Whoopi Goldberg, a name recognized around the world, is not her birth name. Born Caryn Elaine Johnson, she adopted “Goldberg” at the suggestion of her mother. One account suggests that Emma Johnson thought the family’s original surname was “not Jewish enough” for her daughter to become a star and have a successful career in entertainment.
This revelation raises serious questions about cultural appropriation, hypocrisy, and the double standards that often permeate discussions on identity and race.
Goldberg, an outspoken progressive figure, has been vocal about cultural appropriation, racism, and discrimination. However, her own name change is an extreme example of the very behavior she claims to condemn. Taking on a Jewish name for personal gain—while having no Jewish heritage—demonstrates an opportunistic use of another culture for professional advancement.
Researcher Henry Louis Gates, Jr. found that all of Goldberg’s traceable ancestors were Black, that she had no known German or Jewish ancestry, and that none of her ancestors were named Goldberg. Results of a DNA test, revealed in the 2006 PBS documentary African American Lives, traced part of her ancestry to the Papel and Bayote people of modern-day Guinea-Bissau of West Africa. The show identified her great-great-grandparents as William and Elsie Washington, who had acquired property in northern Florida in 1873, and mentions they were among a very small number of black people who became landowners through homesteading in the years following the Civil War.
The Controversy Behind Her Name
In an industry where name recognition and branding matter, Goldberg’s decision to adopt a Jewish-sounding name reflects a calculated move to appear more appealing in Hollywood. Her mother reportedly believed that a Jewish name would help her fit into the entertainment industry more easily. While this may have been a strategic career choice, it is also an act of cultural appropriation.
Cultural appropriation, as often defined by activists, occurs when members of a dominant or outside culture take elements from another culture—especially one that has historically faced oppression—without understanding, respecting, or being part of it. The irony here is striking: Whoopi Goldberg, who has spoken out against cultural appropriation, has personally engaged in one of the most blatant examples of it.
Clarification on the Name “Goldberg”
It is important to note that “Goldberg” is not inherently a Jewish surname but rather a German family name that was later adopted by many Jewish families who settled in Germany. The name itself derives from geographic locations in Germany and Poland, such as the town of Goldberg (now Złotoryja, Poland), and means “gold mountain” in German. Over time, due to historical migration patterns and naming conventions, many Ashkenazi Jewish families took on Germanic surnames like Goldberg, often as a result of government mandates or community assimilation.
While the name is commonly associated with Jewish heritage, its origins are rooted in Germanic language and geography. This distinction is important in understanding the broader historical context of surnames and identity, particularly when discussing Whoopi Goldberg’s adoption of the name. Her choice to use a surname often linked to Jewish identity for career advancement remains controversial, but the name itself predates its association with Jewish communities in Germany.
Time for Accountability: Disassociating from “Goldberg”
As Black History Month serves as a time for reflection, recognition, and celebration of Black identity, it is only fitting that Whoopi Goldberg reassesses the name she has carried for decades. If she truly believes in the importance of cultural integrity and the rejection of appropriation, she should take this opportunity to disassociate herself from the name “Goldberg” and reclaim her given surname, Caryn Johnson. Doing so would demonstrate a commitment to the very principles she claims to stand for—respect for cultural identity and authenticity.
In an era where figures in entertainment and politics are held accountable for their words and actions, it is hypocritical for Goldberg to continue benefiting from an adopted Jewish name while simultaneously making remarks that have been widely criticized as dismissive of Jewish history. If she wishes to be a champion of racial justice and equity, as she often presents herself, then renouncing the name “Goldberg” would be a meaningful step toward aligning her actions with her advocacy. Otherwise, she risks continuing to embody the very double standard that undermines honest discussions on race and identity.
Accusations of Antisemitism
Adding to the controversy is Goldberg’s history of statements that many have condemned as anti-Semitic. In 2022, she faced backlash after claiming that the Holocaust was “not about race,” a comment that ignored the Nazi ideology that classified Jews as an inferior race. After facing intense criticism, she issued an apology, only to double down on similar sentiments in a later interview.
Such remarks are particularly jarring given her choice to adopt a Jewish surname for personal gain. It raises the question: if Whoopi Goldberg does not recognize Jewish identity as racial or ethnic, why did she find it necessary to assume a Jewish name to advance her career?
Her statements and actions reveal a deep contradiction—on one hand, she benefits from the assumed association with Jewish identity when it suits her, yet on the other, she dismisses and distorts Jewish history when discussing oppression.
The Double Standard of Cultural Appropriation
The entertainment industry has long debated the ethics of cultural appropriation. When non-Black celebrities adopt elements of Black culture—whether in fashion, music, or speech—they are often condemned as exploitative. Similarly, when non-Indigenous people wear traditional Indigenous attire as costumes, they are called out for disrespecting sacred traditions.
Yet, Whoopi Goldberg has largely escaped similar criticism for her appropriation of Jewish identity. The silence on this issue underscores the double standards that often shape cultural debates. Had a white actor taken on an African or Asian surname to gain an advantage in Hollywood, the backlash would have been swift and unforgiving.
Goldberg’s situation highlights the hypocrisy within cultural discourse: when it is politically convenient, appropriation is condemned, but when it benefits a favored public figure, it is overlooked or even justified.
Conclusion
Whoopi Goldberg’s name change is not just a footnote in her career—it is an example of how cultural identity can be manipulated for personal gain. Her history of antisemitic remarks only adds to the hypocrisy, making it clear that her use of a Jewish surname was purely opportunistic rather than a genuine connection to Jewish heritage.
The broader lesson here is that cultural appropriation should not be selectively criticized based on political allegiances. If society is to have honest discussions about cultural respect and identity, then figures like Whoopi Goldberg should be held to the same standards they impose on others.
Featured image credit: DepositPhotos.com
