I've been trying to wrap my mind around why I felt disturbed by this but I'm not quite sure. Read the NY Times article for a little more background on the issue. But anyway here goes: Rachel Dolezal, a white, blonde-hair blue eyed woman, is exposed for falsely passing off as a black/biracial woman. To add fuel to fire, she's got a career in social activism for coloured folk, being the president of the NAACP for her local chapter.
The public is out raged but for a whole variety of reasons.
Some are angry because they saw what she did as a misappropriation of identity by a dominant group (i.e. the whites) where it is to their advantage, in the way say white rappers approach hip hop and rap music. But of course, she's actually the president of her local chapter for an organisation fighting for the advancement of coloured people - so I'm not sure where the real racial domination is. Isn't she fighting for coloured people - does the fact that she's white disqualify her from doing so? Is it a regression the fact that we're outraged a white person becomes the president of an organisation? And if you say only a black person can be the president - is that a progression or regression of civil rights for coloured folk?
Others are angry because she deceived the public as to her racial heritage when she clearly knew otherwise. No one's stopping her for being the social activist that she is as a white person. Plus she intentionally deceived the public and has hitherto been unapologetic until the media shove evidence to the contrary in her face. Now I think people are right to be outraged. But then, the extent to which they are outraged seemed to suggest that race matters more than it should. Would you be similarly outraged if a transgender woman (e.g. caitlyn jenner) tried to pass off as a woman and ran for the presidentship of a women's rights organization but was caught for it? What if say the president of AWARE in Singapore were exposed as a man?
I certainly wouldn't condone her act. She intentionally deceived, and plausibly, for benefits she otherwise wouldn't have received -the media attention and career in activism. But then, perhaps part of the public anger I think also stems from people's personal anger with themselves - that fundamentally, race (unfortunately) still seems to matter even among professed liberals.
 |
| Is race but a performance? |
The public is out raged but for a whole variety of reasons.
Some are angry because they saw what she did as a misappropriation of identity by a dominant group (i.e. the whites) where it is to their advantage, in the way say white rappers approach hip hop and rap music. But of course, she's actually the president of her local chapter for an organisation fighting for the advancement of coloured people - so I'm not sure where the real racial domination is. Isn't she fighting for coloured people - does the fact that she's white disqualify her from doing so? Is it a regression the fact that we're outraged a white person becomes the president of an organisation? And if you say only a black person can be the president - is that a progression or regression of civil rights for coloured folk?
Others are angry because she deceived the public as to her racial heritage when she clearly knew otherwise. No one's stopping her for being the social activist that she is as a white person. Plus she intentionally deceived the public and has hitherto been unapologetic until the media shove evidence to the contrary in her face. Now I think people are right to be outraged. But then, the extent to which they are outraged seemed to suggest that race matters more than it should. Would you be similarly outraged if a transgender woman (e.g. caitlyn jenner) tried to pass off as a woman and ran for the presidentship of a women's rights organization but was caught for it? What if say the president of AWARE in Singapore were exposed as a man?
 |
| Gender as a performance |
No comments:
Post a Comment