I watched the new documentary about Rachel Dolezal with a mounting sense of disbelief that turned to anger, pity, sadness and revulsion, cycling through all these emotions several times. What a piece of work is Rachel Dolezal. And yet in no way deserving of the seething hatred still aimed at her.
The film may be just a Rorschach test that divides people along color lines. I’m not black, so I can’t access the outrage she evinces in that community. I will be shocked if any black viewers decide to cut her any slack. As a white woman, I feel compassion. Because above all else, she is fucking nuts.
The film details her childhood: Evangelical white parents who adopt a bunch of black kids only to beat them like animals. It’s not hard to see why the blonde, dowdy, emotionally abused Rachel would side with the black children. They are literal innocents, and she strives to save them.
Somewhere along the line, she imagines that she’s one of them. That part is the thing that can’t be explained, or, apparently, forgiven. She continues to insist on her blackness to this day, at the same time acknowledging that she was born white. She views her racial “identity” as similar to gender identity – something one can decide, and expect others to respect, or at least accept.
Part of me wants to think, Well, yeah, if I can tell you I’m really a man inside my female body, why can’t I also tell you that I’m black? If it’s simply a case of I am what I feel I am, why is gender okay but not ethnicity? What is so sacred about ethnicity?
How you answer that question makes all the difference.
Putting that aside, there are Rachel’s children, who are clearly suffering from her notoriety. Your heart breaks for them, especially the sensitive 13 year old, whose father is a black man we never meet. Why doesn’t she put her children first and do what’s best for them? Maybe she’s convinced that she is doing what’s best, by standing her ground and not giving in to societal pressure. Or maybe she’s incapable of putting anyone’s needs before her raging exhibitionism and deep psychological wounds.
Then there’s her fucking hair. Oh my god, the hair. In the course of the film, she changes her hair a million times. The knee-length braided extensions underscore her not-Beyonce-ness. But she doesn’t give a fuck. Her hair is like a whole extra character.
When she brings a new baby into the drama swirling around her, it’s hard not to question her motives. And sanity. It seems like the last things she needs, but then we see how much the older kids adore the baby…whose father, naturally, is black.
The most disturbing aspect of this brutal character study is Rachel’s seeming gluttony for abuse and punishment. She continues to court a high social media profile, despite the barrage of hateful comments that attend her every Facebook post and public appearance. Writing a book about herself only stokes the hatred. But she seems baffled by it and stubbornly refuses to back down or apologize.
What’s wrong with Rachel Dolezal? Never underestimate the consequences of sustained child abuse, but this is more.
In her deludedness, she is more heartbreaking than infuriating. And in the end, to me, she is almost worthy of admiration in her strength of purpose. She will not crack. She will not give in, no matter what.
The very last scene is a spoiler that will blow your mind. Once you’ve seen “The Rachel Divide,” a fascinating but draining experience, get back to me and tell me what you think.
Superb post Sister Wolf.
“I will be shocked if any black viewers decide to cut her any slack.”
https://theglowup.theroot.com/tribeca-film-festival-2018-there-s-no-redemption-song-1825521791
You might be surprised (shocked?) after having gotten into the comments on the link.
“Part of me wants to think, Well, yeah, if I can tell you I’m really a man inside my female body, why can’t I also tell you that I’m black? If it’s simply a case of I am what I feel I am, why is gender okay but not ethnicity? What is so sacred about ethnicity?”
I have similarly found myself confused/conflicted given “all the fuss” our society seems to be drowning in in recent years. Sometimes I think having one of those Crying Rooms some number of the universities are installing might be just the ticket.
Yeah, like, would there be any furor if Rachel D were Pinoy and claiming blackness? And what about black people who “pass” for white? And what about all the white folks claiming indigenous heritage? If she isn’t black enough to head a chapter of the NAACP does that mean the “one drop rule” has merit? I don’t have the answer to any of these questions (some of which aren’t even exactly questions) and maybe have no right to pose them. But I used to think I was very slightly black until my cousin got a paternity test with my uncle and things got awkward. More awkward, I mean.
After watching the documentary I too felt a lot of mixed emotions regarding Rachel, but like you I mostly just kept repeating, “those poor children.” She is nuts. Perhaps her mental state can and should be blamed on her parents, but wow…she’s doing everything she can to further her “truth” while continuing to put her family at risk.
Delusional seems too naive a word to describe her, but it’s hard to truly find the malice I want to see behind her agenda because ultimately she appears too simple. Perhaps she really doesn’t understand why what she says and does is so offensive to the very people she claims to identify with; but then I have to ask myself how is the only one who doesn’t get it? That’s where it’s really hard to understand her at all, because her ignorance seems willful in the face of mounting evidence that continues to show how what she’s doing is wrong.
When she is being interviewed by a professor @ the University of Cincinnati (I think??), there is a woman in the audience who says that while she can appreciate Rachel’s love of black culture, she cannot claim blackness because has not had to face the struggle of being a black female in America. Rachel questions what exactly the woman means when she says she hasn’t had to endure the initiation process of being an African American woman, and the audience member goes on to say, “Discrimination in stores, discrimination in schools, discrimination among black people and how they feel about one [skin] color versus another, job discrimination, racial profiling. That is my experience.” Rachel’s response? “I understand, but I have an entire life’s story that has led up to this point.” She never really answers the question being asked and that’s infuriating.
Here’s where it gets worse…later in the film she laments the fact that since she’s been outed as a culture vulture/racial performer, she can’t take part in the rallies for equality that Trump’s presidency has ignited without a ton of unwanted, negative attention. So, cooped up in her house with a little baby, she decides she’s going to attend a rally anyway, and she’s quoted as saying “If I’m able to just incognito support and participate, that’s at least something.” In this scene she also looks more “white” than she has tried to pass for in the past.
And here for me is the crux of her being problematic – she claims that she is black but suffers none of the lasting impact of what that means in our society. When she wants to be “incognito” she can switch on her whiteness to suit her purpose (to fly under the radar). This is the problem people have with her claims…skin color can never be turned off or made to be incognito when it’s dark, only when it’s light. Her inherent privilege allows her to claim the suffering of a historically underrepresented group, of which she has had no part of except at her own doing, while at the same time benefiting from a prototypical caucasian appearance when she feels like it.
I have so much more to say, but I just can’t. This woman is so offensively interesting, but I hope her children manage to get away from her as soon as they can, and stop being hurt by her narcissistic need for attention.
Sidebar Romeo:
“I – don’t have the answer to any of these questions (some of which aren’t even exactly questions) and maybe have no right to pose them.”
[“I have no right to pose them.”]
If not, why not?
– Some number of posts back you posed (paraphrasing) “Try arguing with fundamentalist Christians [something having to do with] the Palestinians.”
I’m for damn certain not fundamentalist in any way but I am a Presbyterian of the Christian faith and I make not bones about it however; Who is anyone to question whatever about any person’s individual whatever?
On Sister Wolf’s sidebar you’ll (Romeo) notice a blog formerly named “Waka Waka Waka”? That blog’s host is much the same to me as my ‘Same-Friend’s’ Sister Wolf’s blog. That blog’s author, through the years, having changed his perspective. I suppose much the same way as Joy Reid and many of our Pols one could say “I’ve evolved.”
Admitting of course I can only state, “I suppose” whatever.
http://malcolmpollack.com/2016/03/04/live-and-learn/
What I cannot get a good grip on is as a variant of , as Sister Wolf questions above “Well, yeah, if I can tell you I’m really a man inside my female body, why can’t I also tell you that I’m black?” is why [how] it is one group’s identity must be by legislation enshrined in statute while the other (professing Christianity) ought be eradicated “for the betterment of society”?
JK-
“and maybe have no right to pose them”
Preemptive attempt by me to avoid getting into any long running arguments.
“Try arguing with fundamentalist Christians about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.”
Advice that SW might find some amount of distraction by getting into a long running argument.
I’m not certain who is telling you that the profession of Christian faith should be eradicated. I believe that contemporary popular Christianity is heretical and is in need of restoration but if you’re OK with calling yourself Christian that’s no more or less bothersome than any other faith (with the exception of anime culture; that shit is an abominable scourge that needs to be eradicated from Earth).
“Admitting of course I can only state, ‘I suppose’ whatever.”
I don’t know what this means but I totally agree with it. Is this your way of trying not to get into any long running arguments? I’m definitely for that.
I hope that you and yours are healthy and prosperous and that my barely-considered comments have not caused you any distress.
Sincerely,
Romeo
Thank you Romeo.
I’ve been known to misunderstand and I apologize for having done so.
I hope for you and yours as well. Additionally, Peace.