I thought of this question while reading an article in the New York Times, Famous Black Lives Through DNA’s Prism:

Ms. Broyard, who grew up thinking she was white, says in [the Public Broadcasting System’s TV program “African-American Lives 2"] that she believes that her father, who died in 1990, “passed” to protect his children from racism. She does not feel she has the right to call herself “black” now because it designates not just physicality but lived experience….

I just don’t think this is the only way to get ahead. I think some women may think that it is, but I also think that it would be very difficult for this to not come back to be used against a person who did this (as well as other people in this workplace).
…
I think that in this case, a woman does have agency, and that’s where I seem to differ with others–the degree to which I think a person (in a marginalized group) has agency.

This is classic privilege, Rachel. You have assigned agency to this hypothetical woman, and you’re condemning her for not using it, when in fact she may not have it, or feel that she has it. That’s how oppression works — you know this, I’ve seen you argue the same thing in other posts. Agency isn’t something you can bestow on another person just by declaring that it exists. If she doesn’t believe it, it might as well be nonexistent.

I would wager that many women who sleep their way to the top do it because they don’t see a more legitimate or “morally untarnished” way to do it. It’s like the decision to resort to prostitution; how many women really feel like they have a choice about doing it? I also wonder how many women who “sleep their way up” actually perceive it as an act of agency — maybe they’ve seen men do it, or the equivalent (marrying the boss’ daughter, for example).

I’m reminded of a Sunday school class many years ago. One of the girls in my class was getting blepharoplasty surgery and talk turned to the subject of appearance. The other kids in the class started grading everyone else at church by facial features, on twin scales of “who looks white vs. Asian” and “who’s good-looking vs. not”. Bonus points if you can guess which went with which. Even the teacher joined in. I remember it, because to this day I’ve regretted that I didn’t storm out of there, right after saying something extremely hurtful and prejudicial to the lot of them.

That’s fair enough. I think it is more complicated than that as others have pointed out.

krz said, “second, i think it is very bold and extremely privileged of you to assume that the conversation wouldn’t have taken place without your white body being there.–people of color have conversations about whiteness when whites are around or not–don’t get it twisted. like daran stated above and was so eloquently ignored, what makes you think this conversation was about you???”

First, I never said the conversation was about me. Second, I do believe the odds that this conversation would have taken place in front of me if I was black or Asian would be much lower. I should have specified that more in the post. Third, I never said people of color don’t have conversations about whites when whites are not around or not.

krz said, “third, it is also extremely privileged of you to assume that your interjection into the conversation could “save” her from her desired association with whiteness, which is what you imply.”

I never said anything about saving anyone. What I said in the post was that it bothered me that my silence made it seem like I am supportive of the idea that whiteness is somehow better or more desirable.

It just seems that people are insinuated that my comment (had I actually made one :) ) would only be directed at the waitress and not the white manager.

krz said, “fourth, as i stated on your personal blog, why do you feel the need to try and define the latina woman’s racial background??? i mean, c’mon! what relevance is this to the story?? AND how on earth did you choose “Mexican” or “Central American”……the last time i checked, central america is not phenotypically homogenous and neither is Mexico.”

My guess about her ethnic background was based on more than just phenotype–the neighborhood, the accent, and general knowledge about the ethnic segregation and immigrant settlement patterns of the NYC metro area. I could always be wrong, but my thinking wasn’t that simplistic.

I just don’t think this is the only way to get ahead. I think some women may think that it is, but I also think that it would be very difficult for this to not come back to be used against a person who did this (as well as other people in this workplace).

And I guess that’s one reason why I am less than generous when people develop adaptive strategies that I think are harmful them themselves and others. It is understandable that people do some of these things, and I don’t think people should forever be marked if they engage in some strategy that I (or others) think hurts the larger cause, that person, or the people around that person.

I think that in this case, a woman does have agency, and that’s where I seem to differ with others–the degree to which I think a person (in a marginalized group) has agency.

I just don’t think “anything goes.” (FWIW–I’m not necessarily applying this to the scenario in the original post, but I think there are scenarios where this does apply.)

this post rubs me in the wrong way.

first, i wouldn’t be so quick to assume that the woman’s statement is representative of some sort of “self-loathing.”

second, i think it is very bold and extremely privileged of you to assume that the conversation wouldn’t have taken place without your white body being there.–people of color have conversations about whiteness when whites are around or not–don’t get it twisted. like daran stated above and was so eloquently ignored, what makes you think this conversation was about you???

third, it is also extremely privileged of you to assume that your interjection into the conversation could “save” her from her desired association with whiteness, which is what you imply.

fourth, as i stated on your personal blog, why do you feel the need to try and define the latina woman’s racial background??? i mean, c’mon! what relevance is this to the story?? AND how on earth did you choose “Mexican” or “Central American”……the last time i checked, central america is not phenotypically homogenous and neither is Mexico.

Eventually, everyone will be white, and than no one will be.

I doubt that.

Our society, while structurally racist is fluid. Lets bend it to be better, rather than tear it down completely.

Rachel’s theory, with which I agree, is that its flexibity prevents us from tearing it down. That makes it’s flexibility a “bad thing”. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t bend it to be better.

My conversation re: race went something a little like this:

You’re gonna be privy to a lot more overt ignorance than me; some people will think you’re white and diss black folks around you. Do the right thing and tell them that your momma and granddaddy’s black and you don’t appreciate it. And when black people tell you you’re not really black because you can pass, tell ‘em your momma won’t let you, and you’re not about to forget where you come from. But also remember they’ve got a point because they’re saying the same thing as me, just nastier. Your light skin’ll buy you into places I can’t go, but some of those places aren’t where you want to be.

Personally I think the fluidity of white is a good thing. Eventually, everyone will be white, and than no one will be. (to misquote The Invincibles)

Our society, while structurally racist is fluid. Lets bend it to be better, rather than tear it down completely.

For example, women who “sleep their way to the top.” I know it’s rare and a stereotype, but I think it does nothing for the cause, and I would be ticked off at a woman who used it.

What if that’s the only way that woman can get ahead? What if, otherwise, she wouldn’t earn enough money to feed her kids (maybe because she’d be stuck as a waitress)? You acknowledge that the system (patriarchy) is rigged; it’s intended to make women’s success next to impossible. Any woman who finds a way to endure/survive that system is perpetuating it, yes — but she’s also defying it. So why blame the victim of an unfair system for behaving as that system has set her up to behave, especially if she’s found a way to succeed within it?

Yes, every woman who sleeps her way to the top enables the system further and hurts “the cause”. But until she has enough security, support, or resources to do otherwise, taking the moral high ground is only going to hurt her and the people who depend on her. So what good does it do for you to heap moral scorn on her? What good does it do anyone for you to react this way — except the men who benefit from this system?

What are the emotions being expressed here?

Admittedly, I don’t expect that Rachel provides us with a transcript of the waitress/manager discussion, so I concede that I’m guessing at emotion based on limited info. But here’s my read: The waitress expressed surprise, delight and amusement that people would regard her husband and children as white. Basically, the manager sounds like she’s merely nodding along.

Then the interesting line arises: “Well, I want to be white, too.” I have no read on the emotional content of this line, so I have difficulty interpreting it. But assuming the waitress is speaking earnestly, I draw three conclusions. 1) The waitress has an emotional state. 2) The waitress recognizes her own emotional state. 3) The waitress expresses this emotional state in the presence of customers. Each of these conclusions prompts a different reaction in me.

- What conclusions should I draw about the idea that the waitress wants to be white? I regard emotional states - such as wanting - as facts, akin to weight or temperature. I question the merit of the commandment “Thou shalt not covet….” Do such commandments actually discourage people from coveting, or merely promote repression and self-deception? The waitress wants something. Assuming she’s being candid, she is merely expressing a fact.

- What conclusion should I draw about the idea that the waitress recognizes her own emotional state? Seems like a good thing to me.

- What conclusion should I draw about the idea that the waitress would express her emotional state in the presence of customers? While I don’t judge people for having emotions, and I affirm people for recognizing their emotions, I may judge people for expressing them inappropriately. As Rachel demonstrates, discussions of race, politics, religion, etc., often provoke visceral reactions in ways that other discussions don’t. Arguably I could find fault with the waitress for discussing this topic in a forum that would disturb people she is putatively trying to serve.

But there are still more emotions at play here. The waitress/manager discussion clearly vexes Rachel. I still haven’t got a firm grasp on what specifically provokes her so.

I sense that Rachel is disappointed that a Latina would express a desire to be white. I sense this idea causes Rachel to confront anew dynamics of racism that Rachel finds uncomfortable. And that makes sense to me. Yet somehow I don’t think this explains Rachel’s reaction.

Let me take a pure, gut-level guess here: I sense that Rachel expects oppressed people to feel – or at least to express – solidarity against their oppressors. I sense that Rachel does not regard racism as a social dynamic but rather as a war of oppressor vs. oppressed. I sense that Rachel regards the waitress as a soldier in a war, and the waitress’ expression of desire as a kind of betrayal to the cause. Am I close?

I say this in part because Rachel seems uncharacteristically uncharitable to the waitress, a person with whom I had expected Rachel to express sympathy. The strength of Rachel’s own visceral reaction seems to overcome Rachel’s more common pattern of analyzing things from the waitress’s point of view (ok, as Rachel has in the last several comments).

Let me apologize to Rachel if I’m just projecting here. I’ve been sensing this dynamic in atheist circles recently. If praying feels good, why not? Why not engage in “last rites” on your death bed or otherwise profess some faith in the supernatural? Does freedom from religion mean freedom to shun religious practice, or does it mean freedom to adopt religious practice whenever and however it suits you? People who regard themselves as soldiers in a war against oppressive religion seem to derive a sense of identity from their minority status, and strive to vindicate that sense by expressing solidarity to the end – even as they acknowledge that the end is ultimately the end. This attachment strikes me as a curiously religious perspective. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…!

Exactly.

Which is the primary reason I didn’t say anything…I contemplated it, and I still feel bad that it looks like I’m cool with that, but I think in the long run it wouldn’t have been helpful. It may have been harmful.

Nora said, “What does morality have to do with it?”
If we lived in a just society, people wouldn’t have to do this type of thing.

Nora said, “Did he pass? Hell, yes, and I admire him for doing so, even though it amounted to a kind of betrayal of his racial identity. Whose fault is it that he had to do so? He didn’t make this society; he just had to live in it — and raise a family in it. He did what he had to do. And because he did, his children (who grew up in the Sixties) were able to worry less about survival, and more about the kind of moral and psychosocial and transformative issues that you’re thinking about, Rachel.”

Listen, I definitely think the burden to use these adaptive strategies comes from racism and white supremacy, there’s no doubt in my mind. I definitely think some adaptive strategies are better than others.

But honestly, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to condone certain types of adaptive strategies (FWIW–Beyond the kissing up to the boss part, which was pretty clear. It is completely fair to say that we really don’t know if or how the waitress really feels about this issue in her everyday life outside of work, which is another reason I just listened.). For example, women who “sleep their way to the top.” I know it’s rare and a stereotype, but I think it does nothing for the cause, and I would be ticked off at a woman who used it.

I still maintain that wanting the privileges associated with whiteness or wanting to be treated like whites is qualitatively different from saying “I want to be white.”

Nora said, “So I think you are letting privilege color how you see this incident; you’re applying standards that simply don’t fit the context, and you’re ignoring the context.”

I don’t dispute that my social status influences my views. I certainly feel complicit in racism when I hear a conversation like that and don’t say anything. Because to those two women (the waitress and the manager) it makes it look like I find the whole scenario socially acceptable and I don’t.

They were, not in what she said, but in who she said it to — a white woman who was apparently her supervisor. She was doing what a bazillion workers do every day — sucking up to her boss.

Hmmm. I see the boss doing what a bazillion bosses do every day — stroking her worker.