I did not have an easy childhood, far from it. I vividly recall entering our little backyard in Jersey City one evening, gazing up at the heavens. I don't remember what made me feel so sad as night was falling after a difficult day over sixty years ago; it is safe to assume that it was one of those moments when a frequently dysfunctional family was behaving in a more dysfunctional way than usual. The little boy that is now an old man just had to get away. He stood on the lawn staring at the brightest star in the darkening sky. I am from there, he told himself. My real parents live on that star. This is not my home. I wish I could go back home where I belong.
I was convinced I was an alien for a while, but my childish fantasy didn't last long.
I don't want to give the impression that I had it that hard, because I didn't. My point is that frequent trauma can lead one to escape into an inner world where one is happier. Sometimes this includes assuming a new identity; even when facts collide with fiction, the inner necessity of assuming the fiction as part of an unconscious survival strategy can be so strong that, in one's mind, fact and fiction change places. When this happens, the following inner dialogue takes place: Inside I am x. Outside I am y. The real me is x. The fictive me is y.
I think that this inner transformation probably did occur in the psyche of Rachel Dolezal. the woman who is ethnically white but psychologically black. Ms. Dolezal said, after she was outed, that she lived the black experience. This is no exaggeration. She had been, until the time of the scandal, president of the Spokane branch of the NAACP. She married an African American and has two adopted sons. All four of her adopted siblings are black. She taught black studies at a local college. She was completely immersed in her black identity and worked tirelessly and effectively for the black community.
When it became known that she had apparently been masquerading as black--I say "apparently" because her inner reality is convinced that she is black, many members of the black community reacted with fury.
Jonathan Capehart, a reporter from the Washington Post wrote a piece on June 12th entitled, "The damage Rachel Doezal has done," Mr. Capehart is a "double minority member" being both black and gay. I have seen him on TV a few times, and was struck by his kind face and gentle demeanor. On those few occasions I remember being in total agreement with what he said. He said what he had to say without a trace of anger.
This time he was furious. Here is how he ends his column: "Blackface remains highly racist, no matter how down with the cause a white person is." But Dolezal's mother nailed it when she told the Spokane-Review newspaper, "Her effectiveness in the causes of the African-American community would have been so much more viable, and she would have been more effective if she had just been honest with everybody.' Instead Dolezal is a laughingstock and has made a mockery of the work she said she cared about."
This, I think, is downright vicious.
Blackface? Thomas D. Rice invented his Jim Crow routine before 1830. He wore blackface and acted out gross caricatures of black people. This occurred in the North; such routines became very popular. "Thanks" to him, minstrel shows were performed, especially in the North. To accuse Ms. Dolezal of being a racist because she darkened her skin to make her outer identify more like her inner one is preposterous. There was, of course, not a shred of caricature in her adopted appearance. She just wanted to fit in; she wanted to serve the black community, which she did with distinction.
Certainly, Mr. Capehart, you must realize that James Dix's use of blackface and Rachel Dolezal's transformation into an attractive light-skinned black are categorically different.
Charles M. Blow, a black op-ed columnist of the New York Times was just as unforgiving. Here's what he had to say:
"This is about privilege, a deceitful performance and a tortured attempt to avoid truth and confession by co-opting the language of struggle, infusing labyrinthine logic with the authority of the academy, and coat-tailing very real struggles of transgender people and transracial adoptees to defend one's deception. This is a spectacular exercise in hubris, narcissism and deflection."
Pre-outing she was a role model, post-outing, in Mr. Blow's view, she has become a monster. A quote from Jesus of Nazareth is very apropos here: Ye shall know them by their fruits. It seems to me that the fruit Ms. Dolezal grew during her career, very good fruit indeed, didn't suddenly turn rotten because she pretended to be a black farmer rather than a white one.
I half-agree with something Mr. Blow wrote, however. He refers to Dolezal's deception, as many others have. This is half-right. What it seems to me is self-deception, which is something quite different.
There is indeed something--maybe this is too harsh a word--pathological about Dolezal--which should elicit compassion rather than rage. She has, I think, assumed a black identify for such deep-seated psychological reasons that she actually believes she is African-American.
There is obviously more to her rejection of her parents--she refers to them by their first names only--than fearing that they would destroy her fantasy by their very existence as whites. The parents certainly gave a strange interview. They claimed that they love her, but they appeared more angry and hurt than loving. If my daughter was living a fantasy that enabled her to do good work, I doubt if I would have outed her. I certainly would not use the word "deception" the way her parents did, indicating that Dolezal, despite her achievements, is little more than a liar. Even though I might feel angry and hurt, I wouldn't want to humiliate my daughter on national TV, fearing that it might destroy her.
But it didn't destroy her. The interviews Dolezal gave are, I think, quite strange. She never came even close to admitting that she had been lying. Her view of herself apparently remains unchanged, despite the scandal. Yes, on the outside I'm white, but on the inside I'm black and that's all that matters. This is indeed a peculiar stance. It's ok for a little kid to believe in a world of his own creation for a while, but an adult who consistently flouts reality is indeed behaving strangely.
Yes, it's all a bit pathological, but if this self-deception somehow enabled her to be a productive adult, who am I to judge? She views her inner truths to be objective reality with a persistence more characteristic of an insane person rather than of a mature adult. Blackness isn't her only fantasy. She claims that her black adopted brother, whom she is raising, is her son. Confronted with reality, she still insists she is his mother. She also asserts that her fantasy father, a black man, is her real father, even when faced with the truth.
The most revealing moment of all her interviews is when a reporter laid a trap for her. He asked her to talk about her African-American "father". Then he asked, "Is your dad really African-American?" followed by, "Are you African American?" Dolezal replied that she didn't understand the question; she stared in confusion, stating that she didn't know what the interviewer meant. Then, obviously overwhelmed, she walked off.
Capehart wrote about this incident as follows: "Chil', please! Dolezal most definitely understood the question, which is why she took flight 16 seconds after Humphrey's query."
This is true, but I see it somewhat differently. Dolezal's distress occurred because the bubble of her fantasy life, which to her was a self-deception, not a deception, burst.
Her interviews bear out this interpretation. Not once did she deny that she was black; she adamantly stated, despite biological evidence to the contrary, that she was not white. I believe she felt that an "outside lie" was destroying her inner truth, and would have none of it.
Another telling part of the interview is when she said that she called her "so-called" parents by their fist names and stated that her birth certificate became available a significant period after her birth. This indicates to me that she concocted a fantasy that her birth parents were not her parents at an early age and convinced herself that this was true.
There is more pathology than prejudice in Dolezal. She says she adopted a black identity early on as a matter of survival. I think she might be telling the truth here. The truth, if this is the truth, is indeed strange, but the human mind is certainly capable of doing strange things. Her lie enabled her to function very well. That the foundation of her personality is a fantasy deserves more compassion than censure. She also deserves our praise, since the impressive house she built on this foundation remains.
She stated that she understands the rage many blacks feel because of her (self) deception. That rage is indeed understandable. Racism is still very much prevalent. Due to the history of truly horrible oppression of African Americans, they have assumed a group identity as a means of defense. They are justifiably outraged when a white woman pretends to be one of them. Some have called this the ultimate example of white privilege; a black woman does not have the option of passing for white.
This is true, but, perhaps only in a superficial sense. If I'm right that her assumption of blackness was a survival mechanism, she was not pretending at all. I do think she really believes that she is black, since assuming a black identity would be quite reckless unless supported by a fantasy that was stronger than reality. The truth, that she is white, was known to her brothers, to her estranged family, and to many others. Her bubble had to burst, even though for her it was more real than the world.
Not all African-American were enraged. Kareem Abdul Jabbar, while acknowledging her "character deficit" wrote a piece in support of her in The Times; others wrote similar things as well.
"The damage Rachel Dolezal has done"?? Mr. Capehart, Rachel Dolezal is not the enemy. Both of us could come up with a long list of politicians who pander to racists; compared to them, Dolezal is a saint--one who needs to see a psychiatrist perhaps, but one who has acted in a selfless and empathetic manner nevertheless.
I was convinced I was an alien for a while, but my childish fantasy didn't last long.
I don't want to give the impression that I had it that hard, because I didn't. My point is that frequent trauma can lead one to escape into an inner world where one is happier. Sometimes this includes assuming a new identity; even when facts collide with fiction, the inner necessity of assuming the fiction as part of an unconscious survival strategy can be so strong that, in one's mind, fact and fiction change places. When this happens, the following inner dialogue takes place: Inside I am x. Outside I am y. The real me is x. The fictive me is y.
I think that this inner transformation probably did occur in the psyche of Rachel Dolezal. the woman who is ethnically white but psychologically black. Ms. Dolezal said, after she was outed, that she lived the black experience. This is no exaggeration. She had been, until the time of the scandal, president of the Spokane branch of the NAACP. She married an African American and has two adopted sons. All four of her adopted siblings are black. She taught black studies at a local college. She was completely immersed in her black identity and worked tirelessly and effectively for the black community.
When it became known that she had apparently been masquerading as black--I say "apparently" because her inner reality is convinced that she is black, many members of the black community reacted with fury.
Jonathan Capehart, a reporter from the Washington Post wrote a piece on June 12th entitled, "The damage Rachel Doezal has done," Mr. Capehart is a "double minority member" being both black and gay. I have seen him on TV a few times, and was struck by his kind face and gentle demeanor. On those few occasions I remember being in total agreement with what he said. He said what he had to say without a trace of anger.
This time he was furious. Here is how he ends his column: "Blackface remains highly racist, no matter how down with the cause a white person is." But Dolezal's mother nailed it when she told the Spokane-Review newspaper, "Her effectiveness in the causes of the African-American community would have been so much more viable, and she would have been more effective if she had just been honest with everybody.' Instead Dolezal is a laughingstock and has made a mockery of the work she said she cared about."
This, I think, is downright vicious.
Blackface? Thomas D. Rice invented his Jim Crow routine before 1830. He wore blackface and acted out gross caricatures of black people. This occurred in the North; such routines became very popular. "Thanks" to him, minstrel shows were performed, especially in the North. To accuse Ms. Dolezal of being a racist because she darkened her skin to make her outer identify more like her inner one is preposterous. There was, of course, not a shred of caricature in her adopted appearance. She just wanted to fit in; she wanted to serve the black community, which she did with distinction.
Certainly, Mr. Capehart, you must realize that James Dix's use of blackface and Rachel Dolezal's transformation into an attractive light-skinned black are categorically different.
Charles M. Blow, a black op-ed columnist of the New York Times was just as unforgiving. Here's what he had to say:
"This is about privilege, a deceitful performance and a tortured attempt to avoid truth and confession by co-opting the language of struggle, infusing labyrinthine logic with the authority of the academy, and coat-tailing very real struggles of transgender people and transracial adoptees to defend one's deception. This is a spectacular exercise in hubris, narcissism and deflection."
Pre-outing she was a role model, post-outing, in Mr. Blow's view, she has become a monster. A quote from Jesus of Nazareth is very apropos here: Ye shall know them by their fruits. It seems to me that the fruit Ms. Dolezal grew during her career, very good fruit indeed, didn't suddenly turn rotten because she pretended to be a black farmer rather than a white one.
I half-agree with something Mr. Blow wrote, however. He refers to Dolezal's deception, as many others have. This is half-right. What it seems to me is self-deception, which is something quite different.
There is indeed something--maybe this is too harsh a word--pathological about Dolezal--which should elicit compassion rather than rage. She has, I think, assumed a black identify for such deep-seated psychological reasons that she actually believes she is African-American.
There is obviously more to her rejection of her parents--she refers to them by their first names only--than fearing that they would destroy her fantasy by their very existence as whites. The parents certainly gave a strange interview. They claimed that they love her, but they appeared more angry and hurt than loving. If my daughter was living a fantasy that enabled her to do good work, I doubt if I would have outed her. I certainly would not use the word "deception" the way her parents did, indicating that Dolezal, despite her achievements, is little more than a liar. Even though I might feel angry and hurt, I wouldn't want to humiliate my daughter on national TV, fearing that it might destroy her.
But it didn't destroy her. The interviews Dolezal gave are, I think, quite strange. She never came even close to admitting that she had been lying. Her view of herself apparently remains unchanged, despite the scandal. Yes, on the outside I'm white, but on the inside I'm black and that's all that matters. This is indeed a peculiar stance. It's ok for a little kid to believe in a world of his own creation for a while, but an adult who consistently flouts reality is indeed behaving strangely.
Yes, it's all a bit pathological, but if this self-deception somehow enabled her to be a productive adult, who am I to judge? She views her inner truths to be objective reality with a persistence more characteristic of an insane person rather than of a mature adult. Blackness isn't her only fantasy. She claims that her black adopted brother, whom she is raising, is her son. Confronted with reality, she still insists she is his mother. She also asserts that her fantasy father, a black man, is her real father, even when faced with the truth.
The most revealing moment of all her interviews is when a reporter laid a trap for her. He asked her to talk about her African-American "father". Then he asked, "Is your dad really African-American?" followed by, "Are you African American?" Dolezal replied that she didn't understand the question; she stared in confusion, stating that she didn't know what the interviewer meant. Then, obviously overwhelmed, she walked off.
Capehart wrote about this incident as follows: "Chil', please! Dolezal most definitely understood the question, which is why she took flight 16 seconds after Humphrey's query."
This is true, but I see it somewhat differently. Dolezal's distress occurred because the bubble of her fantasy life, which to her was a self-deception, not a deception, burst.
Her interviews bear out this interpretation. Not once did she deny that she was black; she adamantly stated, despite biological evidence to the contrary, that she was not white. I believe she felt that an "outside lie" was destroying her inner truth, and would have none of it.
Another telling part of the interview is when she said that she called her "so-called" parents by their fist names and stated that her birth certificate became available a significant period after her birth. This indicates to me that she concocted a fantasy that her birth parents were not her parents at an early age and convinced herself that this was true.
There is more pathology than prejudice in Dolezal. She says she adopted a black identity early on as a matter of survival. I think she might be telling the truth here. The truth, if this is the truth, is indeed strange, but the human mind is certainly capable of doing strange things. Her lie enabled her to function very well. That the foundation of her personality is a fantasy deserves more compassion than censure. She also deserves our praise, since the impressive house she built on this foundation remains.
She stated that she understands the rage many blacks feel because of her (self) deception. That rage is indeed understandable. Racism is still very much prevalent. Due to the history of truly horrible oppression of African Americans, they have assumed a group identity as a means of defense. They are justifiably outraged when a white woman pretends to be one of them. Some have called this the ultimate example of white privilege; a black woman does not have the option of passing for white.
This is true, but, perhaps only in a superficial sense. If I'm right that her assumption of blackness was a survival mechanism, she was not pretending at all. I do think she really believes that she is black, since assuming a black identity would be quite reckless unless supported by a fantasy that was stronger than reality. The truth, that she is white, was known to her brothers, to her estranged family, and to many others. Her bubble had to burst, even though for her it was more real than the world.
Not all African-American were enraged. Kareem Abdul Jabbar, while acknowledging her "character deficit" wrote a piece in support of her in The Times; others wrote similar things as well.
"The damage Rachel Dolezal has done"?? Mr. Capehart, Rachel Dolezal is not the enemy. Both of us could come up with a long list of politicians who pander to racists; compared to them, Dolezal is a saint--one who needs to see a psychiatrist perhaps, but one who has acted in a selfless and empathetic manner nevertheless.
No comments:
Post a Comment