Jessica Krug

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This scenario feels so Trump’y in its grifter’ness.

She got away with it for so long because white people are the ones who decide who gets tenure, hold the grant purse strings, etc. You think any white person wanted to be the one who said “Hey, we don’t think you’re a real Latina”? No. It was easier to go along to get along. If anything, white people in academic administration were incentivized to hire her because she checked the boxes. The people incident really displays how white academic administration is and how it also needs to diversify.

Most rational people who want to pass as another race/ethnicity would do it quietly. What does she do? She continually doubles down and becomes more egregious. The ridiculous, exaggerated fake accent. Makeup to darken her skin tone. The awful hair dye. Dressing provocatively in a stereotypical manner of an NYC Latina “from the hood.” She leaned into it, trying to get attention and push the boundaries of decency. It feels so Trump-like in its audacity. She was basically trolling polite people to call her out in an effort to paint herself as a victim.

It would not surprise me at all if this woman held hard-right conservative political views and was doing this to just troll POC in academia. It’s too nefarious.

Nope. I ran in some overlapping circles in social media and she seemed to be a true believer. She was a radical and did this on purpose. Heck, she wrote books that demonstrated a sophisticated analysis of these issues. This was deceptive but she actually is smart and sophisticated and a good writer and academic. Let's have a sophisticated conversation about race and deception and why, but she wasn't a Trump style grifter.

So, she is smart and added legitimate content and other contributions to academia in this area, correct?

Had she not lied about her roots, she would have been hailed as a talented academic and author, right?

Did she lie because it was impossible for a white lady to have a voice in African American history and racial justice? If so, what does that say about the US?

I'm the PP who ran in similar circles. I know a white woman who has done well as a historian who focuses on African American history. I think she could have made it work. But there was something about African American culture she wanted to be part of and something about her own background she hated. Also, in order to hold your head high as an academic who came of age in the 90s, it's a heck of a lot easier to be a woman of color. I do indeed think there's a thing about "White women should sit down" happening.

Also, this article:
https://www.theroot.com/a-white-woman-admits-shes-been-rachel-dolezal-ing-us-fo-1844947838?fbclid=IwAR15mW9cwrjTpIqSSh27cWMzU3gx9psRWv2KCy-F5GxwPMtbFKXgrINhb4A

Oh baloney. I was in college in the early 90s. I had an African studies professor who was a Jewish lesbian. Latin American history professor was a straight, white woman. Krug was obsessed with appropriating cultures; she could have ended up in any profession.

Exactly. This idea that white people are somehow discriminated against in academia is absurd. She wanted to wear black culture like it was a cute outfit because she saw an opportunity for her to profit. She was very clear about being a trash person, the fact that people are trying to make her victim shows you how deep white privilege goes.

People on this thread (and elsewhere) are suggesting that she should lose her tenure & be fired. To do that, doesn’t GW have to admit that she wouldn’t have gotten tenure as a white Jewish woman? Otherwise her “lie” is immaterial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This scenario feels so Trump’y in its grifter’ness.

She got away with it for so long because white people are the ones who decide who gets tenure, hold the grant purse strings, etc. You think any white person wanted to be the one who said “Hey, we don’t think you’re a real Latina”? No. It was easier to go along to get along. If anything, white people in academic administration were incentivized to hire her because she checked the boxes. The people incident really displays how white academic administration is and how it also needs to diversify.

Most rational people who want to pass as another race/ethnicity would do it quietly. What does she do? She continually doubles down and becomes more egregious. The ridiculous, exaggerated fake accent. Makeup to darken her skin tone. The awful hair dye. Dressing provocatively in a stereotypical manner of an NYC Latina “from the hood.” She leaned into it, trying to get attention and push the boundaries of decency. It feels so Trump-like in its audacity. She was basically trolling polite people to call her out in an effort to paint herself as a victim.

It would not surprise me at all if this woman held hard-right conservative political views and was doing this to just troll POC in academia. It’s too nefarious.

Nope. I ran in some overlapping circles in social media and she seemed to be a true believer. She was a radical and did this on purpose. Heck, she wrote books that demonstrated a sophisticated analysis of these issues. This was deceptive but she actually is smart and sophisticated and a good writer and academic. Let's have a sophisticated conversation about race and deception and why, but she wasn't a Trump style grifter.

So, she is smart and added legitimate content and other contributions to academia in this area, correct?

Had she not lied about her roots, she would have been hailed as a talented academic and author, right?

Did she lie because it was impossible for a white lady to have a voice in African American history and racial justice? If so, what does that say about the US?

I'm the PP who ran in similar circles. I know a white woman who has done well as a historian who focuses on African American history. I think she could have made it work. But there was something about African American culture she wanted to be part of and something about her own background she hated. Also, in order to hold your head high as an academic who came of age in the 90s, it's a heck of a lot easier to be a woman of color. I do indeed think there's a thing about "White women should sit down" happening.

Also, this article:
https://www.theroot.com/a-white-woman-admits-shes-been-rachel-dolezal-ing-us-fo-1844947838?fbclid=IwAR15mW9cwrjTpIqSSh27cWMzU3gx9psRWv2KCy-F5GxwPMtbFKXgrINhb4A

Oh baloney. I was in college in the early 90s. I had an African studies professor who was a Jewish lesbian. Latin American history professor was a straight, white woman. Krug was obsessed with appropriating cultures; she could have ended up in any profession.

Exactly. This idea that white people are somehow discriminated against in academia is absurd. She wanted to wear black culture like it was a cute outfit because she saw an opportunity for her to profit. She was very clear about being a trash person, the fact that people are trying to make her victim shows you how deep white privilege goes.

People on this thread (and elsewhere) are suggesting that she should lose her tenure & be fired. To do that, doesn’t GW have to admit that she wouldn’t have gotten tenure as a white Jewish woman? Otherwise her “lie” is immaterial.

No. The consequence would be due to lying, not being the wrong race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't we decide in another thread that race is a socially construct, like gender, and you can decide what race you belong to (like Obama, or Elizabeth Warren).

Precisely. So many people are just LARP-ing these days. Affirmative action provides an incentive. People respond to incentives. Now please pass the Pow Wow Chow!

You are gross.

Go on...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This scenario feels so Trump’y in its grifter’ness.

She got away with it for so long because white people are the ones who decide who gets tenure, hold the grant purse strings, etc. You think any white person wanted to be the one who said “Hey, we don’t think you’re a real Latina”? No. It was easier to go along to get along. If anything, white people in academic administration were incentivized to hire her because she checked the boxes. The people incident really displays how white academic administration is and how it also needs to diversify.

Most rational people who want to pass as another race/ethnicity would do it quietly. What does she do? She continually doubles down and becomes more egregious. The ridiculous, exaggerated fake accent. Makeup to darken her skin tone. The awful hair dye. Dressing provocatively in a stereotypical manner of an NYC Latina “from the hood.” She leaned into it, trying to get attention and push the boundaries of decency. It feels so Trump-like in its audacity. She was basically trolling polite people to call her out in an effort to paint herself as a victim.

It would not surprise me at all if this woman held hard-right conservative political views and was doing this to just troll POC in academia. It’s too nefarious.

Nope. I ran in some overlapping circles in social media and she seemed to be a true believer. She was a radical and did this on purpose. Heck, she wrote books that demonstrated a sophisticated analysis of these issues. This was deceptive but she actually is smart and sophisticated and a good writer and academic. Let's have a sophisticated conversation about race and deception and why, but she wasn't a Trump style grifter.

So, she is smart and added legitimate content and other contributions to academia in this area, correct?

Had she not lied about her roots, she would have been hailed as a talented academic and author, right?

Did she lie because it was impossible for a white lady to have a voice in African American history and racial justice? If so, what does that say about the US?

I'm the PP who ran in similar circles. I know a white woman who has done well as a historian who focuses on African American history. I think she could have made it work. But there was something about African American culture she wanted to be part of and something about her own background she hated. Also, in order to hold your head high as an academic who came of age in the 90s, it's a heck of a lot easier to be a woman of color. I do indeed think there's a thing about "White women should sit down" happening.

Also, this article:
https://www.theroot.com/a-white-woman-admits-shes-been-rachel-dolezal-ing-us-fo-1844947838?fbclid=IwAR15mW9cwrjTpIqSSh27cWMzU3gx9psRWv2KCy-F5GxwPMtbFKXgrINhb4A

Oh baloney. I was in college in the early 90s. I had an African studies professor who was a Jewish lesbian. Latin American history professor was a straight, white woman. Krug was obsessed with appropriating cultures; she could have ended up in any profession.

Exactly. This idea that white people are somehow discriminated against in academia is absurd. She wanted to wear black culture like it was a cute outfit because she saw an opportunity for her to profit. She was very clear about being a trash person, the fact that people are trying to make her victim shows you how deep white privilege goes.

People on this thread (and elsewhere) are suggesting that she should lose her tenure & be fired. To do that, doesn’t GW have to admit that she wouldn’t have gotten tenure as a white Jewish woman? Otherwise her “lie” is immaterial.

If she was a Jewish history Holocaust scholar and part of her identity/scholarship was being the descendent of Holocaust survivors but it all turned out to be a lies i'm sure she would lose tenure. Who would ever take her or her department seriously again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is very sad. I am sure many of her students and colleagues are feeling deceived. Her deception is a form of mental illness. I wonder what was the impetus to coming forward now?

No mental illness. She outed herself because some colleagues were planning to out her and she wanted to get ahead of the story.

Getting ahead of the story doesn’t mean she’s not mentally ill. You can have rational moments and thoughts but these many lies are a sign of something.

Yes, they’re the sign of a sociopath—someone who lies, cheats, and steals to get ahead with little remorse.

You have foiled yourself with your own petard. Based on your own definition of sociopath, she is not a sociopath. Her claim about her race is indubitably NOT a lie since we self-identify race.

I get that you're mad but that doesn't mean that you should be illogical and incorrect. Start thinking and speaking more rationally and you will begin to effect positive change. The stomping of the feet and shrieking act is getting old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is very sad. I am sure many of her students and colleagues are feeling deceived. Her deception is a form of mental illness. I wonder what was the impetus to coming forward now?

No mental illness. She outed herself because some colleagues were planning to out her and she wanted to get ahead of the story.

Getting ahead of the story doesn’t mean she’s not mentally ill. You can have rational moments and thoughts but these many lies are a sign of something.

Yes, they’re the sign of a sociopath—someone who lies, cheats, and steals to get ahead with little remorse.

You have foiled yourself with your own petard. Based on your own definition of sociopath, she is not a sociopath. Her claim about her race is indubitably NOT a lie since we self-identify race.

I get that you're mad but that doesn't mean that you should be illogical and incorrect. Start thinking and speaking more rationally and you will begin to effect positive change. The stomping of the feet and shrieking act is getting old.

New poster. Maybe she " self identified" as a Black latina, but she definitely lied about the particulars, specifically a Carribrean-rooted Black Bronx identity.

[Anonymous]

Who cares? People do what people do. Lie, cheat and steal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is very sad. I am sure many of her students and colleagues are feeling deceived. Her deception is a form of mental illness. I wonder what was the impetus to coming forward now?

No mental illness. She outed herself because some colleagues were planning to out her and she wanted to get ahead of the story.

Getting ahead of the story doesn’t mean she’s not mentally ill. You can have rational moments and thoughts but these many lies are a sign of something.

Yes, they’re the sign of a sociopath—someone who lies, cheats, and steals to get ahead with little remorse.

You have foiled yourself with your own petard. Based on your own definition of sociopath, she is not a sociopath. Her claim about her race is indubitably NOT a lie since we self-identify race.

I get that you're mad but that doesn't mean that you should be illogical and incorrect. Start thinking and speaking more rationally and you will begin to effect positive change. The stomping of the feet and shrieking act is getting old.

New poster. Maybe she " self identified" as a Black latina, but she definitely lied about the particulars, specifically a Carribrean-rooted Black Bronx identity.

Valid point. I haven't been paying attention enough to this other than that she said she was Black Latina. It is interesting how upset people are getting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? People do what people do. Lie, cheat and steal.

Yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? People do what people do. Lie, cheat and steal.

Historians are supposed to be truthful in their work. (See also, journalist and documentations). Otherwise, what's the point?

[Anonymous]

Enough already with all this racial shit.

[Anonymous]

It’s ironic she wasn’t outed on the basis of being extremely hostile to whites...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s ironic she wasn’t outed on the basis of being extremely hostile to whites...

How so?

[Anonymous]

I grew up in KCMO. I am white, but I did in truth live in a diverse inner city neighborhood with a high crime rate.

Life for suburban white Jewish women in suburban Kansas City in the 1980s wasn't exactly easy. Jewish people were barred from country clubs. In 1990 Tom Watson famously resigned from the Kansas City Country Club over its refusal to admit billionaire H&R Block founder Henry Bloch. We didn't have our first Jewish mayor, Mayor Richard Berkley, until the 1979. He was a Republican.

Jessica Krug could have had an academic career in her field of study without claiming to be black.

[Anonymous]

"... putting certain skills on an entire race (e.g. "Asians are good at math") is, of course, racist."


Yes, it's racist.