When you say “most of the US” do you mean the Midwest? Because that’s mostly true. Prairie is kinda garbage imo. (I’m sure it’s all very ecologically necessary, I’m just talking about whether it’s nice to be in.)
But outside of the Midwest, the US has a shit ton of forests, some hardcore deserts, a couple of mountain ranges here and there… Even Florida swampland is pretty cool if you’re not considered edible to gators. There’s definitely some featureless bullshit but usually we put a top secret military base in those bits that have aliens and zombie virus labs etc, so there’s even stuff to do there
I’ve never actually been to Texas, but I’ve always wondered what it looks like in those big empty spots on the map. I assume it’s just big parking lots.
I don’t like the states politics, and it’s part of the reason we left, but I lived in Houston for a number of years and had a great time. It was a wonderful state with good people, great food, and we did plenty outside. Although it was definitely too hot and muggy.
But I understand that this is Lemmy and it’s only black and white so if we dislike one thing about a state, everything about it has to be completely shitty.
OR, all the things you liked about it can be found in any other state, and thus is not enough to elevate Texass out of shit-tier status regardless of your personal bias?
I never ranked it at all. I even noted that the bad politics is part of the reason we left.
You’re projecting your own bias against everything in the state based on it’s politics. But I assure you that if you think everything in the state sucks because their politics suck, well it’s your a bias alone here.
Yeah I’m sure the fact that we were in Houston made a difference for my diverse family. It is the most diverse city in the country, and we had an openly gay mayor.
I’ll give it this, while I was there cost of living was cheaper. Good large modern gyms, and people that are generally happy to talk to you and be friends with you (this was in Dallas). But honestly it’d be hard for anyone to pay me to live there long term, it would have to be a lot of money. And that’s what I noticed, most people are there for the money.
My comment is more so to counter the Texas nationalists who think it’s the greatest place in the world, it’s not, not by a long shot. Aside from the hypercorporate virtual reality existence there is not much else there. There are a lot of places I’d move to before I move to Texas.
My wife was offered a higher paying job in a much lower cost not living area, but it was in Texas. We didn’t stay. So I’m kind of in the same boat. while your criticism of strip malls is valid, I did find that outside of it there was a lot of natural beauty.
Back when the Internet was still just a tiny little baby I met a girl online that was extremely cool and legit attractive (no catfish I swear). She lived in Houston, still does actually, I still stalk her sometimes – and I seriously came pretty close to moving down there to be with her for real, but it just kinda faded away before I got around to taking action.
I know it’s dumb but I honestly believe in alternate universes that split off when certain decisions are made, and I believe there’s a universe where I moved down there and had a whole bunch of little Texan children with her. They would have dark hair like her and big eyes like her and pointy noses like me, and they would play in the playground across the street while she and I sat on the front porch and drank domestic beer with some underground record on the turntable, cranked up loud so we could hear it through the open windows.
However, this is the first I’ve heard that it’s humid in Houston. I thought it was like Arizona but with more Cadillacs and cowboy hats. That alternate universe in which I married [name redacted] just went from being mystic and idyllic to being horrific. And I know you didn’t mean to do that. I know sometimes we hurt people by accident. But you destroyed something beautiful today, and I thought you should know.
lol. This is great. I remember someone referring to it as “a boiling swamp” and that has always stuck with me. I’m not sure where you are now, but if it’s the NE/Mid Atlantic, I would often describe it as “you know those two weeks of August that are just miserably hot and humid? Yeah, well it’s that from May through October.” I don’t even get how people existed down there before AC. Jan/Feb are beautiful tho. Cool and dry.
But I do remember one day I was sitting in the garage, on a lawn chair, drinking a Shiner Bock. I was in my underwear and watching my kids, my younger one in just a diaper, and they were playing in the puddles right out in front of garage. And I was like “shit, I’ve gone full Texan.” lol
School is the most important for kids living on the edge and beyond the obvious stupidity of it being a racist law, this kind of nonsense hits the borderline students the hardest.
as a white person, i’m not gonna claim expertise on black hair, but i can see you don’t know much about black hair or the historic and current relevant politics.
i suppose i don’t feel i have the expertise/experience to educate you about black hair and how rules regarding hair can be racist, but i think the issue is a lot more complicated than you realize and worth looking into.
i can see another lemming provided a lot of information. i hope you will look at it.
Hair holds a deep significance for many demographic groups, often along racial lines due to differences in style and texture. This frequently involves hair length. For some people, hair has religious significance, for others it is more an expression of heritage, but opressors have forced people to cut/change their hair as a means of stripping people's cultural expression for a long time. Shaving newly enslaved black people as a means of erasing their cultural heritage goes back to the 15th century, as many groups had distinctive styles and slave owners wanted to impose conformity. Forcing Indigenous Americans to cut their hair was done to homogenize children removed from their peoples and punish/demoralize adult men, stripping both of them of an important religious and cultural signifier in the process.
A lot of modern hair discrimination has its roots in this more explicit racism, denouncing hair that isn't in line with western-european beauty standards as unprofessional, unkempt, or unsightly. Length of hair and specific styles hold value to many different ethnic groups today, just as it did hundreds of years ago. Many black people see the display of black hairstyles (including long braids, dreads, afros, etc.) as a form of cultural reclamation, many indigenous americans still view hair length as religiously meaningful, tons of Sikhs, Muslims and Jews have strict beliefs regarding hair/beard cutting, the list goes on. Forcing these people to conform or face discipline is absolutely discrimination, and these groups are often a different ethnicity or race than the person mandating the hair be cut.
Is forcing people to maintain a certain hair length always solely racist? No. It can be discriminatory in a plethora of ways. It can also be sexist, queerphobic, and/or a form of religious discrimination. I was subject to the purely sexist aspect of this by old white guys for having long hair as a white, cis-het teenage boy, no racism involved. The label for any discrimination relies as much on who is being discriminated against and how it is applied as it does the views of the person enforcing it, making it an intersectional issue
A good rhetorical example of this multitargeted discrimination would be the banning of necklaces with stars on them. Is it inherrently discriminatory on its own? Not in a vacuum, no one is born wearing a necklace with a star. But consider two major religions that involve star iconography (judaism, islam) and you can see how this rule is antisemitic and islamiphobic whithout ever mentioning jewish or muslim people explicitly. Which form of discrimination it is contextually depends on the person experiencing it. Hair is no different. Making a black guy cut his dreads/braids is both racist and sexist when viewed in this light, as it targets a cultural symbol (a black hair style) and is likely unevenly applied across genders (black girls aren't usually required to have short hair). I hope this answers your question, if asked sincerely, and here are a few sources if anybody wants to learn more:
1991 Duke Law piece on the intersectionality of hair, race, and gender, with the key takeaway quoted below.
"Judgments about aesthetics do not exist apart from judgments about the social, political, and economic order of a society. They are an essential part of that order. Aesthetic values determine who and what is valued, beautiful, and entitled to control. Thus established, the structure of society at other levels also is justified."
I was subject to the purely sexist aspect of this by old white guys for having long hair as a white, cis-het teenage boy, no racism involved.
This is pretty much exactly my point. Having had long hair in my youth, while never outright punished in school for it (I didn’t start growing it until I was in historically very liberal university), there was often pressure from authorities to conform, I also noticed that being harassed by the police (which happened frequently) effectively ended overnight after I got my hair cut. Pressuring young men to conform by cutting their hair is a tale probably as old as time. Certainly it’s a constant theme throughout American culture, as I mentioned elsewhere with movies like Dazed and confused and Dead Poet’s Society. And this doesn’t even begin to delve into all the times it’s used as a symbol as non-conformity.
There was a lot in my comment you just slid right over to only address the point you agreed with, I was hoping you might address literally anything else I wrote, but oh well. We agree that it can be a form of sexism, but it is more complex than that, hence why it is an intersectional issue. Why do you believe it necessarily stops having a racial connotation just because it can be used to hurt white people?
Just because white people have been subject to abuse due to their hair length, it doesn't absolve the racial connotations and racist historical context when applied to non-white people with long hair. If this case was about an Indigenous American student, with religious reasons to wear long hair, would you be making the argument that this isn't racial discrimination? What about a Sikh student? A Rastafarian?
This is an intersectional issue, and as such, requires a little more nuance in diagnosing than "Well I don't see any white boys getting away with it, so it can't be racist!" When rules are made, they need to be evaluated on their ability to hurt people. If the rule can disproportionately hurt people based on racial elements, that rule is racist. This kid is black, part of him expressing his blackness is his hair being long, so any rule forcing him to change his hair is racist. If it was an Indiginous kid, the rule would still be racist. If it were a white kid, the rule would still be racist. The rule and the people enforcing it are racist, even if they never apply it to anyone.
There was a lot in my comment you just slid right over to only address the point you agreed with, I was hoping you might address literally anything else I wrote, but oh well.
First, I owe you an apology. You gave a thoughtful, rational, and thorough response (unlike pretty much all of the other posters) and I didn’t give it its due respect. To explain myself, the reason I glossed over the other parts is that I generally agree with them, and think the crux of argument boils down to the part I responded to.
I understand and agree why this is a sensitive topic: hair discrimination is real. I understand that one can discriminate even with “equal” laws: “no one can marry someone of their own sex.” We also both agree that rules like this should go away. We might have slightly differing reasons why: for me it’s more about sexism and force conformity, for you it may be more about cultural/race discrimination.
Why do you believe it necessarily stops having a racial connotation just because it can be used to hurt white people?
Honestly, I feel like the exact opposite is happening. From my perspective, y’all are arguing that because a rule made a black kid cut his hair, it is automatically racist. As I said above, I agree that rules that can be applied “equally” can still be meant to oppress a minority. I don’t think that “because it can get a white kid it isn’t racist” I think because there is a long tradition of schools making boys conform by cutting their hair, including in mostly/all white schools, that claiming it is racist doesn’t hold much water.
Just because white people have been subject to abuse due to their hair length, it doesn’t absolve the racial connotations and racist historical context when applied to non-white people with long hair.
Say the schools are segregated. The white school has a rule that all boys have to have short hair. Desegregation becomes law. Black kids end up going to that previously white school. Rule about short hair still applies. Racism? Or sexism? I say the latter, as that is what it always was, and there was nothing about rule that changed (assuming still an equal application - which is why I keep going back to the “please provide an example of a white kid getting away with it”). People here seem to be saying it’s all of a sudden a racist rule meant to oppress minorities.
We might have slightly differing reasons why: for me it’s more about sexism and force conformity, for you it may be more about cultural/race discrimination.
I don't like these aesthetic rules for all the reasons I initially provided, which includes your provided reasons. They are invariably a combination of sexism, queerphobia, racism, religious persecution, and are generally authoritarian in a way that only exists to hurt people.
Let's dissect the segragated school example, considering only black and white students. Pre-integration, forcing the white students to have short hair is a sexist and authoritarian rule from an explicitly sexist and racist institution. Upon desegragation:
The school administration is almost definitely still racist, despite being forced to educate black students.
There is now a new population at the school with different racial characteristics, cultural norms, and historical context.
If the school was genuinely concerned about equality for the black students, they could reevaluate the rules about hair and gauge whether or not it will have an outsized impact on the new black student population, which it would given the cultural context. Parallel to desegregation efforts was the reclamation of natural black hair among black people (afros being the most iconic example), many of whom had been forced or coerced into white-coded hair styles since slavery ended.
Counter to this, if the school wanted to hurt the new black population, they could maintain the rule and use the equal application of it as a shield against people crying foul. The rule is still sexist, as a part of an explicitly sexist institution, still authoritarian by the very nature of the rule, but the school's racism has become implicit rather than explicit given who it now has the power to harm. This has been the racist playbook example since slavery was abolished, sliding the scale towards more implicit racial strategies in a culture that is less willing to engage with explicit race discrimination.
In the midcentury, long hair among white men became a symbol of the white counterculture, so curtailing it was authoritarian and sexist. At the same time, natural long hair among black men became a symbol of both black counterculture and black empowerment/liberation, so curtailing it was authoritarian, sexist, and racist. This dynamic exists to the modern day, and applies to different minority groups than just black and white people.
Counter to this, if the school wanted to hurt the new black population, they could maintain the rule and use the equal application of it as a shield against people crying foul. The rule is still sexist, as a part of an explicitly sexist institution, still authoritarian by the very nature of the rule, but the school’s racism has become implicit rather than explicit given who it now has the power to harm.
Sure if. I’m not denying it’s a possibility.
But the other explanation is that they just remained authoritarian wanting conformity, the original intent of the rule, and so never bothered to revisit it after black people came into the school because the rule was never about respective individuality and cultural heritage.
I feel like we’ve first started with the fact that a black kid got swept up in it, and then worked backwards to find a reason why it is racist. . .rather than actually seeing if the evidence supports the claim it’s racist.
I appreciate the respectful back and forth and I again apologize for not outwardly showing your earlier post the full respect it deserved. But I do believe we have hit a impasse here, so with all due respect, this will likely be my last response in this chain. I hope to butt heads with you again because you definitely make good, sound arguments, even if I ultimate disagreed here.
I don’t know much about this, but maybe some reading could give us some insight:
The politics of regulating Black hair is a contemporary example of what Frantz Fanon refers to as imperial hegemony, the supplanting and reconditioning of the colonized subject at the (individual) psychological and (social) institutional levels. Source
I’m not denying that it happened or even continues to happen. I know that to be true. My point is that just because a policy on hair ends up being applied to a black person doesn’t make the policy about regulating black hair. In this case, I brlit it is about making boys conform.
Control and erasing blackness. One of the many ways that they try to erase blackness. They know they can’t get away with killing off black people (yet), so they satisfy themselves with doing everything they can to eradicate blackness as a culture and just make it something that someone is supposed to feel guilty about being.
I see. Black people are able to change into other animals in order to achieve hairstyles not possible for almost all people that don’t have natural black hair.
I didn’t realize black people had shapeshifting powers.
I swear, 9 times out of 10, when I come across one of your posts, you’re misrepresenting what’s happening in order to artificially ramp up your outrage.
Nothing in the policy requires black kids to have the same haircut as white kids. The school even noted that locs are fine, but the length is not.
It’s a dumb policy that should go, but injecting race into it, without showing that white guys have gotten away with having long hair, is just disingenuous.
It has been long understood that policies and actions targeting the length of hair disproportional affects Black and Hispanic people. It is about race.
The school even noted that locs are fine, but the length is not.
Systems of oppression don’t have to explicitly target a group of people in order to succeed. They can be fairly obtuse and still have the desired effect.
without showing that white guys have gotten away with having long hair
White guys in America don’t have a culture heritage of growing out long hair. Whether or not White guys can get away with it is not the metric of a policy being racist. Regulating male hair length disproportionately effects White guys less and Black guys more. By disproportionately I mean, despite there being a smaller percentage of Black people in the population, Black people make up a larger percentage of people punished by hair length regulations in schools. Minorities are the target here. It’s about cultural erasure.
It has been long understood that policies and actions targeting the length of hair disproportional affects Black and Hispanic people. It is about race.
First, no one is denying that these codes have been used to oppress individuality of minorities. We both agree this is the case. But that doesn’t mean any dress code itself is racist.
Like even in the article you posted, it notes:
“Schools were not designed with Black children in mind,” she said. “Our forefathers of education were all white men who set the tone for what schools would be … and what the purposes are of schooling — one of those being conformity. That’s one of the key ideas that was actually introduced in the 1800s.”"
And this is my point. It’s a about conformity. These types of rules have existed long before integration. They should definitely not exist in a free society at all, but the idea that hair length is in-and-of-itself is racist is not supported by the facts. Could it be? Sure, I would open to be convinced that this rule is being unfairly applied to black kids and other minorities. In that case I would absolutely agree.
White guys in America don’t have a culture heritage of growing out long hair.
Who says? This is a huge coming-of-age thing I see all the time. I’m not even sure if young black men like to wear long hair more than young white men. I would say a much higher percentage of my white friends have had long hair than my black friends. We even have movies like Dead Poet’s society, Dazed and Confused, and (loosely) The breakfast club, where pressure by authority to conform by cutting hair is an element. It’s a tale “as old as time”: school administration wanting boys to conform by cutting their hair. Long hair has long been a symbol of anti-conformity for this exact reason.
First, no one is denying that these codes have been used to oppress individuality of minorities. We both agree this is the case. But that doesn’t mean any dress code itself is racist
The oppression of minorities is racism.
It’s a about conformity.
To White people’s standards of physical appearance.
Long hair has long been a symbol of anti-conformity for this exact reason.
White people’s culture typically depicts men with short hair. What your argument is describing is older generations of White people subjecting younger generations of White people to their cultural heritage. Some Black people celebrate their culture where men have long hair. While the policy does punish White people who are rejecting their cultural heritage it disproportionately affects Black people who are trying to celebrate their cultural heritage. Inequality harms everyone, but it doesn’t harm everyone equally. We would all be better off with equality. edit: capitalization
Incorrect. The oppression of someone because of their race is racism. A minority could be oppressed because of their sex and that would be sexism, not racism. A minority could be oppressed because of their socio-economic standing and that would classism, not racism. A minority could be oppressed just because the oppressor is an asshole, and that would not be racism.
To White people’s standards of physical appearance.
Agreed. Although, I would say western standard more than white, but it’s more a subset rather than something separate.
White people’s culture typically depicts men with short hair.
Depends on the culture. Also you’re talking about modern western culture. Not white culture in general. Even the US, which is a baby of a country, has had presidents who had long hair while in office. Almost as late as the 1850s.
disproportionately affects Black people
I’ve yet to see anyone actually make a case for young black young men having/desiring long hair more than young white men. My experience is the exact opposite. Of course that is anecdotal and I’m not offering out to prove anything, but only to say why I don’t simply accept the claim as a postulate.
We would all be better off with equality.
Sure. But assuming that because something affected a black person it means it must be racism is not equality and we are not better off with it. And that is what I believe is happening here. I mean, we’re talking about policies that existed in historically white schools even before segregation. It’s not like schools wanting kids to have short hair is some new thing, it’s always been a tool of conformity to western standards. That now being applied to black people too is not racism, it’s just dumb as it always has been.
Incorrect. The oppression of someone because of their race is racism. A minority could be oppressed because of their sex and that would be sexism, not racism. A minority could be oppressed because of their socio-economic standing and that would classism, not racism. A minority could be oppressed just because the oppressor is an asshole, and that would not be racism.
The oppression of racial minorities is racism. This was evident based on the context of our discussion, but your argument splits hairs anyway.
Depends on the culture. Also you’re talking about modern western culture. Not white culture in general. Even the US, which is a baby of a country, has had presidents who had long hair while in office. Almost as late as the 1850s.
We are discussing a school in the United States in the year 2024. So it makes sense we would talk about modern White people culture here in the United States in this post-wig time period.
I’ve yet to see anyone actually make a case for young black young men having/desiring long hair more than young white men. My experience is the exact opposite. Of course that is anecdotal and I’m not offering out to prove anything, but only to say why I don’t simply accept the claim as a postulate.
The abundance of articles on a casual google search demonstrate this is something Black people are struggling with. It’s not a secret.
But assuming that because something affected a black person
It affects Black and Hispanic people disproportionately. That’s the give away that the policies are racially motivated.
That now being applied to black people too is not racism
It is being applied to students now to erase Black culture which is a form of racism. The fact it has affected White people previously and is currently doesn’t exclude it from being racist. White people being harmed by inequality doesn’t mean it’s not inequality. Again, we are all harmed by inequality, but not all of us are harmed equally. Black people are harmed more by racism, but we are all harmed by racism even if it’s to a lesser degree. White people would be better off without racism.
This was evident based on the context of our discussion,
I’ve repeatedly stated that this is a policy meant to enforce conformity among boys and is likely not racism. The only one ignoring context on this point is you.
We are discussing a school in the United States in the year 2024.
lol. Just a couple of posts ago you had a whole paragraph arguing about how it’s cultural heritage.
What your argument is describing is older generations of White people subjecting younger generations of White people to their cultural heritage. Some Black people celebrate their culture where men have long hair. While the policy does punish White people who are rejecting their cultural heritage it disproportionately affects Black people who are trying to celebrate their cultural heritage. Inequality harms everyone, but it doesn’t harm everyone equally. We would all be better off with equality. edit: capitalization
Apparently you don’t know what heritage means:
Something that is passed down from preceding generations; a tradition.
Your argument is literally that because there is a history of long black hair, having them cut their hair is racist. But now when that point falls apart under scrutiny, we are no longer talking about the past and tradition, we are talking just about current culture.
Now, do the trick you always do when your point gets destroyed and whine about me “splitting hairs.”
It affects Black and Hispanic people disproportionately.
Still waiting for this evidence. You’ve alluded to a lot, but have provided nothing.
The fact it has affected White people previously and is currently doesn’t exclude it from being racist. White people being harmed by inequality doesn’t mean it’s not inequality. Again, we are all harmed by inequality, but not all of us are harmed equally. Black people are harmed more by racism, but we are all harmed by racism even if it’s to a lesser degree. White people would be better off without racism.
On this point we agree. What we disagree on is that we know this particular rule is racist or being applied in a racist manner or that it’s intent is to erase black culture. I think (although could be convinced otherwise) it’s the same thing that it has always been: forcing conformity on young men.
Page 29 has stats on how dress code enforcement impacts racial minorities.
HOW THESE DRESS CODE RULES ARE ENFORCED Finally, our review of school district disciplinary data 64 indicates that students of certain races in the surveyed districts are more likely to face dress code discipline than others. Black students in the surveyed districts faced a hugely disproportionate amount of disciplinary action when compared to their share of the overall student population. Black students received 31.0% of the documented disciplinary instances but comprised only 12.1% of the surveyed student population. On the other hand, white students in the surveyed districts received a smaller share of the disciplinary instances (12.7%) than their share of the overall surveyed student population (25.1%), as did Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, and multi-racial students. Hispanic students received a virtually identical share of disciplinary instances (45.5%) when compared to their share of the overall surveyed student population (45.3%).
Black people are overrepresented in disciplinary action while White people are underrepresented in disciplinary action. While Hispanic people are not disproportionately overrepresented by a significant margin, they are still among the most targeted by disciplinary actions which is probably why news articles mention them.
I’ve repeatedly stated that this is a policy meant to enforce conformity among boys and is likely not racism. The only one ignoring context on this point is you.
This is factually incorrect as I already demonstrated. The policy disproportionately targets Black people to in order to erase their culture. Also, your argument being wrong is not context.
lol. Just a couple of posts ago you had a whole paragraph arguing about how it’s cultural heritage.
My point is that wigs are no longer part of White People’s culture. Everyone knows this. Your argument is disingenuous.
Your argument is literally that because there is a history of long black hair, having them cut their hair is racist. But now when that point falls apart under scrutiny, we are no longer talking about the past and tradition, we are talking just about current culture.
My point is that wigs aren’t relevant to the discussion. They had largely fallen out of favor in the US public at the start of the 19th century. White men started to wear their hair short. The fact that some Presidents still wore them in the 19th century, a minority of White people to be sure, is not relevant. Also, while some early 19th century US presidents wore wigs in their youth some of them they may have stopped by the time they took office or while holding office. It is common knowledge that wigs are not part of White people’s cultural heritage in the US.
Now, do the trick you always do when your point gets destroyed and whine about me “splitting hairs.”
Your argument about wigs has no merit and ignores what is actually happening as described in the article. No one is forcing people to wear wigs. They are forcing people to have short hair. Short hair has been the enduring cultural heritage of White men in the United States.
forcing conformity on young men
To White people’s standards of physical appearance. Your argument keeps leaving this out. Your argument relies on ignoring facts to attempt to ignore the policy’s racism.
Here is the ACLU report on school dress codes impacting minorities:
If the claim is that rules/laws are applied unfairly on black students (or people in general), I absolutely agree. The stats strongly support this. But this all stems from a claim that there is a bigger culture among young black men to have long hair, for cultural reasoning, than for young white men. Just say you don’t have the evidence for this. It’s really that simple.
The policy disproportionately targets Black
No, what you’ve shown is that punishment is disproportionately doled out against black people. Something I agree with. But if that is the metric used to label a rule/law as racist, then virtually ever rule and law is racist. Which is, of course, nonsense. What you are arguing is that our justice system has biases in it, and something we both agree with.
My point is that wigs are no longer part of White People’s culture.
Then why talk about heritage at all? And who is talking about wigs? Not me.
Your argument is disingenuous.
Blatant projection.
To White people’s standards of physical appearance. Your argument keeps leaving this out.
You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to claim heritage when it comes to black people, but then only talk about modern western culture (which you attribute solely to white people) when it comes to white people. The reality is that if we look at modern western culture, even for black people, it’s predominately short hair. If we want to look at heritage of people, there are plenty of white heritages, include in the US itself, of men having long hair. It’s you who has the double-standard. If this is the metric by which we measure racism, then it’s you who is racist.
But this all stems from a claim that there is a bigger culture among young black men to have long hair, for cultural reasoning, than for young white men.
The ACLU report goes into detail about this starting at page 21. Pages 21 to 29 cover racial discrimination.
RACE DISCRIMINATION Race discrimination is one of the most common and harmful types of discrimination. Racist stereotypes are deeply embedded in our society, and dress codes are no exception. Because many dress and grooming policies are written based on Euro-centric standards of dress and beauty, dress codes have historically marginalized, discounted, and suppressed styles of dress, hair, and grooming associated with Black people and other people of color. For example, some dress codes prohibit hair styles and textures—like Afros, braids, and locs—that are historically associated with African American hair practices. Others prohibit clothes and accessories—like du-rags, hair beads, and picks—based on associations with race and racial stereotypes, particularly those associated with Black people. Rules like these are rooted in racist standards of professionalism and respectability, and they marginalize many students of color.
But if that is the metric used to label a rule/law as racist, then virtually ever rule and law is racist
Yes, systemic racism exists in our society. It is deeply embedded in our intuitions.
Then why talk about heritage at all?
Because it is relevant to the discussion. The wigs specifically are not.
And who is talking about wigs? Not me.
Depends on the culture. Also you’re talking about modern western culture. Not white culture in general. Even the US, which is a baby of a country, has had presidents who had long hair while in office. Almost as late as the 1850s.
The long hair styles were wigs.
Blatant projection.
An argument about wigs being the cultural of heritage of White men in the United States is disingenuous.
You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to claim heritage when it comes to black people, but then only talk about modern western culture (which you attribute solely to white people) when it comes to white people. The reality is that if we look at modern western culture, even for black people, it’s predominately short hair. If we want to look at heritage of people, there are plenty of white heritages, include in the US itself, of men having long hair. It’s you who has the double-standard. .
This is argument is historically inaccurate. White men in the US have historically had short hair. It’s been that way since the early 19th century. Black men have a historical culture heritage of long hair that predates the policing of black hair in the United States.
If this is the metric by which we measure racism, then it’s you who is racist
Ad hominem attacks reduce your argument’s credibility. edit: typo
Incorrect. And that’s a fact (not opinion, maybe you’ll learn). It’s so easy to look up to make sure you aren’t wrong. . .and still you don’t? Amazing.
After calling me a racist too.
I just said using your own metric, you’re racist. I don’t agree with your metric, which should be obvious.
Your argument has abandoned the premise we are discussing in favor of focusing on wigs again. I took the time to add some sources to the lower section of my argument since your argument now rests on splitting hairs over hair styles and ad hominem attacks.
Getting back to the discussion at hand, policies regulating hair length are racist against Black people.
I just said using your own metric, you’re racist. I don’t agree with your metric, which should be obvious.
I’m not forcing people to cut their hair or denying them their cultural heritage. So by my argument’s own metric your argument is incorrect about its conclusion. Still though, I have nothing to do with this discussion. Ad hominem attacks about me do not add credibility to your argument. Your argument has been refuted by the evidence presented. Again here is the source.
Here is some stuff I learned about wigs that refutes your argument about long hair not being wigs in reference to 19th century US presidents.
Long hair styles were wigs. Your argument even referenced 19th century US presidents with long hair styles. Those long hair styles were wigs which were worn in their youth at the end of 18th century and which were mostly abandoned by those presidents by the time they took office in the 19th century in favor of short hair.
Here is a source that covers the relevant time period. Lincoln occasionally wore a wig.
One notable error in the article is that Washington’s hair was powered to make it look like a wig. But that he was a president during the 18th century when wigs were still popular, which explains that fashion choice.
Even though wigs were fashionable, George Washington kept his own hair. He kept his hair long and tied back in a queue, or ponytail.
Although he didn’t wear a wig, George Washington did powder his hair, giving it the iconic white color seen in famous portraits. Powdering one’s hair was another custom of the time.
As a young man, George Washington was actually a redhead!
This wiki page has some more details backed up by sources. Again, some of these 19th century presidents had worn wigs earlier in life, but Jefferson and John Quincy Adams had, as far as we know, mostly stopped by the time they were actually in office.
In the United States, only four presidents, from John Adams to James Monroe, wore curly powdered wigs tied in a queue according to the old-fashioned style of the 18th century,[21][22] though Thomas Jefferson wore a powdered wig only rarely and stopped wearing a wig entirely shortly after becoming president in 1801.[23] John Quincy Adams also wore a powdered wig in his youth, but he abandoned this fashion while serving as the U.S. Minister to Russia (1809–1814),[24] long before his accession to the presidency in 1825. Unlike them, the first president, George Washington, never wore a wig; instead, he powdered, curled and tied in a queue his own long hair.[25]
I swear, 9 times out of 10, when I come across one of your posts, you’re misrepresenting what’s happening in order to artificially ramp up your outrage.
That’s funny. I have you tagged as “stupid sophist/troll” because whenever I see your posts, you’re ginning up moronic arguments against self-evident conclusions. Anyone with a modicum of historical contextual knowledge can see that this policy and judgement are racially motivated. Many data points supporting this have already been posted here. Nobody’s injecting race into a situation from which it was previously absent.
The policies that regulate hair length for male students are designed to target minorities and are racist. These are facts. Picking alternate facts is not an opinion.
I’m sure it’s true in some cases, but the blanket claim that it’s the only reason is an opinion (and almost certainly an incorrect one at that). So the fact that you don’t understand the difference between a fact and a opinion has everything to do with you.
It’s true for the case that we are discussing in the article and every other time it’s been used to punish minorities. Your argument is splitting hairs over word choice instead focusing on the content of my argument.
You claimed an opinion was a fact and that I was factually wrong for having a different opinion than you. It’s not “splitting hairs” to point out you have no clue what you’re talking about.
If you recognize that you used the wrong word, say “I apologize, you’re right, I used the wrong term” and then simply rephrase your argument. Stop trying to make it my fault you said something absolutely ridiculous and I called it out
If you recognize that you used the wrong word, say “I apologize, you’re right, I used the wrong term” and then simply rephrase your argument.
I went back and checked what I wrote in my argument. Now your argument is pretending there is an incorrect statement in my argument.
These policies are always racist. Your argument misrepresenting my argument will not change this.
You claimed an opinion was a fact and that I was factually wrong for having a different opinion than you.
No, what I claimed is a fact. What your argument claims is false. False claims are not opinions.
It’s not “splitting hairs” to point out you have no clue what you’re talking about. Stop trying to make it my fault you said something absolutely ridiculous and I called it outs
It’s the exact same case, except the new kid’s hair is less long and since then (literally in response to it) Texas passed the CROWN Act to make it explicit. Nothing changed to make it allowed, they just decided to keep doing it. And I’d say it’s pretty safe to call the judge, who ruled against a previous federal ruling and the law explicitly added in response to the previous violation, is just another Republican racist with no concern for the law. Feels like we need a new round of federal supervision for civil rights in South.
Also, all this seems like something a journalist might want to include in a story.
Add comment