Ngozi Fulani: Race Grifter?

Okay, the "Royal Racism Row" is raising more than just on hackle on the back of my neck. As someone who is not in any way racist (I take everyone as I find them) I hate it when someone uses racism as a tool. Either to line their own pockets, or to cause fake offence to gain a dominant position.

It now appears that Ngozi Fulani was actually called Marlene Headley and was born in London.

She changed her name and started a charity expressly for black women who are the victims of domestic violence. 

Now, alarm bells start a-ringing. Why would someone of Afro-Carribean heritage change their name to a more African-sounding one? Now I can understand the name change of Cassius Clay to Muhammed Ali when he converted to Islam. But an arbitrary name change to a more African-sounding one when your links are in the Carribean?

Sounds like a grift to me.

Along with being head of a charity supporting black women, it sounds like a measure to make her sound more "authentic".

So here we have a woman, born in London from Afro-Carribean parents, changes her name to a more African-Sounding one whilst running a charity for black women who suffer from domestic abuse.

A woman who then goes on to decry the deportation back to the Carribean of criminals, some of who are rapists. Exactly the sort of violent act perpetrated on the victims supported by her charity. Makes you wonder how the women she supports felt about that.

Now is her stance about race? Is it about Colour? Is it about domestic Violence? It sounds to me like she's kinda confused. Or is it self-promotion, boosting her profile and earning maybe a bit more money?

Is this cultural appropriation? Is it like a man just calling himself a woman? Is it like a trans woman demanding her rights usurp a biological woman's rights?

To me they are very similar. It's a grift, it's demanding attention, it's demanding respect where none is due. 

It's like someone wearing a medal at a remembrance service they didn't earn, wearing a uniform they don't deserve. it's pretending to be someone you aren't.

Maybe Lady Hussey recognised Ms Fulani was pretending to be something she wasn't.? Maybe after being  with the Queen all those years and meeting genuine people from Africa, she can spot a grifter, a pretender. And she called Ms Fulani out on her pretence.

Who knows the real reason for the row, but Lady Hussey doesn't deserve to be sacked.

I assume the exaggerated offence is just yet another plea for attention.... 

UPDATE: 

Ms Fulani is kicking off in the press, complaining about the "racist hate" she's been getting online. I think it's not racist love, it's just pointing out you are far from perfect and your attitude has lost an old lady her job. I hope you're happy.

 Also, I see online that even black people are far from happy with her. Especially those with African roots. It seems they don't appreciate someone coming along and pretending to be African when they are quite clearly not. Also there's a big issue with the African names she's chosen to use. The first name is female of a certain tribe and the surname is of another tribe. A bit of a faux pas if you actually know shit about Africa and their people.

Finally they are not happy with her dressing up in some approximation of African dress. 

It seems all a bit Walter Mitty. She's trying to live a life she hasn't lived. Interesting that in a predominantly white country, she's able to get away with it because people understandably don't know the details about life in Africa. But someone who is genuinely African can point out the holes in her assumed persona straight away. 

There's another big issue with her charity in that they only support Black African women. I'm not sure if it is true, but the word on the internet is they don't support mixed race women or African Asian women either. Is that racist?

£20 to the first white bloke that turns up on their doorstep identifying as a Black African woman demanding refuge. That should tear a gaping hole in their ideological reality.

FURTHER UPDATE: 

It seems like me, someone else hasn't felt at ease with Ms Fulani's actions and attitude. Someone has been moved to investigate her "Charity". There is a Twitter thread available here. It makes interesting reading. 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1601735411860406274.html

Both disturbing but all too predictable.  I can smell a grifter a mile away, it's nothing to do with race. 

One does wonder if anyone benefitted from her charity other than her family. Charging the domestic abuse victims the charity is supposed to support for anything is a pretty shitty move given they are funded by taxpayer grants, etc.

It's interesting that their website is missing success stories of how the charity has helped particular victims of domestic abuse. So no direct evidence of support there. Most charities like to show how they've made a difference to people's lives. But this one seems to be a bit coy. The Support & Advocacy link seems to ask people to sign a petition for a law, but no evidence of any support or advocacy actually being given in case studies.

The link on training jumps to the same page as for advocacy and support. 

I'll just skip the other links on the page, because they ALL link to the same page for "Valerie's Law". 

No case studies, no examples of how the charity has actually made a difference. You get the feeling that the website and the charity are nothing more than a few videos put up on Social Media. Once you read the Twitter thread above, you get the inkling that it's worse than it looks.

On the Charity Commission website their mission statement is:

1. TO PROMOTE AND PROTECT THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH AND RELIEVE THE NEEDS OF WOMEN AND FAMILIES AFFECTED BY DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL ABUSE (DSA), PRIMARILY AFRICAN HERITAGE WOMEN AND GIRLS, IN PARTICULAR BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY BY (I) PROVIDING A SAFE SPACE WHERE THOSE AFFECTED BY DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL ABUSE CAN MEET (II) PROVIDING COUNSELLING, SELF-HELP GROUPS AND SUPPORT FOR SUCH PEOPLE. (III) PROVIDING TRAINING IN HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS. 2. TO ADVANCE EDUCATION FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT IN PARTICULAR BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY BY DELIVERING EDUCATIONAL TALKS AND WORKSHOPS ABOUT DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL ABUSE TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AND STATUTORY AND VOLUNTARY GROUPS.

Well, that seems a bit of a easy statement to make. Providing a safe space where victims can meet and talk. Counselling and self-help groups. Any registered/trained counsellors on the books? Ah, self-help groups: i.e. don't cost the charity any money.

Providing educational talks and workshops. Hmm, indoctrination of kids and workshops where apparently the participants have to pay to access. Hardly charitable. 

If this whole affair was a stick of rock, it would have the word "Grift" right through it.