On that topic…
Long, but extremely worthwhile.
3 Likes
I would truly love to live in a world where most white guys who wear dreadlocks do so because they’re commemorating their Gaelic or Pictish ancestors’ fights against the Roman oppressor. Alas, we do not live in that interesting world. Those who are commemorating their European heritage with a hairstyle these days usually shave or buzzcut their heads or sport the Hitlerjugend special like Richard Spencer does.
Meanwhile, I would be willing to put down money on the proposition that the next two white guys with dreadlocks both of us meet will in their late teens or early 20s and know as much about Rastafarianism and European colonialism in the Caribbean as they do about what happened up at Hadrian’s wall or in Gaul (which is divided into three parts). Upon further inquiry, they will inform us that, yes, they do like 420 a LOT and that they get a better and more authentic experience when they listen to Bob Marley while blazing a spliff. I make this wager as someone who isn’t a betting man.
The worst kind of “policing” a the vast majority of white guys wearing dreads will get from black people is a side-eye and perhaps an overheard “what an arsehole.” Black people who wear dreadlocks (likely with some basic knowledge of their historical and cultural meaning) tend to experience a more “intense” form of policing from whites, often involving actual policemen. It’s admirable that you worry about the fee-fees of our fellow white males who choose to wear dreadlocks, but it’s not exactly a civil rights emergency.
9 Likes
It seems a little Kafkaesque to argue that my opposition to people policing other’s hair and fashion choices is a form of oppression itself. I certainly did not argue that cornrows or dreads are not part of equatorial African culture. I was taking the position that they are pretty much universal, and have been in and out of fashion on every inhabited continent for millennia.
I suppose I was thinking sort of in the same terms as copyright discussions, where extensive prior use becomes an affirmative argument.
But I agree that it strayed from the original issue of Native American themed costumes used in Mardi Gras. The comments on the nativeappropriations link are interesting, and certainly though provoking. It does not seem like the “Indians” are presenting themselves as something they are not. What they wear is pretty clearly described as costumes, vaguely themed on Native American tribes. When I have attended, the various groups had a lots of different themes. They never seemed either particularly respectful or deliberately insulting to the groups they were based on. They were just having fun.
When it comes to associations with genocide and slavery and colonial exploitation, a lot of time has to pass and a lot of reconciliation and truth-telling has to happen before direct appropriation of the victim’s style by the historic oppressor becomes acceptable.
The “they were just having fun” excuse is superfluous and is used to excuse a lot of bad behaviour (e.g. frat parties with racist themes, Chief Wahoo fans, etc.).
From reading the articles about Mardi Gras it seems that Native Americans have less problem with the costumes than with all the business surrounding them about Indian tribes with stereotypical names and the chants and such. The African-Americans in these krewes aren’t regarded as historic oppressors, but it’s still awkward and I suspect that they’ll drop the terminology and chants and keep the costumes, which reference Native American themes only indirectly.
3 Likes
More kafkaesque than arguing it’s the same as Jim Crow? Really? Oppression isn’t being told you’re wrong or out line. Oppression is not being able to vote, speak out, or drink out of whatever water fountain you’d like without being lynched for it. It’s not being able to bring people to justice for their dead kids.
As @gracchus noted, the people wearing dreads are likely wanna be rastas, not someone looking to embrace their pictish heritage. Same with cornows. They tend to be edgy rich white girls. They are taking directly from black culture. It’s obvious that’s what they are doing. They are not pulling it from Andean or Ancient Egypt… We tend to get our culture from what’s around us and what’s around us, not ancient history.
As for the Hampshire incident… I still don’t think that counts as systemic oppression. It’s wrong and certainly assault, but the law is not going to let them off for it, with a pat on the back and a raise, like cops who routinely shoot black kids get.
6 Likes
Thank you. I’ve now amended that to “the vast majority of.” Also, if you’re going to nutpick here’s a more relevant story about a similar unacceptable attack that filled this particular news slot the previous year:
Black people being attacked and materially discriminated against in America and Europe because of their dreadlocks is much more common, to the point where most incidents don’t make the news. For that to happen something outrageous has to be caught on video, or a law affecting millions has to be passed (I’m sure you’ll protest that this one discriminates equally against our poor white wannabe Rasta, but no), or an institution has to boldly discriminate against a child. Those are just stories about dreadlocks.
I’m not sure what your point is in trying to paint a picture of PC discrimination against whites who wear dreadlocks that matches the actual level of direct and indirect institutional and societal discrimination against African-Americans who do. If you’re going to fret about free expression perhaps it’s better to start with the groups most affected by societal pressure to conform to the default (often a catch-22). Hint: it isn’t white college students.
The world is changing, and things that were acceptable just five years ago are now unacceptable. It costs white people nothing to take a moment and say “you know, most of us aren’t seriously into Rastafarianism and dreadlocks don’t currently have any heavy cultural symbolism for us so let’s just leave this fashion statement alone.”
But it seems for a lot of white cisgender males – including ones who are not bigots – that preserving a sense of entitlement under the guise of chin-stroking “all lives matter” concerns about a general attack on free expression and anti-white racism is more important than extending our privileges to everyone else.
I know that you and @urbanacus don’t intend to come across that way but that’s what’s coming across here (especially with all the goalpoast-shifting, nutpicking, whataboutism, etc). I’m a white cisgender male with privilege out the gazoo and I see it. I can only imagine how an African-American person would feel about your comments.
4 Likes
that’s why we have sumptuary laws. To prevent people from rising above their station.
1 Like
Except we don’t. this isn’t the Ottoman empire, after all.
1 Like
That’s an interesting way to look at the employment law about dreadlocks I linked above. It’s sort of a reverse sumptuary law aimed mainly at African-Americans saying “if you wear your hair this way you can lose your livelihood on that basis alone.”
3 Likes
Oh, that’s true. Black people, especially women, are often told in corporate environments that natural hairstyles are “unprofessional” and they shouldn’t wear their hair that way.
3 Likes
or spanish controlled Louisiana?
The spanish still control Louisiana?
The Tignon Law of 1786. What I want to know is when it was abolished.
You lost access to wikipedia?
1 Like
I’ll look. But there had better not be a hastily written addendum.
Yes, because that’s totally my style.
2 Likes
I hope that I have not come across as being anything but unconditionally supportive of Black people and other’s rights to wear whatever hairstyle they choose.
I guess I should have been clear that I have been reading about Black kids forced to cut their hair to attend school, and similar horrors. I see that as actual oppression and discrimination, which deserves to be fought against.
I see this topic as being about complaints of cultural appropriation, which I do feel is a different issue, on a much lower level of importance and impact. Disagreeing with someone’s views on appropriation should never be seen as endorsement of oppression.
I think that part of the big disconnect here is that some of us are looking at the claimed appropriation on it’s own, while others see it as permanently connected to historical oppression. it seems like a pretty deep ideological divide.
Regardless, the answer to the injustice of people prohibiting one group of people from doing something in the past is not made just by prohibiting (or even shaming) other people from doing it in the present.
It isn’t, really, because we’re talking about white people thoughtlessly appropriating hairstyles that bring down the discriminatory horrors you mention down upon the heads of African-Americans (in the past as well as currently) but not suffering the same consequences due to skin privilege. That lack of consequence leads to further thoughtlessness.
As I said above, I’m fine with shaming privilege-blind entitled doofuses of all kinds. I’m also fine with praising privileged people who are thoughtful, aware, and respectful when they borrow from other cultures. You’re apparently uncomfortable making such distinctions, so we’ll have to disagree.
3 Likes
Coming from a Black person, that “hope” is utterly in vain; just being completely frank.
4 Likes
