The case of Rachel Dolezal is vital and should be attended to by anyone interested in cultural appropriation, self-identification, gender politics, and civil rights.
The short version of events is that NAACP spokeswoman and firebrand Rachel Dolezal was publicly outed this week by her family for being white. Dolezal has, since her youth, identified as a black individual.
Should we be discussing Mrs. Dolezal in the terms of racial hijacking or culture theft, as has been the discussion on many forums? Or should we be discussing her in the same terms of self-identity which we discuss transgender identity?
(I know I’m going to be discussing some emotionally delicate topics here… and I hope none of my points are misconstrued as intending to offend. I’m a white cis male, and I know I'm writing about intensely personal issues; race, gender, and identity, from a distanced perspective. If there is anything that you feel I’ve trivialized, please let me know, as it likely comes from a place of ignorance.)
More below the fold.
Rachel Dolezal was raised with several adopted black siblings, has always associated more readily with black culture, went to Howard University (a traditionally black school) after indicating that she had African-American ancestry, taught courses at Howard on Africana Studies, and has become a powerful and outspoken champion of civil liberties and social justice through the NAACP.
This week, her family has, in several press conferences and interviews, “exposed” Mrs. Dolezal as white by showing a birth certificate proving that they are her genetic parents, and presenting photographs of a young freckled redhead and her adopted siblings. This is made troubling due to the fact that Dolezal has clearly created a persona that has a very different history.
She has told stories about spending time in South Africa as a child, about making husk dolls and hunting with bows and arrows. None of which were true. She’s talked about struggling to overcome racism as a teen and a youth full of conflicts with the police. None of which were true. She has shown photographs of an older black man who she claimed was her father; she’s claimed that her adopted brother, a black man, was actually her son. And, as the point that many talking heads want to discuss, she marked her race as African American on several forms, gaining access to unique scholarships and grants.
The timing of this exposee comes as our society is in the midst of another discussion of self-identity. The high publicity of Caitlyn Jenner’s gender transition and the debates it has inspired have created a forum where the case of Rachel Dolezal can be discussed as a case of similar self-identification.
This discussion will frustrate a lot of people. It will be seen as minimalizing the struggle and bravery of transgender individuals by comparing their strife to a relatively trivial matter. It will be seen as using self-identity language to excuse cultural appropriation and “black-facing”. But it is a discussion we need to have if we are to truly accept an individual’s right to self-identify.
In a recent interview with Rachel Dolezal, she flippantly stated that “we all come from Africa” as, in a way, to justify her identification of her race as African American on forms. Anthropologically speaking, this is true (duh), but undercuts the historic racial circumstances which necessitate –as an example– scholarship funds set aside for African American college students… This statement of hers, serves to make her appear ignorant of the social reasoning, the cultural reasoning, as to why there is an outcry toward a “white woman caught pretending to be black.”
But the life that she has lived, the struggles she has had, the causes she has fought for, make it clear that this hasn’t been a thoughtless decision on her part, nor has it been a simply superficial change. Since at least high school (as far as third-party fact checking can determine) she has portrayed herself, and wished to be seen as black. This carried over through her interests in college, the courses she took, the degree she obtained, the classes she taught, all they way to her current role as a spokesperson for the NAACP. She has received death threats from the Aryan Nation and KKK. She has worked to organize movements for social justice in Spokane, and cultivated an Internet platform from which she discusses racial issues from the perspective of a black woman.
This has not been cultural appropriation and it has not been some scam. She has clearly demonstrated her intent to be represented as a black woman, beyond filling in boxes on a form…
So the question is put to us then. Do we accept the person she identifies as? The alternative is to look at her birth certificate, her genetics, her childhood photographs and say “no you’re not black”. This is the same argument which has been set against transgender individuals, an argument which has come into social discourse frequently as of late: “Yeah, you may think you’re a woman, but look, you were born male, your genes show that you’re male, you were raised as a male… no you’re not a woman”.
(Again this gets in to very tricky ground. I don’t mean to offend anyone by speaking from a position of ignorance. As I mentioned at the beginning of this, I’m approaching this from a very removed position of privilege, and I’m writing about very delicate issues. If something I said comes across as insulting or trivializing, please let me know.)
If we, socially, have agreed that people have the right to self-determine and self-define their own gender, that human beings have a right to self-identify, then why shouldn’t we allow the same definition of self to apply to race? It is impossible to think that Rachel Dolezal associates and prefers to be referred to as black?
Let me know what you think. I’m legitimately curious as to people's opinions on this matter.