The very language used in reporting recent events was itself prejudiced and condemnatory. Take for example the idea that Rachel was not living the black experience, but was ‘pretending’ to be black. Really? This prejudges not just Rachel’s actions, but the mental processes that led to those actions.
Now how is that objectively possible?
In short, how can reporters possibly presume to know what Rachel’s precise motivations were? Let us go one step further and ask if conventional motivations even existed in any meaningful sense.
In the absence of such motivations, words like ‘pretend,’ ‘fraud,’ ‘ruse,’ can have no linguistic validity. Quite simply, they are redundant.
The truth behind Rachel Dolezal is not something even she could have necessarily fathomed- though it was an outcome of her humanistic, advanced, and highly integrated world view.
As Rachel herself has said, ” “I have waited in deference while others expressed their feelings, beliefs, confusions and even conclusions – absent the full story.”
How painfully true.
The full story, one that transcends time and space and weaves the past with the present, is deeper and more profound that any journalist could care to investigate. Such then was their innate prejudice and ignorance.