BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Politics of white adoption of dreadlocks

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
All Acting Regiment
14:34 / 19.10.06
So, having had some discussion IRL and noticed Haus's reference:

What about the college girls with the dream catcher, or the brand consolidator with dreadlocks? What, for that matter, about the feeling of slight nervousness so many middle-class white people seem to feel when a group of young black men is walking towards them.

...I'm interested in talking about white people who adopt the dreadlocks hairstyle. It would probably be best to get some basics down first. So, here's a nice chunky Wiki article, and here is a picture of the kind of hairstyle we're talking about:



I'll report the argument I was presenting in my real-life discussion. It was this: that when white people (by which I probably also mean middle class Europeans or Americans) wear the dreadlocks hairstyle, they are engaging in a form of (probably) unconcious racism.

That is, the whites are

i) taking a hairstyle which was adopted by blacks as a way of foregrounding and politicising the fact that tight curly hair does not suit European hairstyles (that is, the style of the empire, the dominator)- an act by the blacks of turning what could be a site for belittlement ("Your hair is wrong") into a site of resistance ("Our hair is natural, we are not wrong")

and

ii) by adopting this hairstyle whites are stripping it of it's specific cultural/resistance meaning(s) and turning it into a generalized, purely stylistic feature, i.e. they are not saying "I am adopting the style of a rastafarian from Jamaica circa 1960-present"/"I am adopting the style of a Hindu from India in the period XXXX"/"I am adopting the style of an Inca from the city of X", but "I am adopting a crazy hairstyle". Thus, with the erasure of specifics, the truths of the brutalities of colonization are also erased, and we end up with yet another false, generalized idea of an "ethnic" "other".

also

iii) it should be clarified that this isn't simply a case of adopting, say, a French beret or a Cowboy hat- because those two items do not lie on the other side of a still absolutely extant "power chasm", a massive social divide, in the same way that dreadlocks do. White people have the priviledge to pick and choose bits of other cultures to dress up in. This priviledge comes directly from theivery, murder and rape.

of course

iv) this probably doesn't mean that all the white people who adopt dreadlocks today are actually trying to be racist- many of the people who do take on the style are actively involved in, say, protest movements etc.

...for which I was roundly condemned. Some of these condemnations were of the "You are teh PC" brand which I discount, however some seemed more pertinent. For example, one of them was an accusation that I "did not want to see other cultures mixing".

Now this is not true at all- I think the Notting hill carnival is great, also the Hindu/Islamic festivals held throughout the UK, precisely because they are a place for mixing...surely this adoption of dreads is something rather different, in which one of the cultures, the one being taken from, is largely silenced? i.e. it is not mixing at all, but stealing?

I think this is an especially pertinent point w/regards to the actual specific way that modern white culture comes into the wearing of dreadlocks. There is a narrative from the late 70s/early 80s, I don't know how true, about John Lydon of PiL attending the Blue Parties in London where reggae/ska/dub were being played, and the band's subsequent conversion to the dreadlocked image and dub sound- this narrative, I feel, is, while not perfect, much, much healthier than what we see today, because in the PiL story the whites actually go into the black space and mix in some way with a contemporary black culture- see also this thread about The Slits- whereas, as a 2006 Uni student, I meet huge numbers of whites with dreads who have absolutely no link to contemporary black culture, who look down on hip-hop etc as inferior. Perhaps they listen to Bob Marley, but I don't think that counts at all, and as a rule they are much more likely to listen to some form of heavy metal.

Though this can only be anecdotal, I think it's possible to actually identify two rough separate groups of contemporary white dreadlock-wearers: the aforementioned protest/hippy types and then the nu-metal etc. type, the former being left-wing generally and the latter being largely unpoliticised or tending towards the right. Both are massively more likely to be middle-class and in either case you can usually see dreads being adopted as some kind of "statement" about a nebulous individuality/freedom (more often conceived of as being all about that one individual, of course) which is presumably descended from the collective racial politics of the dreadlocks and the afro mentioned upthread...though of course, generalised, depowered in many ways (for a start, a lot of these kids cut their dreads at 25 and get a sensible job in a bank).

So...given this simplified outline of my argument, do you think I was (mostly) right or wrong? When white people wear dreads, are they taking part in racism?
 
 
Supersister
15:00 / 19.10.06
On one level white people are participating in racism simply by being white within the current world order. Other than that I think it's ridiculous to claim that dreadlocks are a political statement about race in and of themselves, or that white people sporting them are being racist. If anything, they are being aspirational or supportive of black culture. More likely, they are making a statement about something along the lines of being anti-establishment or smoking pot.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:22 / 19.10.06
More likely, they are making a statement about something along the lines of being anti-establishment or smoking pot.

Don't you see that as slightly appalling? That dreadlocks are anti-establishment when they're a type of hairstyle that is very specific to a culture. Doesn't it deride an entire culture by claiming it as fundamentally anti-establishment or even anti-western and isn't that part of what Legba is trying to say? These people, who are within the establishment by way of their skin colour, use a perfectly normal culture and actively enforce it as anti-establishment by adopting a specific part of it to their own ends, thus shutting it out further.
 
 
Olulabelle
15:29 / 19.10.06
Rastafarians often wear dreadlocks because they believe that growing their hair is a kind of spiritual journey and because "using chemicals, combs and scissors are western practices". (Rastafarian.net)

There are some white people who are Rastafarians and who wear their hair in dreadlocks. How do they fit within your thories?
 
 
Ticker
15:49 / 19.10.06
well when I had dreadlocks they formed after having my hair beaded and tied, not directly in pursuit of dreads. I never went as far as putting lime in my hair but I always viewed it in terms of my Celtic ancestory. There was a shit ton of trinkets in my hair including a lot of spiritual items. Put into those conditions my hair dreaded.

When I wear my club extensions I associate the hairstyle with anime. When I've considered having dread extension put it it has always been in pursuit of a sci-fi image of myself.

The Hair Police do tours to put extensions in. You can see from these pics that different kids of people from various backgrounds are having them done.
spread the dread
 
 
nighthawk
16:17 / 19.10.06
So...given this simplified outline of my argument, do you think I was (mostly) right or wrong? When white people wear dreads, are they taking part in racism?

I'm inclined to say that it depends what you mean by 'racism'. If you're aim is to identify them as bad people, part of the problem, then no, you're wrong. Making a sweeping generalisation about a set of people displaying a particular characteristic will usually put you on quite shaky ground. It also tends to encourage a whole slew of counter-, and counter-counter-examples (what about situation F? what about situation G? etc), which gets quite dull after a while.

At best I think you're highilighting the fact that racism exists, and is so pervasive that it can affect something as apparently mundane as our choice of hairstyle. I'm using 'racism' in the sense outlined by many ravishing idperfections in this post here:

Once again: Racism is a system that keeps white people in power by disempowering people who are not white. It relies on prejudice, but it is not the same as prejudice. It relies on privilege, but it is not only privilege. It relies on white superiority, but not always overt white superiority. It divides nonwhite people into "good" people of color (who support the racial system and are sometimes rewarded) and "bad" people of color (who speak out against racism and are punished by being characterized as "angry," "deluded," "stupid," "lazy," or as dangerous traitors) in order to keep them from working together to overthrow it. It reacts to challenges sometimes by hate, sometimes by fear, sometimes by obfuscatory rationalism, sometimes by paternalism, sometimes by economic sanctions, sometimes by righteous indignation, sometimes by an imitation of wounded dignity. That is racism.

With that in mind, what exactly is the problem here? The fact that they are contradicting the assertion connected with dreadlocks re: European hair, and thus undermining the reason black people wore them? From your post I'm more inclined to think that its the lack of awareness about the political significance of dreadlocks that bothers you...

Its worth pointing out that this sort of argument could be applied to a whole range of things without too much distortion. Take Blues music, for example. Its origins are in black slavery. I doubt that every person who listens to the Blues could give a coherent account of the nature of slavery and its effects on society. I doubt that every musician playing the blues (or blues-influenced music) today explicitly connects its to its origin in racist oppression.

Does this make them 'racist'? I'm not sure. Claiming that knowledge is the important thing (I know all about old skool hip-hop, which is why I don't like this new stuff that is all about materialism and sex) can just as easily efface actual material differences, or what we're calling racism, as can sporting a particular hairstyle. In fact its all the more pernicious, because people are so sure that they're not doing this, that they are one of the good guys.

That's not to say one shouldn't recognise that racism exists, in the sense outlined by id: a system that keeps white people in power by disempowering people who are not white. This is reflected in the example we're talking about: that something originally intended to highlight racism can be stripped of its original significance without racism ceasing to exist. But by saying that white people who wear dreads are racist I think you risk turning this analysis into a sort of finger-pointing which is pretty unhelpful. I mean if someone is explicitly racist, criticise them; if someone persistently ignores the insidiousness of 'racism', criticise them. But we're talking about individuals there - I don't see how focusing on a set of people defined by their hairstyle and calling them racist is at all useful.
 
 
nighthawk
16:17 / 19.10.06
To put it crudely, its not what you know about racism that's important, its what you do about it. Wearing dreads does not, in general, prevent someone from being anti-racist in their daily praxis. I suppose one could envisage situations in which it might make sense not to wear dreads if one was white and concerned about racism, but I think the examples would all be very concrete and specific, far removed from the general assertion 'white person wearing dreads'='racist'.
 
 
grant
17:42 / 19.10.06
ii) by adopting this hairstyle whites are stripping it of it's specific cultural/resistance meaning(s) and turning it into a generalized, purely stylistic feature, i.e. they are not saying "I am adopting the style of a rastafarian from Jamaica circa 1960-present"

I'm not sure I buy this part of your argument. I think dreads get their cachet from association with Rastafarianism, or with general trends related to Rastafarianism (hair as spiritual, dreads as "natural," etc.)
 
 
Quantum
17:47 / 19.10.06
I notice that the (largely white) traveller community often have dreads and experience plenty of power asymmetry from the pointy end. That's not because they're middle class cultural appropriaters but perhaps because they don't have easy access to showers, and identify with a different group than rastafarians (protestors etc).
While I can certainly see where the first post comes from, a white traveller wearing dreads seems to me to have as much entitlement to them as a black reggae singer for example, and it wouldn't say much about their racism or lack of it. Is it only middle class people with white dreads that are accidentally racist? If so, why aren't black middle class people with dreads just as guilty?
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
19:38 / 19.10.06
And, just to confuse things further, what of people who aren't African/Afro-Carribean or White- a very large portion of the world in other words. Would the politics of Asian/Jewish/Oriental/Hispanic (or any other ethnicity you can think of, or any combination of the above) adoption of dreadlocks be any different, and if so why?
 
 
illmatic
11:15 / 20.10.06
GGAAHHH. Legba, could I just point out not every black person has the same set of reasons for having a certain type of haircut. Just 'cos someone has locks does not mean they are a rasta, or indeed a noble warrior engaged in the fight against Babylon. Perhaps people with black skin get a bit sick of having their motivations discussed and used as kind of cyphers in the Fight Against Racism? Some black people might, just might have locks for fashion or aesthetics, weirdly enough! Some black guys might have them so they can pull girls - perhaps white hippy chicks go for them.

I found in our opening post a hint of the kind of quality that white people sometimes project onto blacks, that just by not being white they are are engaged in an act of resistance. I think this is a kind of weird inverse racism, really. Any type of thinking that sees a diverse group of people as a simple statment or set of symbols to be read is a bit dodgy - particualry when this opinion is formed, as your seems to have been, without actually talking to any people of this grouping themselves, but by theorising about them.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:36 / 20.10.06
Hmm, yes, I used to have dreads and aping Rastas was never even on the agenda.
 
 
grant
15:29 / 20.10.06
Why'd you have them, then?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:46 / 20.10.06
Same reason as you'd have any haircut- practicality and aesthetics.

If I shave my head I'm not aping any trend among gay people or white supremacists. Growing it long doesn't mean I'm making light of the oppression of women. And so on.
 
 
grant
14:12 / 21.10.06
I think I'm more curious about what "aesthetics" means, here.
 
 
passer
15:23 / 21.10.06
While I can see the many problems with the initial post, I am not sure that you can dismiss the racial component of dreads out hand. And by extension, I think the ramification of the adoption of them by white is worth a discussion

Going natural is a big deal for most black people, particularly women, in racist societies. The permanence of dreads makes them an especially tough decision since in order to get rid of them you have to shave your head, which raises issues of both racial and feminine beauty standards. A quick glance at a few websites dedicated to natural black hair should readily illuminate the stress and pressure black women feel about the decision to abandon “white” beauty standards.

The introduction to nappturality reads,

The reason [this website] is limited to [natural] hairtype[s] is because we have found that it is the hairtype most feared and vilified in our community. It's the only hairtype we can't stay natural with for long with if we "fear the 'fro" (thanks to Taritac & LBellatrix for that term). Napptural hair is the type labeled "bad", nappy hair that needs to be "fixed."

“Black” hair is a huge issue. Some work places actually write policy that discriminates against traditionally black hairstyle and many people consider them “unprofessional.”

I will admit that my reaction to white dreads is inherently racist because I quite unfairly associate “white” dreads with being dirty and remain skeptical of its naturalness for “white” hair. However, I think the more interesting observation is that the same stereotypes apply for the hairstyle across races, but receives some unfortunate oomph from the preexisting stereotypes about blacks when applied to black people with natural hair that isn’t there for whites. Of course, this is offset by the many the stereotypes about the hippy/Rastafarian/metal head so perhaps it all evens out in the wash.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
15:48 / 21.10.06
I'm using "aesthetics" in the simplest way, really- I just think they make a nice shape on the head.

(Mind you, at the time I was a tree-hugging road-protesting committing-acts-of-public-disorder crusty, so there was probably a social grouping issue there as well).

Oh, I'm not saying there's no racial component to the style- just that there doesn't always have to be.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
12:40 / 22.10.06
Just to answer some points:

Anna: Don't you see that as slightly appalling? That dreadlocks are anti-establishment when they're a type of hairstyle that is very specific to a culture. Doesn't it deride an entire culture by claiming it as fundamentally anti-establishment or even anti-western and isn't that part of what Legba is trying to say?

Yes, this is probably the major part of what I'm trying to say.

There are some white people who are Rastafarians and who wear their hair in dreadlocks. How do they fit within your theories?

Probably in the same way that white Buddhists do- I mean, generally when you've got whites adopting foreign/"other" religions some are genuinely involved (some of our temple folk for example) and dedicated, in which case the dreadlocks wearing would seem to be fair enough as part of that person's religion. Other whites seem to be, for want of a better phrase, falling victim to another case of, very crudely, "dressing up as one of those crazy foreign types".

Questions still need to be asked in the case of the "genuine white rastafari convert" though. Firstly about how white people find out about, how they access, all these other religions in the first place- i.e. it's all very well saying "I worship the Aztec gods" but the fact is our relationship with that religion is one of conquest and domination- the white freedom to choose to e.g. worship Aztec gods is a result of knowledge which itself is a direct result of our having murdered and Christianised those people and stealing their books and artefacts. Same goes for nearly all other religions I can think of. So the "acess routes", the points at which we touch the other, are wounds, and I think this is often forgotten.

Secondly, I wonder, as part of questioning to what extent these religions are being adopted as an aesthetic thing, why there are so many white Buddhists/Rastafarians/Taoists but so few white Muslims or Hindus- I mean- what's going on there? In the context of contemporary Britain, I worry, I really do, that Buddhism or Rastafari is chosen because it means getting kudos for, and enjoyment from, owning "other" knowledge without having to actually go to a mosque or temple with real people-who-are-different-to-you. It means you can enjoy a pleasing sense of your having individuality and an open-mind whilst being able to avoid any actual mixing with, and opening the self to, making the self vulnerable to, the "other".

An American example could be someone who says, in all seriousness and respect, that they worship a Native American figure of some kind, but who never actually goes and talks to any Native Americans; or who again in all seriousness and respect claims to follow the Mayan religion without actually travelling to Mexico or having any contact at all with the few remaining Maya.

Again, the process is turning a communal identity/group of ideas and physical practices, that is made by a certain community and is of that community, some would say inseparable from it (see India/Indra/Hindu/Indus), into something individual and intellectual...something you do in your nice big house with all your material goods around you...and then claiming that what you've got is the same as the original...and the power to do this, the power to make these changes, comes from white priviledge...

What all this comes to is, is a white person choosing to adopt Rasta making a genuine religious conversion, if there is such a thing, or are they simply going along with conditions and pathways set up by the empire/colonialism?

That is, is it really their choice to go Rasta or is it rather that a) they are in a position where they can easily acess and take from that culture and where b) it means not having to mix with the "other-culture", and thus not really challenge the ideology of "self-culture", in the same way that e.g. Islam would{1}?

So...that's how problematic I find even a "serious" white adoption of Rasta. You can perhaps see why I think things get even more traumatic when the dreadlocks are taken in isolation. I know that's not really told you very much concrete about how white rastas "fit into my theories", but it's the best I can do.

GGAAHHH. Legba, could I just point out not every black person has the same set of reasons for having a certain type of haircut.

Absolutely, but at what stage did I ever deny this?

I'm inclined to say that it depends what you mean by 'racism'. If you're aim is to identify them as bad people, part of the problem, then no, you're wrong.

Well, I'm expressly not trying to identify anyone as bad, and certainly not trying to identify myself as any better. I'm trying to interrogate a certain practice. It's not the only dodgy practice, and I partake in others as bad if not worse- a lot of my clothes were made in sweat-shops, for example, but also, I've been calling myself Legba Rex on here, and, having researched this topic, I intend to change it.

I'm not trying to demonise white dread-wearers, in fact as I said a large group of them seem to people who have the right ideas generally...it's often an attempt to move towards an other, to deconstruct a white/self-priviledge/set of assumptions...I just think there are probably better ways of doing it, ways that involve genuine mixing instead of tokenism...

{1}I mean in terms of context, not religious character. Am not saying that any religion is within itself more challenging/enlightening than any other.
 
 
nighthawk
13:32 / 22.10.06
What all this comes to is, is a white person choosing to adopt Rasta making a genuine religious conversion, if there is such a thing, or are they simply going along with conditions and pathways set up by the empire/colonialism?

I still don't see this. Where does this pure subject position come from, unsullied by the racist/colonial past? Sometimes you seem to be saying that genuine knowledge of another culture might allow a person to escape 'racism'; here you're saying its, what, genuine faith?

I'm not really disagreeing with you , I'm just not clear what you mean when you call this practice 'racist', and then try to draw distinctions between its different forms. You say you're not trying to identify people as bad, but you also seem to be moralising your examples: people are adopting religions for purely aesthetic reasons, they're not being serious enough about it, they don't want to put in the hard work, etc.

I think part of what's bothering me is that I see some sort of 'lifestylism' implicit in the way you're discussing this - as though not having dreadlocks, or not being a buddhist, was an anti-racist act, a way of escaping 'racism'*. Its one thing to recognise that things like 'racism' shape both our history and our society, and so determine what any particular individual can do. But that's not the same as making broad characterisations of particular groups of people (white people having dreadlocks is 'racist'; black people having dreadlocks is anti-racist), or imagining individuals who manage to evade 'racism' because of what they know, or what they believe, or who they go they go for a drink with at the end of the day.

I guess I'm asking whether by marking out these people as 'racist' you're differentiating them from other people, who presumably aren't affected by 'racism' in the same way. If you're not, is there any particular reason for highlighting dreadlocks as a particular issue, beyond the general point that 'racism' has shaped history and continues to shape society today (affecting something as mundane as the sort of hairstyles we are able to have)?


*I keep enclosing racism with speech marks to highlight the fact that I'm talking about it in terms of the definition I borrowed from id's post, not as a straight-foward predicate characterising an individual, as in 'Jill from the BNP is racist'.
 
 
Olulabelle
16:12 / 22.10.06
Many societies have a culture that has aspects which are borrowed and shaped, and I suppose stolen, from other cultures. Yes it is true that our white Christian ancestors colonised places and destroyed their cultures and it's impossible to go back and change that. British people have input from all over the world because of our history and I think it's alright to acknowledge and respect that whilst also acknowledging and respecting that our ancestors behaved appalllingly in the past.

I think partly this crosses over into multiculturalism doesn't it, and perhaps what the definition of that is? If a white person is wearing dreadlocks in some ways they could be seen as being a good example of living succesfully in a multiculturalist society such as ours is (supposed to be). Britain in this century is quite a jigsaw of cultures and this reflects in the British people. At the Buddhist centre here in Birmingham where I sometimes go to a yoga class quite a lot of the practicing Buddhists are white; white people who are not just 'sitting in their big houses being Buddhist'but people who are actively involved with the Buddhist community. The white lady with dreadlocks who lives down the road from me is a Rastafarian, is married to a black Rastafarian and together they live a Rastafarian lifestyle.

Perhaps people who adopt another culture's lifestyle and religion do so more out of respect and an agreement with the sentiment of that religion rather than as aesthetics?

Because of some of the things you say I am wondering if perhaps you have more issues with white people adopting religions from other cultures in general rather than the specific issue of dreadlocks? Perhaps your perception of these people is skewed (rather than the people themselves), and because of that you have a negative reaction to white people wearing dreadlocks?
 
 
Lurid Archive
18:46 / 22.10.06
Questions still need to be asked in the case of the "genuine white rastafari convert" though. - Allecto Regina

I'm still not clear on why they need to be asked. Somehow, a caricature of what you are saying is that if an Estonian takes a deep interest in Aztec religion or history, then they need to be aware of the history of Spanish and Portuguese oppression, because otherwise they are doing something "dodgy". I have to say that this borders on the nonsensical to me. "Our" relationship with the Aztecs, say, is one of conquest and domination. Where the "we" here, from what I get out of what you are saying is anyone who isn't foreign and other (which also makes almost no sense to me).

So every culture has a history of immorality, war, torture and so on. I think I need it explained more clearly to me why some of these need to be highlighted and treated differently, and why we need to be so essentialist about cultural practice (or, as I think you mean, essentialist about cultures that you don't think are "foreign").
 
 
All Acting Regiment
10:35 / 23.10.06
Yeah, all my arguments are very floaty and, I think, quite indefensible in the parts you've highlighted. It's obviously silly to put barriers between cultures and lay down laws about what people can and can't do...surely, though, it's not unreasonable to try and work towards some kind of sensitivity in an area like this, and sensitivity around white dreads isn't something I see a lot among peers. Doubtless we know people who buck that trend.
 
 
redtara
20:30 / 23.10.06
If the issue is (mis)appropriation and consumption of religious sybolism of one culture by another then the example could be widened to include the use of eastern deities by the hippy trail crew on t-shirts and ficsuits - you know who you are!

If the issue is just the commingling of cultures then that is something else again and leads us right back into identity politics and how people define themselves. Do you have to be black skinned to have a black identity? Who dicides this?
 
 
Lurid Archive
20:59 / 23.10.06
it's not unreasonable to try and work towards some kind of sensitivity in an area like this, and sensitivity around white dreads isn't something I see a lot among peers.

Well, I'm all for sensitivity, though I'd prefer to be sure that this was something of genuine concern to people at some sharp end here, otherwise one risks indulging some kind of liberal guilt.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:20 / 23.10.06
Yeah- I grew mine for a decade, and nobody seemed to take offence. Well, except my mum, but that doesn't count.

Interestingly, among my peers "white dreads" seemed to have their own sense of propriety and authenticity- fake dreads were looked down on. Sure, you could have coloured extensions mixed in with your dreads, but your actual dreads had to be real, or you "hadn't made the effort" and were "cheating". And, I guess, taking the piss out of the "real" crusties. (For the record, mine were real, and I could sit on them, but I did have a couple of purple and orange extensions stitched in for variety).
 
 
redtara
22:30 / 23.10.06
I find it difficult to engage in a conversation about policing the boundaries between cultures. It seems so bizare that muslims are harried to intergrate while the white population is policed from appropriating aspects of other cultures. How is that supposed to work?

My kids are mixed race. I wont ascribe them a fraction, how black do you need to be to be black? Two of my kids have darker skin and a birth mark at the base of their spines that I am reliably informed signafies black family members. My other kid is all peaches and cream, light brown hair and no birth mark.

Are my darker haired and skinned kids more black? Will my paler kid have to justify any desire to visibly express the black side of his heritige to every cultural policeperson, from all backgrounds and communities. Hell yes! Is the converse true of my visibly darker kids? Does any of this matter?

I've just spent the last half an hour trying to hunt down a copy of Liverpool's Black History Month mag. There are a couple of articles in there by mixed race people (of which, localy, there are more than you can shake a stick at) who talk about the judgements made by all communities that leaves mixed race people communityless. Too white to be black, too black to be white. 'Look at them trying to be....' (complete as appropriate).

Lurid, I'll pick one up tomorrow and be back just for you.
 
 
redtara
09:01 / 24.10.06
Here we go Lurid, A quote from a person of mixed race, in Liverpool Diverse Magazine's Black History Month edition.

I'm black and I'm brown and I'm a brother and I'm Indian and I'm Jewish and I'm Muslim. White people have told me I'm white, too; after all I went to Oxford and talk properly, don't I? Wherever I go, I can fit in. So I'm everything. But I'm nothing. I fit in, but I'm never at home. I'm Jewish, but I don't practice, and I'm about as unlike your average north London Jew as it's possible to get.

So talk of 'people from ethnic minority communities' makes me feel a bit left out. I don't spring from a community. I'm not alone either. Among my friends I count a woman who is half-Zimbabwean, Half-English; another half-Filipino, half-German Brit; a guy who is half-Dutch, half-Nigerian; and so on. All of us have complex identities.

Raphael Mozades

I can't help but feel that policing the boundaries in our increasingly, wonderfully hybridised world, is a waste of everyones energy. There are no circumstances that one can proscribe for as each individual has a unique experience of identity and culture. If someone is stupid enough to appropriate culture without any understanding of it's broader significance then more fool them.
 
 
illmatic
14:34 / 24.10.06
Absolutely, but at what stage did I ever deny this?

Um, here.

a hairstyle which was adopted by blacks as a way of foregrounding and politicising the fact that tight curly hair does not suit European hairstyles ...)- an act by the blacks of turning what could be a site for belittlement ... into a site of resistance.

... by putting this forward this as the "correct" reading, and then basing an arguemnt on it. It really bothers me, as your picking up an cultural pheomena with many potential readings, and a diverse and interesting history and then simplifying and caricturing it, for the purposes of shoring up your own anti-racist sentiments and winning arguments with your white counterparts.

As I said above which you seem to have avoided reading Perhaps people with black skin get a bit sick of having their motivations discussed and used as kind of cyphers in the Fight Against Racism.

As Passer says “Black” hair is a huge issue, and I'd be wrong to shut down discusssion. Hir link clearly indicates the degree to which natural hair is a problematic and political issue within black communities, and is well worth a read.

However, I still feel deeply uncomfortable with the way you phrased your arguments here. I find that they show the opposite of the sensitivty that you're stating that you wish to work towards.

For instance: why there are so many white Buddhists/Rastafarians/Taoists but so few white Muslims or Hindus- I mean- what's going on there?

How many white rastas have you met, dude? Do you actually know any? In terms of people who actually profess it as a religion? Enough to stand in judgement over their motivations? You seem to be blurring this category with people who've picked up the haircut alone.
 
 
Supersister
15:12 / 24.10.06
I found in our opening post a hint of the kind of quality that white people sometimes project onto blacks, that just by not being white they are are engaged in an act of resistance. I think this is a kind of weird inverse racism, really.

This is what I wanted to say, thanks for putting it into words. I think this is core to racism, the subversive, patronising kind. Just one observation - why do you refer to 'white people' but then refer to 'blacks'? If we are talking about avoiding racism, this use of language grates a little with me.

Don't you think this is slightly appalling?[white people with dreads saying they are anti-establishment or smoke pot]
Well the comment was meant to be light-hearted, but no I don't. I think it reflects a reality. I would hope never to be appalled by a hairstyle when there is so much else to be appalled about.

Others have said it better than me, but I agree that it is misguided in the first place to say that dreadlocks are primarily a statement about race when in fact, if you are talking about rastafarianism, dreads are an outward expression of religious and political belief. I'm not saying that race isn't connected to religion and politics, particularly for rastafarians, but it is vital not to confuse these matters. In fact, it is racist to confuse them.

And, as has been pointed out, many may choose to grow their hair this way for the same reasons as rastafarians, without necessarily having any of the other religious or political beliefs, or purely because they like the way it looks. If a white person's hair does this trick too, how can it possibly be racist?

may also have things to say about race, which is what makes it confusing and illogical to say that it follows that if it is sported by a certain race, this is racist.
 
 
Future Perfect
15:15 / 24.10.06
For instance: why there are so many white Buddhists/Rastafarians/Taoists but so few white Muslims or Hindus- I mean- what's going on there?

This is also not quite true. I know it was in 2001, but at the last census in the UK at least for example, 0.1% of people identifying themselves as White European also identified themselves as Buddhist. The same proportion, 0.1%, of White Europeans identified themselves as Muslims.

Lots more here about the religion and ethnicity profile of the UK if anyone wants to have a look at the figures.
 
 
*
15:18 / 24.10.06
The issue of exoticization and commodification of evidence of other people's identities is interesting to me, and I'm glad it's been brought up here. We can attack the generalizations about white rastas or about black hairstyles, but I think it is significant to notice that, generally speaking, white people experience locks in a different way than black people do. White people sometimes lift the external manifestation of a cultural practice and adopt it as a stylistic or aesthetic element, or to express our* "solidarity" with people whom, frequently, we don't actually understand very well. Understanding that this springs out of racial privilege is important to me. We get to borrow freely from other cultures and even, in certain circles, get cool points for doing so. In fact, people who point out that there is racial and cultural significance behind our commodification and exoticization can be pretty vigorously denounced—Our activities are supposed to be free of racial significance. For many people of color, ALL their activities tend to be loaded with racial significance by white observers.

(*I'm using first person plural to make it clear that I'm speaking out of my experiences as a white person, not to us-themify the entire discourse.)
 
 
illmatic
15:21 / 24.10.06
Just one observation - why do you refer to 'white people' but then refer to 'blacks'? If we are talking about avoiding racism, this use of language grates a little with me.

Sorry, my bad. I wrote the post a few days ago but can't clearly remember what the reason was, or indeed if there was one beyond thoughtlessness.
 
 
Lurid Archive
00:16 / 25.10.06
White people sometimes lift the external manifestation of a cultural practice and adopt it as a stylistic or aesthetic element, or to express our* "solidarity" with people whom, frequently, we don't actually understand very well. - id

I'm going to start a thread about this in a day or two, but I'd like to say for now that it isn't just white people (if you want to accept that oddly inconsistent category) who do this. Also, if white people were to *not* do this, it would also be, arguably, an expression of racial privilege. Certainly, avoiding other cultures, or at least refusing to engage with them except in deep, thoughtful, sensitive ways seems to me to be the epitome of racial privilege.

I guess I'm saying that once you accept "racial privilege" as a fact of existence which is pretty much universal for "white" people, then there isn't much content to saying that such-and-such a practice is an expression of said privilege. I may be misunderstanding the issue here, but I'd repeat that I'd feel a lot happier if someone personally explained their opposition to this particular supposed cultural exchange, rather than it being done on their behalf.

(Thanks redtara, I thought that was interesting.)
 
 
All Acting Regiment
11:20 / 25.10.06
The issue of exoticization and commodification of evidence of other people's identities is interesting to me, and I'm glad it's been brought up here. We can attack the generalizations about white rastas or about black hairstyles, but I think it is significant to notice that, generally speaking, white people experience locks in a different way than black people do. White people sometimes lift the external manifestation of a cultural practice and adopt it as a stylistic or aesthetic element, or to express our* "solidarity" with people whom, frequently, we don't actually understand very well. Understanding that this springs out of racial privilege is important to me. We get to borrow freely from other cultures and even, in certain circles, get cool points for doing so. In fact, people who point out that there is racial and cultural significance behind our commodification and exoticization can be pretty vigorously denounced—Our activities are supposed to be free of racial significance. For many people of color, ALL their activities tend to be loaded with racial significance by white observers.

(*I'm using first person plural to make it clear that I'm speaking out of my experiences as a white person, not to us-themify the entire discourse.)

Yeah, this pretty much sums up what I was trying to say.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
23:41 / 25.10.06
I can't help but feel that policing the boundaries in our increasingly, wonderfully hybridised world, is a waste of everyones energy. There are no circumstances that one can proscribe for as each individual has a unique experience of identity and culture. If someone is stupid enough to appropriate culture without any understanding of it's broader significance then more fool them.

Hear, hear.

---

Something that saddens me about this sort of discussion is the frequent attribution of blame to people for the (presumed) deeds of their ancestors. It appears (to my poor eyes) that this is a grievous generalisation. Particularly, when applied to the various brutalities of (white / hispanic) colonialism, it attributes blame broadly to the entire (white / hispanic) race, and does not consider the then-current divisions of power within those races. To blame some poor bugger in a cotton mill (insert any disempowered person here) for oppressing India (insert wherever or whoever the empowered people were busy fucking over here), say, seems a poor thing to do. To blame the descendants of that person - to attribute to them an ongoing guilt - seems a stranger thing. To generalise that guilt across an entire race seems highly dubious. There is and has been guilt; there are and have been guilty people, there are and have been guilty sections of societies and nations; but they are not, I think, simple enough to be treated as race vs race, neither directly (your white/whatever ancestors did such-and-such) or indirectly (white/whatever people did such-and-such, you are white/whatever, you are benefitting from what they did, because you and they are white/whatever you share some communal guilt). It's just, well, not complicated enough.

---

Personally, I keep my hair as short as possible. It's the only haircut I can reliably perform myself.
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply