Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Andy Gill

Home
Progressive Christian
Making Sense of Rachel Dolezal’s Backlash And Why She Faked Being Black

Making Sense of Rachel Dolezal’s Backlash And Why She Faked Being Black

Last updated on: June 15, 2015 at 5:52 pm by Andy Gill

Making Sense of Rachel Dolezal’s Backlash And Why She Faked Being Black 2015-06-15T17:52:25-05:00 Andy Gill

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

By now you’ve probably heard of Rachel Dolezal, this morning she announced her resignation as the president of the Spokane, Washington NAACP, in the “best interest of the NAACP.” Rachel sparked a national debate regarding racial identity after being confronted on her own racial identification and questioned about her seemingly deceitful presentation. If I’m not mistaken, she’s also being accused of forging hate crimes against herself, lying about her adopted brother being her biological son, and misidentifying a black-male as her actual father.

The question, many are asking is, “Why would Rachel lie about the race she actually is?’” The better question is, “Is it possible to lie about being something that doesn’t exist?”

But before we go on we must remember/know a few things: 1) that race does not exist, it’s a social construct, not a biological factor, it’s a socio-political medieval European tool used to push a racist privileged agenda. 2) It’s one of many arbitrarily nonsensical ways of keeping a sect of society beneath another group of people. In other words, “blackness,” within our present day US context, is an ontological symbol in which points to the greater oppression experienced by oppressed persons, despite their racial identity. 3) The complexion of one’s skin does not necessarily mean that they have experienced greater, or less, oppression than someone else.

To say something is a social construction is not to say that it isn’t real. Money is a social construction. Trust me. It’s real.

— Eddie S. Glaude Jr. (@esglaude) June 16, 2015

Whether you’re LGBTQ, living in a heteronormative world; whether you’re a woman, living underneath misogynistic principles; whether you’re a physically abused child, trapped in an abusive familial system; whether you’re a poor white, fighting economic inequity; blackness is one of many ontological symbols in which points to the reality of the oppressed person’s experience. These experienced realities oppressed persons face, of course, are all different and possessing various outcomes to differing effects/levels, yet they allow for an affinity that can create intersectionality between various oppressed communities.

So hypothetically speaking, if Rachel has suffered through prolonged amounts of unjust maltreatment [racial or not] then she is oppressed. If she is oppressed, then she has experienced blackness, in the ontologically symbolic sense of the word.

“The focus on blackness does not mean that only blacks suffer as victims in a racist society, but that blackness is an ontological symbol and a visible reality which best describes what oppression means in America.”[1] – James Cone

This is why race is such an inanely complex and illogical construct. It divides people into various groups and causes these groups of oppressed persons to invert, turn against, and therefore oppress one another. By doing this one gains a temporary instantaneous sense of satisfaction at the cost of long-term damaging effects of self-inflicted oppression. Noam Chomsky describes the complexity of systemic oppression of the shrinking middle-class and, therefore, growing lower-class :

“Now that … workers are superfluous, what do you do with them? First of all, you have to make sure they don’t notice that society is unfair and try to change that, and the best way to distract them is to get them to hate and fear one another.”

If you’re confused, this does not mean you’re stupid, it just means you’re beginning to grasp the brokenness of our world. To speak of ontology as inseparable to the understanding of race, is to acknowledge the convoluted inanity of this historico-socio-cultural-political formation. Race, is nothing but an illusion of categorical fixity; it’s a means of coercing individuals into believing, and internalizing, a lie that because they are physically this then one’s identity must be that. I use the generality of pronouns, “this” and “that,” because the value of one’s “race” is entirely contingent upon one’s given context.

All of this to say: Yes, in short, if race does not exist, and it is an ontological symbol pointing to the individuals reality of experienced oppression, she can claim, truthfully, to be black. So then, you might ask, “If she can claim to be black then what’s the issue with her attempt to, literally, become black, identifying with the black-American community?”

Well, there’s a difference between identifying as one who is in solidarity with the black community, and identifying as an actual black person. The first is empowerment; the second is the co-opting of a conversation (i.e. disempowerment). Rachel, growing up white, did not endure the same type of individual and genealogical oppression that many times, but of course not all of the time, leads to social, political, and economic inequity, prohibiting one from the privilege of simply “working their way up the ladder.” This is why colorblindness is unhelpful and only perpetuates an already existent oppression. It ignores the reality and experiences in which acknowledging race has caused over the course of centuries.

“If blackness can simply be worn or performed, then every white woman with a weave and a cause, every white girl with a snap and a little attitude, can supplant the lived experiences of what it is to become a black woman: the journey of discrimination, the camaraderie of sisterhood, discovering the deep sense of responsibility and weight of the world, and ultimately finding the inner strength and acceptance that can only be built through struggle.”[1]

Furthermore, when a privileged person transitions from their community into an oppressed person’s community they, usually, do so to take, as opposed to giving more social, political, and economic power, from/to those that possess very little [e.g. gentrification, colonization, etc.]. Privileged persons are leveraging the oppressed person’s life to build their own platform. This is exactly how I interpreted what Rachel’s brother Izaiah Dolezal, was leveling against his sister, “She’s only been African-American when it benefited her. She hasn’t been through all the struggles. She’s only been African-American the last few years,”[2] After centuries of “humiliation, abuse, and deprivation” inflicted upon the non-privileged- American, fear of the conversation being co-opted, as it has many times before, is an absolutely legitimate, and necessary, caution to have.

7- I deeply respect American sentimentality, the way one respects a wounded hippo. You must keep an eye on it, for you know it is deadly.

— Teju Cole (@tejucole) March 8, 2012

This is why I believe it is generally and destructively unhelpful to argue who is more, or less, oppressed, between individuals. For instance, to be a poor white person and simultaneously racist is counterintuitive; you’re inadvertently reinforcing the same exact system that is using various illusions in order to oppress you and your loved ones. You’ve been lead to buy into these social constructs in which negate intersectionality and perpetuate a separatistic society.

The issue is that many, privileged persons, do not want to lose their “white identity.” Their goal is simply to assuage their guilt by “getting fat off of the starvation of others.”[3] The banality of the conscience of the white supremacist is inexhaustibly absurd, being seen through indifference, police-brutality, and the industrialization of white sentimentality [i.e. The Westernized Church].

Needless to say, it’s then disconcerting to hear that a white woman has been given an influential position for the NAACP, labeled an expert on African American Studies, and therefore handed a voice on the future existence of police-brutality and racial [in]equality. Yes, even if they’ve gone into it with amazing intentions, history has shown, shit will still go very wrong, as Reinhold Niebuhr explains the conditional generosity of the white progressive:

“For his generosity is at once a display of his power and an expression of his pity. His generous impulses freeze within him if his power is challenged or his generosities are accepted without grateful humility.”[4] – Reinhold Niebuhr

This isn’t a post for or against Rachel. It’s hard enough to analyze myself, let alone someone I’ve never met. Acknowledging this, is it not fair and necessary to ask or wonder, “What if she is, in fact, one of the good guys? What if she is simply being used, as a means to perpetuate, segregate, and continue racial division being used as a tool to leverage the gap between whites and blacks? What if she was being pathologically demonized to halt the progression of racial, economical, and social equality? Is not racial progression supposedly what the NAACP [the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People] is all about?

Again, my knowledge and perspective on these claims and interpretations against, or for, Rachel are limited. Maybe she has benefited off of other’s oppression, but maybe instead she has used her privilege to stand for the rights and humanity of the oppressed. Maybe the better question none of us are asking is, “What good does ripping her apart do for the oppressed persons community…?”

“It’s worth remembering that the wedge that splits the wood is what ultimately takes the brunt of the blows from the hammer.” – Jeff Yang

[1] Alicia Walters, “I became a black woman in Spokane. But, Rachel Dolezal, I was a black girl first”

[2] CNN

[3] James Cone said this in Black Theology of Liberation

[4] Niebuhr, Reinhold. Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics. New York: Scribner, 1960. Print.

Black Theology of Liberation

CNN

James Cone

Making Sense of Rachel Dolezal's Backlash And Why She Faked Being Black

Previous Post

May 6, 2015

Reframing the Narrative By Asserting your Humanity

Next Post

June 25, 2015 When Will We Admit that American Christianity is the Same Thing as White Supremacy?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Book Reviews Books Buzzfeed Christian Church Church Culture Dating Dechurched eXvangelical Guest Post Humor Inspirational Justice LGBTQ Life Marriage Media Millennials Mini Post Monday Money Podcast Politics Race Reason Relationships Science Sex Socioeconomic Theology Theology Uncategorized Video Wednesday Youth Ministry

Select a Month June 2020 March 2020 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 January 2013 December 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which prophet was told to eat a scroll in a vision?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Daniel Obadiah Joel Ezekiel

Support this
Column