Those have nothing to do with cultural appropriation. It’s false attribution. Only the privileged are able to culturally appropriate since it’s taking from another culture and adopting it, transforming it as something beneficial or customary in the privileged culture but demean the original individuals in the culture.
Braids are a classic example. Blacks have been refused jobs based on this hair style (and schools have sent children home because of it) yet it is celebrated by whites as some nouveau hairstyle.
Depends on the person it suits some better than others, culturally as long as you don't fuck up (which is pretty easy) I don't see a problem with it. However I wonder if it won't break some types of hair... I'm more into box braids.
Dreadlocks look absolutely hideous on white people. It's like putting a mop on your head. I can't explain it, but it just looks a lot less crappy on darker-skinned people.
If they can get it to lock properly I don’t c y not. A lot of people I have seen with dreads don’t seem to take care of them and they end up looking like crackheads.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
of course they can. The earliest known examples of dreadlocks are from the Minoans- a group of people depicted in paintings from the time in Greece... as white! Julius Caesar also famously commented on the German people "having hair like snakes" which is an obvious reference to dreadlocks. Anybody that tries to tell you dreadlocks are only allowed to be worn by certain skin types is a racist. It's just that simple.
They can but they look dumb lol. Having said that i wore them once and painted my nails to match my basketball uniform ( just try to keep in mind this, was the Dennis Rodman era and try not to judge me too harshly lol).
Regardless of fashion, you gotta let a person do as he or she pleases. It's not cultural appropriation for simply copying a hairstyle. Monkey see, monkey do.
Plus: the "tighter" dreadlocks, if I remember correctly, are of Nordic origin.
There is literally a law being passed in some states prohibiting the discrimination of black women who wear their natural hair. So yes, there is a law prohibiting US for wearing dreads and not white people.
@Rina_colada You mean prohibiting the discrimination of *exclusively* black women with natural hair, while discrimination of black women with dreads is legal? Also, discrimination in what context? Hiring? College admissions? Which state? And are you sure you're not mistaking a bill for a law?
If this is even real, and you're not mischaracterizing it, my guess is that it's merely a bill. There are roughly 5,000 bills proposed per year, and only 5% of them become law. There was once a bill proposed in Oklahoma that would formally ban food that contained human fetuses. Was that actually happening? No, but ya know... just in case. My point is, there are A LOT of stupid ass bills proposed. It's not exactly newsworthy. If it becomes law, then we'll talk.
You do realize dreads are a natural hairstyle correct? The fact that this had to go through any type of legislation should let you know that WE are being discriminated for wearing our hair in a natural state. And discrimination everywhere. Especially in the work place. People have literally lost jobs because they wore their hair natural or in some type of protective style. Meanwhile a white person could wear it and no one bats an eye.
@Rina_colada Could you please share the specific case/bill/law or whatever you are referencing? I am literally unable to weigh in until I know what the hell you're talking about.
@Rina_colada That's not how debates work, honey. If you're going to make an assertion, you need to provide the reference it's based on. Otherwise, nobody can even know for sure that they're arguing about the same thing.
"It’s enforce in New York City and California." Well that's a start. Now I at least know what you're talking about. However, you have it flipped. NY and California are the only 2 states that have a formal ban on workplace discrimination based on hairstyle.
Your initial claim that "there is a law prohibiting black people from wearing dreads" is extremely incorrect. Presumably, what you might be complaining about is the lack of laws prohibiting employers from not hiring candidates/firing existing employees for their hair styles. To which I would disagree. I believe an employer should have the right to terminate an employee or reject a candidate at any time, for any reason. If the reason is illegitimate, the labor market will put the employer out of business because nobody will want to work for them. State intervention is not only unnecessary, but wrong, on account of making employment contracts involuntary. They should remain voluntary, else you cede the authority to the state restrict or compel employees just as much as it does to employers.
I’m not debating you. I’m telling you this is what is going on. My oppression is not up for discussion. If you chose to be willfully ignorant that sounds like a personal problem. Black people get kicked out of schools, fired from jobs, not able to walk on our own graduations, etc. because we decide to wear our hair the way it grows from our scalp.
@Rina_colada Public school is different. Attending a public school is not a voluntary contract, because attending *a* school is made mandatory via truancy laws, and because you are taxed to fund the public school in your district and cannot obtain a voucher to redirect those funds to a public school in another district or private school, you don't have the choice to simply go attend another school, without paying tuition on top of being taxed, (unlike employment where you are not forced to work for one employer, and can choose any employer you like).
As for private college/university, they should have the right to turn away applicants for any reason, uphold any dress/presentation codes on campus they deem fit. However, they ought be transparent about their policies. I would be inclined to agree that if you attended a university for 4 years, obtained your degree, and nobody ever mentioned their policy on hairstyle, for them to suddenly not allow you to walk at graduation would be a violation of contract if that was not a part of the initial agreement. And if it was, that's on you for not thoroughly reading the contract. And in this case, there is nothing compelling you to attend any 1 university, so if you don't like their policies, you can always opt for another.
My point on the first part was that until public school is abolished or school vouchers are implemented, I would support anti-discrimination laws in public schools, and in public schools only. However, public school should be abolished anyway.
It doesn’t matter. Having policies that tell black people they can’t wear their hair how it naturally grows out their scalp in schools, jobs, internships, anywhere is anti-black and racist. No matter how you spin it. This isn’t up for debate. You don’t have the license to tell me what is or isn’t racist or anti-black.
@Rina_colada That's the thing, there are no policies that dictate how black people wear their hair. Private entities cannot compel anyone to do anything. All they can do is reject a contract with you if you refuse the terms of the contract. And it is everyone's natural right to reject any contract for any reason. Only the state can compel. State intervention = compulsion. No state intervention = no compulsion. If they reject the contract based on race, that is wrong, and they deserve to be put out of business--by the labor market (NOT the state).
Not to mention that these policies are not what you claim them to be in the first place. They are not discrimination against race. They are discrimination against "x", "y", or "z" hairstyle, and anyone of any race can have any hairstyle. You could argue that such discrimination inadvertently disproportionately affects black individuals because the hairstyles in question happen to be more common among them. And if so, it is your natural right to take your money elsewhere, and expose the individual/business on social media so that a large number of people follow suit.
And lastly, EVERYTHING is "up for debate". Claiming anything is "not up for debate" is extremely authoritarian and unacceptable. You don't have the license to decide what is and isn't "up for debate" nor the license to define racism at your convenience. Everyone is equally qualified to define racism. Arguing that one's race qualifies or disqualifies one from defining racism, is in itself racism.
Girl, I’m not gonna argue with you about what’s discriminatory towards me and other black folks. Clearly it’s not happening to other races because it’s OUR hairstyles along with pictures of black girls and boys with that hairstyle. And no, we should have to struggle to find a school or a job because schools and companies want to have racist policies. But you’re too privileged to see how that affects us. Sorry you’re too dense to have this conversation.
You made no valid points tho. All you did is was talk shit and try to undermine what Black people experience with bullshit “logic”. You really thought you was doing something.
@Rina_colada Not once did I mention anything about the experiences of black people, and presumably neither did the policies being discussed. This discussion is about hairstyle. You made it about race.
ANYONE can wear dreadlocks including white people, it's rightfully their hair and they can do whatever they want to it. My only problem is that most white people can't pull it off, it usually ends up looking like a dirty mop.
Lol, another one sweating hate. As I said to someone else here, don't try to use the race card on me, it doesn't work. You'll have to find real arguments, not just shout "white people bad".
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
86Opinion
i see people from other cultures straightening their hair, getting coloured contact lenses and dying their hair blond, so why not?
Those have nothing to do with cultural appropriation. It’s false attribution. Only the privileged are able to culturally appropriate since it’s taking from another culture and adopting it, transforming it as something beneficial or customary in the privileged culture but demean the original individuals in the culture.
Braids are a classic example. Blacks have been refused jobs based on this hair style (and schools have sent children home because of it) yet it is celebrated by whites as some nouveau hairstyle.
Big difference.
Depends on the person it suits some better than others, culturally as long as you don't fuck up (which is pretty easy) I don't see a problem with it.
However I wonder if it won't break some types of hair... I'm more into box braids.
Dreadlocks look absolutely hideous on white people. It's like putting a mop on your head. I can't explain it, but it just looks a lot less crappy on darker-skinned people.
If they can get it to lock properly I don’t c y not. A lot of people I have seen with dreads don’t seem to take care of them and they end up looking like crackheads.
of course they can. The earliest known examples of dreadlocks are from the Minoans- a group of people depicted in paintings from the time in Greece... as white! Julius Caesar also famously commented on the German people "having hair like snakes" which is an obvious reference to dreadlocks. Anybody that tries to tell you dreadlocks are only allowed to be worn by certain skin types is a racist. It's just that simple.
Let’s not forget that black women try to look white with their hair a lot more than white women do Afros or dreads...
I'm white and I find it cringe worthy when I see other white folk with them. Looks awful, and a bit grubby on white folk.
They can but they look dumb lol. Having said that i wore them once and painted my nails to match my basketball uniform ( just try to keep in mind this, was the Dennis Rodman era and try not to judge me too harshly lol).
They can wear dreadlocks, but it typically doesn't look good. On Caucasian people, it just looks dirty... And very unnatural.
Regardless of fashion, you gotta let a person do as he or she pleases. It's not cultural appropriation for simply copying a hairstyle. Monkey see, monkey do.
Plus: the "tighter" dreadlocks, if I remember correctly, are of Nordic origin.
You can do what you want but to me dreadlocks are gross on anyone.
I don't care if you wear them or not, but in my opinion most of the time (easily 90%) they just look trashy and gross.
Its like everything really, try them out... see if it suits you or not.
Well there is no law prohibiting it, and I personally don't see anything morally wrong with it. That said, dreadlocks are gross and ugly (on anyone).
There is literally a law being passed in some states prohibiting the discrimination of black women who wear their natural hair. So yes, there is a law prohibiting US for wearing dreads and not white people.
@Rina_colada You mean prohibiting the discrimination of *exclusively* black women with natural hair, while discrimination of black women with dreads is legal? Also, discrimination in what context? Hiring? College admissions? Which state? And are you sure you're not mistaking a bill for a law?
If this is even real, and you're not mischaracterizing it, my guess is that it's merely a bill. There are roughly 5,000 bills proposed per year, and only 5% of them become law. There was once a bill proposed in Oklahoma that would formally ban food that contained human fetuses. Was that actually happening? No, but ya know... just in case. My point is, there are A LOT of stupid ass bills proposed. It's not exactly newsworthy. If it becomes law, then we'll talk.
You do realize dreads are a natural hairstyle correct? The fact that this had to go through any type of legislation should let you know that WE are being discriminated for wearing our hair in a natural state. And discrimination everywhere. Especially in the work place. People have literally lost jobs because they wore their hair natural or in some type of protective style. Meanwhile a white person could wear it and no one bats an eye.
@Rina_colada Could you please share the specific case/bill/law or whatever you are referencing? I am literally unable to weigh in until I know what the hell you're talking about.
Girl, you can google it. I don’t owe you an explanation. It’s enforce in New York City and California.
@Rina_colada That's not how debates work, honey. If you're going to make an assertion, you need to provide the reference it's based on. Otherwise, nobody can even know for sure that they're arguing about the same thing.
"It’s enforce in New York City and California." Well that's a start. Now I at least know what you're talking about. However, you have it flipped. NY and California are the only 2 states that have a formal ban on workplace discrimination based on hairstyle.
Your initial claim that "there is a law prohibiting black people from wearing dreads" is extremely incorrect. Presumably, what you might be complaining about is the lack of laws prohibiting employers from not hiring candidates/firing existing employees for their hair styles. To which I would disagree. I believe an employer should have the right to terminate an employee or reject a candidate at any time, for any reason. If the reason is illegitimate, the labor market will put the employer out of business because nobody will want to work for them. State intervention is not only unnecessary, but wrong, on account of making employment contracts involuntary. They should remain voluntary, else you cede the authority to the state restrict or compel employees just as much as it does to employers.
I’m not debating you. I’m telling you this is what is going on. My oppression is not up for discussion. If you chose to be willfully ignorant that sounds like a personal problem. Black people get kicked out of schools, fired from jobs, not able to walk on our own graduations, etc. because we decide to wear our hair the way it grows from our scalp.
@Rina_colada Public school is different. Attending a public school is not a voluntary contract, because attending *a* school is made mandatory via truancy laws, and because you are taxed to fund the public school in your district and cannot obtain a voucher to redirect those funds to a public school in another district or private school, you don't have the choice to simply go attend another school, without paying tuition on top of being taxed, (unlike employment where you are not forced to work for one employer, and can choose any employer you like).
As for private college/university, they should have the right to turn away applicants for any reason, uphold any dress/presentation codes on campus they deem fit. However, they ought be transparent about their policies. I would be inclined to agree that if you attended a university for 4 years, obtained your degree, and nobody ever mentioned their policy on hairstyle, for them to suddenly not allow you to walk at graduation would be a violation of contract if that was not a part of the initial agreement. And if it was, that's on you for not thoroughly reading the contract. And in this case, there is nothing compelling you to attend any 1 university, so if you don't like their policies, you can always opt for another.
My point on the first part was that until public school is abolished or school vouchers are implemented, I would support anti-discrimination laws in public schools, and in public schools only. However, public school should be abolished anyway.
It doesn’t matter. Having policies that tell black people they can’t wear their hair how it naturally grows out their scalp in schools, jobs, internships, anywhere is anti-black and racist. No matter how you spin it. This isn’t up for debate. You don’t have the license to tell me what is or isn’t racist or anti-black.
@Rina_colada That's the thing, there are no policies that dictate how black people wear their hair. Private entities cannot compel anyone to do anything. All they can do is reject a contract with you if you refuse the terms of the contract. And it is everyone's natural right to reject any contract for any reason. Only the state can compel. State intervention = compulsion. No state intervention = no compulsion. If they reject the contract based on race, that is wrong, and they deserve to be put out of business--by the labor market (NOT the state).
Not to mention that these policies are not what you claim them to be in the first place. They are not discrimination against race. They are discrimination against "x", "y", or "z" hairstyle, and anyone of any race can have any hairstyle. You could argue that such discrimination inadvertently disproportionately affects black individuals because the hairstyles in question happen to be more common among them. And if so, it is your natural right to take your money elsewhere, and expose the individual/business on social media so that a large number of people follow suit.
And lastly, EVERYTHING is "up for debate". Claiming anything is "not up for debate" is extremely authoritarian and unacceptable. You don't have the license to decide what is and isn't "up for debate" nor the license to define racism at your convenience. Everyone is equally qualified to define racism. Arguing that one's race qualifies or disqualifies one from defining racism, is in itself racism.
Girl, I’m not gonna argue with you about what’s discriminatory towards me and other black folks. Clearly it’s not happening to other races because it’s OUR hairstyles along with pictures of black girls and boys with that hairstyle. And no, we should have to struggle to find a school or a job because schools and companies want to have racist policies. But you’re too privileged to see how that affects us. Sorry you’re too dense to have this conversation.
@Rina_colada Ok, don't address any of my points and just go on a tangent about "privelege". Great 👌
You made no valid points tho. All you did is was talk shit and try to undermine what Black people experience with bullshit “logic”. You really thought you was doing something.
@Rina_colada Not once did I mention anything about the experiences of black people, and presumably neither did the policies being discussed. This discussion is about hairstyle. You made it about race.
Because it is about race...
I would not recommend it. Dreadlocks rarely look good on black people and I’ve never seen a white person who didn’t look ridiculous with them.
ANYONE can wear dreadlocks including white people, it's rightfully their hair and they can do whatever they want to it. My only problem is that most white people can't pull it off, it usually ends up looking like a dirty mop.
If a black women wears dreadlocks this is typically how people treat/feel about her
She's ugly, unprofessional, looks like a man, isn't feminine enough, is poor.
White people?
Special, cool, different
I swear to God...
Making shit up to cry about something non-existent and victimize yourself: check
Being a racist privileged dick, because it's never happened to you, so it never happens to anyone: check
Lol, another one sweating hate. As I said to someone else here, don't try to use the race card on me, it doesn't work. You'll have to find real arguments, not just shout "white people bad".
@Guanfei whatever
I just...
Wish I was never born
Well that went dark real fast. No sure what I should answer to that. You sure you're ok?
@Guanfei i don't know. i don't know
Well for what it's worth, if you need to talk, you're welcome to come in private
@Dog20 Same here. Dior's always open
*door
This should answer your question
I think they are lovely on all people if well kept.
Don't care. I think it looks like crap on white people though.
Yes, but that hairdo looks like a mess on every race. So it looks bad on everyone