This book is a jumble of ideas and stories. The author is a seeker. But sometimes her ideas exist right next to each other without touching, that is, without the author's connecting them. For example, the very first story is on the episode of mass violence that the author says gave her her voice (allowed her to begin writing): she was among the victims in a 2001 stabbing near Yale in a New Haven coffee bar where she had been one of the patrons. Although she was the only black customer, her color was incidental to her stabbing, as the young white male perpetrator was apparently trying to commit suicide by cop and the author-to-be just happened to be on the scene. Yet a large chunk of the book has to do with her perceived danger as a black person. The current orthodoxy is that we're living in a white supremacist society, but fundamentalism of any sort can keep us from seeing the full picture, even what is right in front of us.
Flipping next to the end of the book and the last essay: the author writes that her hometown, Burlington, Vermont, has an exemplary police chief. She's always talking him up, she says, yet at the same time she's thinking he's "an aberration compared to others in his profession." In contrast to that notion, the following conclusion is derived from data described in Michael Lewis' The Fifth Risk: "(N)ot all cops exhibited the same degree of racial bias. A few cops in one southern city were ten times more likely than others to search a black person they had pulled over." We see here that the orthodox view is that bias is like biblical impurity, like a miasma that has spread over all those of a certain class (policemen), but instead of almost every policeman sharing an "average" attitude, the reality is that some have attitude galore, pushing up the overall average, while others have little to none of the objectionable attitude -- and some may have another attitude altogether. Remember those two cop scenes from the movie Green Book? One about a bad traffic stop and a bad cop -- and one that turns out precisely the opposite!
Speaking of traffic stops, Emily Bernard says that, in contrast to what we would expect based on the good police chief of Burlington, African Americans in Vermont are 85 percent more likely to be stopped than white people. Looking at the other part of that quote from The Fifth Risk, we see that Michael Lewis has written, "A young guy in the White House pulled up stop-and-search rates from another pile of policing data. He discovered that a black person in a car was no more likely to be pulled over by the police than a white person. The difference was what happened next. 'If you’re black, you’re way more likely to get searched'...." Why is it so different in Vermont? Because it's such a "white" state? Or some difference in the data or misunderstanding of the numbers? We can't say without access to the data itself, but, still, the difference is worth noting, just in case confirmation bias has brought about an error.
Throughout the book, the author holds out parts of her identity besides blackness that have been subjected to social stress, for example, her infertility and the fact she's never conceived, which led her and her husband to become adoptive parents. Though wounds experienced on other accounts than race aren't necessarily woven into an equally potent story, they are present in this book as part of the memoir. Barrenness, after all, is not an insignificant matter; it's biblical!
The author writes of insufficient black faces in New England -- a simple dearth of blackness. And yet she also writes that she has "encountered divides of class, region, and temperament that proved as difficult to overcome as any racial barrier." In college she had classes with people who looked like her but weren't like her because of their background of prep schools, exclusive clubs, and vacations in the Berkshires. At home, too, her bookishness and academic ambition could set her apart. Nevertheless, a certain baseline of black faces represents comfort, and home is home -- both back in Mississippi and in the home she's built in Vermont -- where her Italian husband is no longer white but family.
The author writes that the Trinidadian side of her family relate differently to race than she and other American blacks do. They are not trapped in the "ideological straitjacket" of black and white as are American blacks. Judging from the book, the author knows non-American blacks (to borrow from Americanah) see something different, but she's stuck with a binary black and white, the various interwoven categories to which she occasionally draws attention notwithstanding. It's as though she sees no gradations of whiteness and, ironically, all whites look alike to her. That's the chrysalis from which she has yet to emerge. It's so tempting to stay tucked inside, accepting the approved narrative and in consequence always having someone and something outside oneself to blame.
Now here's a story of a hang-up: a white immigrant a hundred years ago sees a black person and can't believe his skin color is real. So, if it's not, it might rub off with a handshake.
Fast-forward to the present, when the author's white friend has her black godson staying with her in her house. The white friend proceeds to tell the author, with apparent dismay and embarrassment, that the godson left a dark ring in the tub. The author assumes her friend is partaking of the fantasy that the godson's skin color has rubbed off and that's what she's embarrassed over. She assumes all white people at some level share that fantasy.
No; I just can't believe that, even despite that "in the South, white people want you close but not high," while in the North, you can get as high as you want but they don't want you close" -- even though the white friend may never have been close to a black person before. People see TV, they see movies, they read. In the face of all that, the illusion of blackness rubbing off like charcoal cannot be maintained. the greenhorn white immigrant of another era, yes, but not the 21st century friend. What the white friend is probably embarrassed over is the godson's not knowing better than to leave the ring in the tub (something my mother gave me a hard time over because she did not appreciate my ring). Maybe the next time the author -- or the friend -- will get over her embarrassment sufficiently to check out her assumption.
That kind "getting the other person wrong" is very common. In the book Educated, the radically under-educated Tara Westover when thrown into a college history class, sees other students asking questions so ventures to ask one herself, about a word she's never before heard. The word is "Holocaust," and to the professor and the other students, she's a Holocaust denier or right-wing extremist making a terrible joke.
Trevor Noah, in the wonderful Born a Crime, recounts an episode of double assumptions: The star dancer of his band was a boy named Hitler, made possible by the fact that large chunks of South African people at that time were not conversant with European history yet simultaneously emulated European names, among which they failed to distinguish. So when his group performs for a Jewish audience, and he's shouting, "Go, Hitler, go!" the audience freaks out, and their reaction in turn freaks out the band. Trevor thinks the audience is cracking down on his group for the sexuality of the performance, and, well, we know (although Trevor didn't) what the audience thinks.
Getting over those roadblocks posed by assumptions can only be done over time, since it's hard to check out those assumptions at the same moment one is feeling shamed or discomfited over what you think the other guy is thinking. The author is right that long-term contact is the way, that is, long-term contact characterized by mutual respect and caring. In that context people could stop being other. They are themselves. They are family.
By the way, the reason white people in the South wanted black people close is that they wanted their labor. The labor was of a certain kind and for a certain price, which is the reason white people in the South didn't want black people to rise; they had to "stay in their place." In the North, white people didn't want -- or need? -- black people's labor in the same way.
The author confirmed something I'd suspected: that when black check-out clerks or salesladies were sullen rather than smiling, it was unfinished business from the past, when they'd had to grovel and had been made to smile. Or at least I thought she confirmed it by recounting an instance in which she'd talked down to a white clerk because of her own psychological leftovers from the Jim Crow era. By the way, that anti-groveling has mostly run its course by now. I don't see it anymore; now salesclerks of all sorts are equally friendly.
Here's a last something from the book to think about: Emily Bernard is convinced she's protected her children by giving them a white father.
Is there truth in that?
I used to be secretly glad of having a non-Jewish-sounding last name, which I got by marrying a man of northern European descent and duly passed along to our children. But it only works if I don't do anything that identifies me as a Jew or hang around with other Jews in Jewish places.
I came across a review of this book somewhere that described the author as open and honest and different -- some such terms -- and not polemical. That's what made me want to read it. I was lucky to get it from the library without a wait, maybe one of its first readers. I didn't love it as much as I expected. Still, it's given me a lot to think about.
Three and a half stars, rounded up to four.