Talking to Dolezal in Spokane
Ijeoma Oluo talked to Rachel Dolezal for The Stranger.
Dolezal has argued many times that her insistence on black identity will not only allow her to live in the culture that she says matches her true self, but will also help free visibly black people from racial oppression by helping to destroy the social construct of race.
I am more than a little skeptical that Dolezal’s identity as the revolutionary strike against the myth of race is anything more than impractical white saviorism—at least when it comes to the ways in which race oppresses black people. Even if there were thousands of Rachel Dolezals in the country, would their claims of blackness do anything to open up the definition of whiteness to those with darker skin, coarser hair, or racialized features? The degree to which you are excluded from white privilege is largely dependent on the degree to which your appearance deviates from whiteness. You can be extremely light-skinned and still be black, but you cannot be extremely or even moderately dark-skinned and be treated as white—ever.
By turning herself into a very, very, very, very light-skinned black woman, Dolezal opens herself up to be treated as black by white society only to the extent that they can visually identify her as such, and no amount of visual change would provide Dolezal with the inherited trauma and socioeconomic disadvantage of racial oppression in this country.
Because it’s not exactly the same, is it. Adopting (some of) the outward appearances is not the same as living the experience from birth, is it.
When we have been together for three hours, I feel it’s time to ask The Question.
It’s the same question that other black interviewers have asked her. A question she seems to deeply dislike—so much so that she complains about the question in her book. But even in the book, it’s not a question she actually answers: How is her racial fluidity anything more than a function of her privilege as a white person?
If Dolezal’s identity only helps other people born white become black while still shielding them from the majority of the oppression of visible blackness, and does nothing to help those born black become white—how is this not just more white privilege?
Mind you, it could be just more white privilege without being harmful in and of itself…but that would depend on how Dolezal put it into practice, and especially on how she talked about it and explained it.
I try one more time to get an answer to this question, but from a different angle: “Where does the function of privilege of still appearing to the world as a white person play into this and into your identity as affiliating with black culture?”
Dolezal seems to struggle for a moment before answering: “I don’t know. I guess I do have light skin, but I don’t know that I necessarily appear to the world as a white person. I think that since the white parents did their TV tour on every national network, some people will forever see me as my birth category, as a white woman. But people who see me as that don’t see me really for who I am and probably are not seeing me as a white woman in some kind of a privileged sense. If that makes sense.”
It doesn’t.
It’s familiar though.
Maybe in a dusty Eastern Washington town like Spokane, where only 2 percent of the people are black, something as “exotic” as box braids might be enough to convince the locals that you are not white, but I cannot imagine this working elsewhere. I’m looking right at her. I know what white people look like. I decide to say so.
“Really? Like if you don’t say, ‘I’m black…’ because I’ve read a lot of interviews with other people who said when they first encountered you, people who’ve worked with you, that they automatically assumed you were white until you had asserted otherwise, vocally. I personally… like if I were to run across you in the street, I would assume that you were white.”
Dolezal sighs and looks at me as if I am truly all that is wrong with America. “Well, I guess it’s like in the eye of the beholder.”
It is obvious by then that Dolezal does not like me, but I don’t appear to be alone in that feeling. Throughout our conversation, I get the increasing impression that, for someone who claims to love blackness, Rachel Dolezal has little more than contempt for many black people and their own black identities.
The dismissive and condescending attitude toward any black people who see blackness differently than she does is woven throughout her comments in our conversation. It is not just our pettiness, it is also our lack of education that is preventing us from getting on Dolezal’s level of racial understanding. She informs me multiple times that black people have rejected her because they simply haven’t learned yet that race is a social construct created by white supremacists, they simply don’t know any better and don’t want to: “I’ve done my research, I think a lot of people, though, haven’t probably read those books and maybe never will.”
Ah yes, I recognize that too.
I point out that I am a black woman with a political-science degree who writes about race and culture for a living, who has indeed read “those books.” I find her blanket justification of “race is a social construct” overly simplistic. “Race is just a social construct” is a retort I get quite often from white people who don’t want to talk about black issues anymore. A lot of things in our society are social constructs—money, for example—but the impact they have on our lives, and the rules by which they operate, are very real. I cannot undo the evils of capitalism simply by pretending to be a millionaire.
No. No you can’t.
or a white woman who had grown up with only a few magazines of stylized images of blackness to imagine herself into a real-life black identity without any lived black experience, to turn herself into a black history professor without a history degree, to place herself at the forefront of local black society that she had adopted less than a decade earlier, all while seeming to claim to do it better and more authentically than any black person who would dare challenge her—well, it’s the ultimate “you can be anything” success story of white America. Another branch of manifest destiny. No wonder America couldn’t get enough of the Dolezal story.
Perhaps it really was that simple. I couldn’t escape Rachel Dolezal because I can’t escape white supremacy. And it is white supremacy that told an unhappy and outcast white woman that black identity was hers for the taking. It is white supremacy that told her that any black people who questioned her were obviously uneducated and unmotivated to rise to her level of wokeness. It is white supremacy that then elevated this display of privilege into the dominating conversation on black female identity in America. It is white supremacy that decided that it was worth a book deal, national news coverage, and yes—even this interview.
And with that, the anger that I had toward her began to melt away. Dolezal is simply a white woman who cannot help but center herself in all that she does—including her fight for racial justice. And if racial justice doesn’t center her, she will redefine race itself in order to make that happen. It is a bit extreme, but it is in no way new for white people to take what they want from other cultures in the name of love and respect, while distorting or discarding the remainder of that culture for their comfort.
That too is familiar.
The parallels are symmetrical, 1:1, precise.
How is it possible that the trans-women-are-women-no-matter-what-because-they-say-so crowd don’t give themselves a dope slap and “D’oh!”?
I guess if women have the souls of, I don’t know, squid or something, they can have no opinion on abstract concepts such as identity and how they fit in the universe.
But in that case, why do militant transwomen consider themselves women?
Because at last someone will do “woman” the way it should be done.
She doesn’t see it herself, though, sadly.
https://www.facebook.com/ijeoma.oluo/posts/10154292341352676
And so on.
I don’t think the “race is inherited so transracial can’t be real” argument is the slam dunk Oluo apparently does, but even if it were, it still doesn’t make transgender real. Sex is inherited too. Every woman has two X chromosomes,* one that she inherited from her mother and one that she inherited from her paternal grandmother via her father. Sex isn’t a cosmic coin toss.
*please do not bring up intersex, it doesn’t invalidate my argument and also fuck you.
“The flow of gender identity” — what the hell does that mean. That personalities aren’t all Pink-box version and Blue-box version based on sex? Duh.
What has that to do with people claiming to be the other sex? Why reify gender at all?
It’s arguable how much privilege is really given up by the middle-class, heterosexual white males who transition (the ones who, like Julia Serano, are busy attempting to rewrite feminism).* In the second place, trans men (females who transition) do not in fact “give up absolutely huge amounts of privilege”. A number of them have said they gained it.
* And if feminism doesn’t center him, he will redefine sex itself in order to make that happen.
Well that’s a deeply flawed comparison, if only for the obvious reason that many ‘white’ families have been shocked to discover that they have a recent ‘black’ ancestor. I mean, this has been reported so often in the past in both the US and South Africa to name just two countries it just doesn’t bare notice now, unless the shocked party also happens to be a white supremacist! Even here in NZ I had a colleague who was fine featured, pale skinned, blonde and blue eyed, yet had a Maori grandparent and is accepted as a member of the local iwi as a result of both bloodline and identity. They did tan better in the sun than me which seemed to be about the only residual biological trait.
That said, I totally accept that an individual white person can probably more easily attempt to ‘pass’ than any given black person. However, the same could probably be argued in the case of *trans people also. In any case, it’s a deeply flawed argument to make that on the one hand there must be biology and on the other all that matters is identity (which is simply an act of will). I’m a big fan of making ones bed and lying in it when arguing, unless you can demonstrate a reason other than ‘I say so’.
This, from the comments:
“And it is patriarchy that told an unhappy and outcast man that female identity was his for the taking. It is patriarchy that told him that any women who questioned him were obviously uneducated and unmotivated to rise to his level of wokeness. It is patriarchy that then elevated this display of privilege into the dominating conversation on female identity in America. It is patriarchy that decided that it was worth a book deal, national news coverage, and yes—even this interview.”
Cressida – that is so good.
I have noticed one thing, particularly on PZ’s site. When people talk about transgender bathroom issues, it seems they usually use the example of a transman peeing in the men’s room. Could it be that they don’t want you to notice that the main complaint is the opposite – that of allowing men into women’s most vulnerable spaces by making a broad, pee anywhere you want regardless and we won’t ask any questions, policy?
On college campuses, we spend a lot of time talking about rape (not enough, unfortunately, and we don’t do a great job of it). There is a movement to try to reduce sexual harassment of women on college campuses. And then many colleges write a bathroom policy that is essentially “don’t ask any questions of the bearded man in the woman’s room because (s)he may identify as female and you would be insulting her”. And any woman with PTSD from a lifetime of abuse at the hands of men is called a bigot and a transphobe if she has a problem with not being able to tell whether the people in the bathroom with her are men or women.
The sad thing is, many of these people have no problem with the statement that women have to be cautious of men in elevators. A bathroom is an even more vulnerable place than an elevator, but no one chooses to acknowledge that, and give some nuance to this conversation.
Well, ‘whiteness’ is an assumed neutral, and other racial identities are registered as deviations from the norm. So, for example, Sally Hemmings’ descendants sorted into ‘Black Hemmings’ and ‘White Hemmings’ even though the difference might not have been visible to an outside observer even a few generations along.
In a genuinely ‘Black normative’ society, Muhammad Ali or Vanessa Williams—for example—would be perceived as ‘white.’
The Australian example is another odd one. A recent book about Black Loyalists after the American Revolution found that several Australian families, who had assumed Aboriginal ancestors, were really descended from American/West Indian ex-slaves who had ended up in Australia and married white transportees.
Yes, in the same way that maleness has always been an assumed default, and femaleness registered as deviation from the norm. That has been the prevailing view even in much of science, where medicine tends to treat the male body as the normative, and the female body as the deviation.
Both of these attitudes come from long histories of one group of people assuming that because they had continually mistreated all other people and had gotten away with it, they were in fact the superior group (by color or sex) and were entitled to everything they had claimed by coercion or oppression.
Which is why we have young men in their mother’s basement harassing mature professional women online as though their failure to have any skills was not a problem, and they had more inherent value than these women that had spent years developing a good reputation in their field. And why we have young white thugs who feel totally okay with dismissing the contributions of talented people of color and assuming that they, the white thug, are superior in intellect and almost everything else (except rhythm) to the highly trained, talented person of color who has contributed much of value to society and may never have danced in their life.
Iknklast,
That’s an interesting observation on how the discussion is centered, especially since many trans men continue to use the women’s restroom anyway for obvious reasons. I was an avid reader of pz’s site from about 2010 to when Ophelia came back here. I think the time I started wondering if this issue regarding gender identity was far more grey than presented was when I noticed the idea of “Schrodinger’s Rapist” (blast from the past), which folks there seemed to be very on board with, could not and should not be applied to male bodied individuals who identified as transgender. It’s a topic that needs more attention-I work at a university too and it doesn’t often take long for inclusivity discussions to dominate, which is how you end up with men’s restrooms & all gender restrooms, but no women’s ones. Weird that.
Yes. Similar with elevators as compared to rest rooms. It’s totally understandable why women have to be wary about elevators late at night, but rest rooms? Oh that’s entirely different, and being wary=bigotry.
Coherence is too much to ask, it seems.
Women are right to be afraid.
When Schrödinger’s Rapist wears a dress.
You know, it’s funny, but despite protestations from the Space Invaders that they are uniquely vulnerable, hence need access to the ladies, I’ve been unable to unearth any examples of trans people being attacked in the gents.
I was going to link to a blog which had a page specifically about attacks in female bathrooms. But it has been taken down.
There is a copy at the Wayback Machine