not himself, and that individuals can't even apply to these scholarships, but only the college on behalf of the student.

In any case, his essay gives a disturbing insight into how race relations were when he grew up only 25 years ago.
 
You're waaaay too generous. Do you think they tried at all to verify the story or do you think they simply drooled over it instead?

Give me break. :rolleyes:

Do you think you could go an entire week without using the rolling eyes emoticon? Just curious.
 
In any case, his essay gives a disturbing insight into how race relations were when he grew up only 25 years ago.

Or how he now finds it beneficial to portray them as having been when seeking to bolster his victim cred.
 
Can't really fault them for running the story if they did that. But it put Shaun King in an uncomfortable bind. Would Breitbart have complied if he'd answered "My mom had an affair with a black man. I appreciate if you keep this quiet"? You be the judge of that.

I'm going to say this again, for emphasis. Breitbart's MO is to record people unknowingly, chop up what they say, and actively take a few out-of-context snippets of the discussion in order to deliberately paint a false narrative. Shaun King would have been an absolute fool to knowingly grant them a statement or interview of any sort, because they would have simply edited that maliciously. Furthermore, your trust that they are telling the truth about every source they found is...well, naive. You're trusting them to be good journalists, when in truth they aren't really journalists at all.

And yes, Daily Caller and the Blaze act in the exact same way.
 
I'm going to say this again, for emphasis. Breitbart's MO is to record people unknowingly, chop up what they say, and actively take a few out-of-context snippets of the discussion in order to deliberately paint a false narrative. Shaun King would have been an absolute fool to knowingly grant them a statement or interview of any sort, because they would have simply edited that maliciously. Furthermore, your trust that they are telling the truth about every source they found is...well, naive. You're trusting them to be good journalists, when in truth they aren't really journalists at all.

And yes, Daily Caller and the Blaze act in the exact same way.

This ^

And people supporting some of the Freeper sites boggle the mind.
 
Hold on here, I don't think it's accurate to say that being "black" in America is just something you are because you "identity" with it or experience it socially. The purpose of black scholarships and so forth is to provide aid to those who LITERALLY descended from people who were slaves.

Oh, you're soooo binary.
 
I'm going to say this again, for emphasis. Breitbart's MO is to record people unknowingly, chop up what they say, and actively take a few out-of-context snippets of the discussion in order to deliberately paint a false narrative. Shaun King would have been an absolute fool to knowingly grant them a statement or interview of any sort, because they would have simply edited that maliciously. Furthermore, your trust that they are telling the truth about every source they found is...well, naive. You're trusting them to be good journalists, when in truth they aren't really journalists at all.

And yes, Daily Caller and the Blaze act in the exact same way.

Along with Media Matters, Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times, and a number of other "news" organizations, so what's the point? It's only bad when a right wing site does it, but it's fine and dandy when a left wing site does exactly the same thing?:confused:
 
Along with Media Matters, Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times, and a number of other "news" organizations, so what's the point? It's only bad when a right wing site does it, but it's fine and dandy when a left wing site does exactly the same thing?:confused:

I'm not concerned with your off-topic beefs.

In any case, the total number of "black activists" outed as white remains at one - and that one gained far more fame for being white than for being a black activist. This, despite multiple attempt to find such a case by the sites I have mentioned ) Wesley Lowery, who is actually a journalist and not an activist, went through similar crap - as well as President Obama's fictixious Arab parentage). The overall issue, yet again, is that conservative sites such as the above see "racism" as a term of attack, rather than a matter of actual concern. This flailing ultimately the same as the unaware claims that "blacks are the real racists" - an " I'm rubber you're glue" response that tries and fails to deflect the charge.
 

Back
Top Bottom