Jackson Free Press

Sign this petition before January 1, 2007, and help in the fight against another form of racial discrimination - specific hairstyle restrictions. Last time I checked, we are in the 21st century.

From WBAL:

BALTIMORE -- The WBAL TV 11 News I-Team has obtained a new professional appearance policy for the Baltimore Police Department intended to promote a professional image, but it's also raising questions of racial insensitivity.

The new policy is more specific than the old one. For example, tattoos must now be kept covered.

However, the questions surround an issue that's been batted around the courts and company workplace policies for several years -- hairstyle.

"We just felt that over the years, some officers have taken advantage of the old general order and are not presenting themselves, while in uniform to the public, in the most professional manner possible," said Matt Jablow, spokesman for the Baltimore Police Department.

Like the old policy, the new one governs hair length, jewelry, mustaches and beards, but it also added a new standard -- extreme, or "fad," hairstyles are prohibited, including cornrows, mohawks, dreadlocks, and twists.

Three of the four hairstyles banned are almost exclusively used by blacks.

"I think it's incredibly insensitive," said Taunya Banks, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law. "I'm really kind of concerned about labeling as faddish a practice that's not faddish at all, and what appears to be a targeting of black officers."

Banks said the policy seems to ignore the differences in hair texture between blacks and whites and may affect black female officers more than men.

In addition to racial discrimination, religious discrimination is an additional problem for Rastafarians. The ACLU has addressed a similar issue in the past on behalf of a Rastafarian officer:

"Officer Chambers wears his hair in locks for religious reasons," said Porter. "Telling him to cut off his locks is no different than telling a devout Jewish police officer that he can't wear a yarmulke in uniform."

The founder of Nappturality.com started a petition to let Baltimore know how inconsiderate the policy is. Last I checked, there were over 460 signatures, but the more signatures, the better. What hurts the most is that two black Baltimore city officials support this policy. Some blacks were pro-segregation too, but that doesn't make it right. Let your voice be heard:

http://www.petitiononline.com/baltpd/petition.html

The online petition is available until January 1, so don't delay! We can't let this sort of thing fly under the radar. Also, if you wish to contact the Baltimore officials directly, there are a list of addresses (email and snail mail) available in the petition itself.

Thanks for your help, and happy holidays!

Previous Commentsshow

Bump. This is important. I am just now becoming more aware of some of the racism problems in Maryland--as it happens, I just wrote earlier today about the way Gov. Ehrlich completely blew off a university study documenting gross racial disparities in the state's death penalty process. There seems to be a real divide between the culture of Baltimore and the culture of the rest of the state, not unlike the divide in Mississippi between the culture of Jackson and other big, diverse cities and the culture of white rural areas. It's one thing to say "if you have hair, regardless of how you style it, keep it short and inconspicuous." It's another thing entirely to ban cornrows, dreadlocks, and twists, but not to ban crew cuts and permed curls. No two ways about it: That's a racially discriminatory policy. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Dec 21 2006

As of this writing, the petition has 974 signatures. That's about twice as many since yesterday! If you haven't done so already, please sign the petition. Email the link to your friends as well.

LatashaWillis

Dec 21 2006

We're at 1441 signatures!!! Please sign if you haven't done it already. You can leave comments with your signature if you want. Here are a few of the comments: The grooming policy is a direct indication of our nations lack of respect for other cultures. It also is an indication that though progress has been made in race relations, there is still a lot of work to be done. This policy is shameful! Its should be abolished and an apology should be given immediately. ---------------------------------------- This is absolutely ludicrous. I am prepared to mobilize the students at Howard University School of Law to protest this injustice. Please let me know how I can help. ---------------------------------------- Unbelievable!!! You'd think that in this day and age we would no longer have to fight for something as simple as wearing our hair in its healthy, natural state. If we let this through, pretty soon we'll be back in chains. ---------------------------------------- African hair styles should be a normal site in America. We have chosen not to use chemicals inside or outside our bodies. It is easier for us to look African than European. Harmful chemicals should not be legislated for African hair. We worked with natural African hair when we worked for free. ---------------------------------------- My cousin is a Baltimore City police officer and her supervisor has been harassing her since November about when she is going to cut off her locks. My cousin is a very strong person but this Christmas season is really rough for her. In less than 10 days she has to decide if she is going to cut off all of her hair or be suspended/ written up/fired if she does not do what they want. She has a lawyer but things take time. Who feeds her children and pays her bills mean while? I just want to thank everyone who has signed the petition. Alot of women are between a rock and a hard place at the BPD. As a family we were rasied to be proud of who we are. The thought of having to wear a Euopean weave or wig to cover her natural hair would kill her more than cutting it off. It would be like asking her to tap dance in black face. I don't care what anyone says they are just a bunch of hateful people in charge over there.

LatashaWillis

Dec 23 2006

back in chains?

Kingfish

Dec 23 2006

back in chains? Let me emphasize that these comments are not mine, but from others who signed the petition. However, I wanted to show the level of anger and displeasure that is occurring over this issue. A lot of them view this policy as a step backward and don't want to see African Americans being forced to conform to unfair standards. The way I see it, even if blacks never have to wear actual chains again (except for prison - hmmm), I definitely see a potential for psychological chains if the Baltimore PD gets away with this. They're reinforcing feelings of inferiority that the black community is still struggling with.

LatashaWillis

Dec 23 2006

That is trivializing slavery the same way that comparing daily injustices to the holocaust does.

Kingfish

Dec 23 2006

They're having arguments over haircuts. Lord, I want off this planet.

Ironghost

Dec 23 2006

I think the more important question is why, knowing the response it would generate, the Baltimore PD chose to implement this policy to begin with. This really is a huge step back. There are already policies with respect to length that would prohibit long dreads and other kinds of haircuts that could potentially interfere with work. But there is no reason to ban, say, cornrows, unless you just want your black officers to look more white. This is not just about haircuts, any more than the civil rights movement was just about skin color. And I gotta agree: If this is allowed to stand, then folks have just discovered another subtle form of Jim Crow that they can implement in the private sector when turning down job applicants. I don't like it. Not a bit. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Dec 23 2006

By the way, Latasha, re prison and chains: That's another valid point. We have to ask ourselves why there are so many blacks in the prison population on drug offenses when they're not comparably more likely to be drug users. Racial profiling, inadequate counsel for indigent defendants, increased penalties for "black" drugs (such as crack) over "white" drugs (such as powdered cocaine)... And all of this cyclically contributes to poverty, which contributes to crime, which contributes to more blacks in the prison population, which contributes to poverty, which contributes to crime, and on and on and on. And you brought up Baltimore County. You know, I think it's interesting to look at the death row statistics. Percent of Maryland's murders committed in (predominantly black) Baltimore County? 5%. Percentage of death row convicts who committed their murders in Baltimore County? 60%. And every single person on Maryland's death row has been convicted of killing a white person, despite the fact that most Baltimore County murders are black-on-black. 85% of death row inmates in Maryland are black, even though a much lower percentage of murderers are. I could go on. The bottom line is that we have a criminal justice system that is built around institutional racism, it is not just, it does not consistently conform to the rule of law, and until it's fixed, I don't want to hear any crap about how everybody has the same opportunity to succeed in America. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Dec 23 2006

personal experience talking here. In West Jackson in the 90's we would see Blacks, down to the age of 12 or so, selling drugs on the street corners out in the open in the daylight. In the more White neighborhoods you'll never see them doing such. Doing it out in the open might have something to do with it. fire away.

Kingfish

Dec 23 2006

interesting post Tom and some good points. I'll throw this one out to you. One reason also is that too often when higher income, in this case I mean whites, abuse drugs or become addicted, they have the means to mitigate the damage done by drugs or get in rehab at some point. Too often when we are talking about crack users, they are poor people as compared to cocaine users. They don't have the resources to cushion the consequences of their drug problems.

Kingfish

Dec 23 2006

Fair points. Of course, the main reason low-income black drug dealers sell on street corners while higher-income white drug dealers generally don't is because the higher arrest rate of low-income black drug dealers prevents them from having regular clients, so they have to rely on transient business--so even in that case, our law enforcement system contributes to the institutional racism feedback cycle. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Dec 23 2006

Tom... there's Six people on Maryland's Death Row. Four are black, two white. Two (Black) are there for killing the same two victims. Percentages are nice, but numbers tell a story.

Ironghost

Dec 23 2006

I sound like a broken record.... I swear. Selling Illicit Drugs is, like, Illegal. So it really doesn't matter the race of the perp, as long as they get arrested.

Ironghost

Dec 23 2006

IG, as I said in my article, my numbers are from 2002. But now that you've brought it up, let's certainly look at the current statistics. All six men on death row are there for killing white victims. Not four out of six. Not five out of six. Six out of six. 100%. And four of the six--two thirds, even higher than the 2002 figure of 60%--committed their alleged murders in predominantly black Baltimore County. That's some impressive cherry-picking, to have happened to have sentenced four people to death for murders committed with only white victims, in a predominantly black county. By the way, part of the reason the 2002 numbers are outdated: Two prisoners have been executed since then, both guilty of killing white people in Baltimore County. A county that is, I repeat, historically black. And there have been five sentences overturned on appeal since 2002 on due process grounds--all but one featuring white victims, and all but one of the alleged murders taking place in Baltimore County. Are you really going to tell me that the death penalty in Maryland, whatever the intentions behind it might be, is--in practice--anything but a way for the state to establish that if you commit a murder outside of the black neighborhoods in Baltimore County, you're facing the needle? I mean, the end result is a lynching dynamic. It sends the unmistakable message that blacks can kill other blacks as much as they like, but if you're black and get convicted of killing a white, then oh, boy, there's going to be trouble. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Dec 23 2006

"historically black" --> "predominantly black"

Tom Head

Dec 23 2006

No, I'd think you're reading a lot more into it than I see. Two of those on death row were for the same crime. Otherwise, until we hear from DA's or whatnot, we don't have any evidence. Basing behavior on percentages isn't wise.

Ironghost

Dec 23 2006

Ironghost and Kingfish, here is an article I wrote earlier this year on natural hair. Maybe this will help you understand where I'm coming from: The Other N-Word Also, I didn't start thinking this way overnight. Throughout my life, I've gone from a press to a relaxer to a press to a Jheri curl to a relaxer to a press. I've dealt with the smell of burning hair and grease as a hot comb was run through my hair. I've dealt with the chemical smell of a relaxer that had to stay on my hair until my scalp was on fire because my hair was so thick. (The hairstylist has to wear gloves to protect her skin, and I am letting her put this on my head!) I have lost enough hair to make two or three wigs - breakage, sores, a thinning hairline and so forth. Finally, in 2003, I decided that I didn't have to put myself through that if I didn't want to. I decided to leave all of that alone and just be me for once. I came to the conclusion that if God made my hair this way, it would be better to work with my hair than against it. My hair is healthier now, and I am grateful for that. There are plenty of black women who are afraid to do what I did because they are afraid of what people will say (like Buckwheat or jiggaboo) or that they won't be "beautiful" any more. What hurts the most is when your fellow sisters or brothers no longer accept you, but many blacks have been conditioned to think this way. Straight hair, light skin and a keen nose are preferred. Any eye color other than dark brown is a plus. Then, if you wear your hair in its natural state, you have to have that "good hair" - hair with a looser curl that blends in better with the majority. My hair is considered "bad" by many because I have tight kinks, but I don't think my hair is bad at all. I know this sort of thing is hard to grasp if you've never had to deal with it. I just hope that you learn something from this, even if it does seem trivial to you.

LatashaWillis

Dec 23 2006

IG writes: No, I'd think you're reading a lot more into it than I see. Of course I am; that's why I'm trying to explain it to you. Two of those on death row were for the same crime. And the other four allegedly killed other (white) people. What about all the black victims in Baltimore County? Otherwise, until we hear from DA's or whatnot, we don't have any evidence. Basing behavior on percentages isn't wise. Maryland murder victims who are African-American: 80%. Maryland murder victims who are white: 20% or fewer. Victims of death row inmates who are African-American: 0%. Victims of death row inmates who are white: 100%. Don't you see some indication of racism here? I mean, how on Earth could you explain those numbers otherwise? Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Dec 23 2006

Latasha writes: My hair is considered "bad" by many because I have tight kinks, but I don't think my hair is bad at all. Well, I'm certainly a fan. :o) You know, it's funny. White female celebrities can have bright pink hair, purple hair, bleached white hair, crew cuts, occasional deliberate full baldness, and they're still considered attractive. But if you're black and do anything at all to style your hair that doesn't involve straightening it, you can't even work for the Baltimore PD. It's ludicrous. I mean, saying you have to use hair straighteners is like saying I need to get a 'fro. I could with enough perms, I suppose--at least it wouldn't involve bleeding sores and having my hair fall out--but why should I have to? If anyone wants evidence that white supremacy is still alive and well in our culture, the fact that black women are expected to put their scalps through an acid bath so their hair more closely resembles white people's hair is or should be pretty much exhibit A. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Dec 23 2006

Tom: My first assumption would be that the cases against those men were easier to prove? LW: I'm going bald, so I have no horse in this race to be honest. :)

Ironghost

Dec 24 2006

LW: I don't know why you think I was trying to change how hair is worn. Pretty much a non issue to me. I was taking aim at the overreacting by people who were saying how this was a step back to wearing chains and that kind of crap.

Kingfish

Dec 24 2006

IG writes; Tom: My first assumption would be that the cases against those men were easier to prove? Isn't it a little strange that cases with white victims always seem to be easier to prove? Kingfish writes: I was taking aim at the overreacting by people who were saying how this was a step back to wearing chains and that kind of crap. If this becomes widely accepted, then it's a step in that direction, no joke. We should allow ZERO room for legal precedents that say whites get special status, because that way lies Dred Scott. We are much closer to de facto slavery already than most people would like to admit--I mean, that's what's being done with undocumented immigrants by some of these employers, isn't it? "You're not an employee, you're not an independent contractor, you are our PROPERTY, we will send you into hazardous conditions and then barely pay you enough to feed yourself, you'll live 20 to a trailer, and if you squeal, we'll have you deported." I mean, in what way is that not slavery? And if all this foolishness about marginalizing natural black hair becomes mainstream, what will that say about our government's priorities? And if it goes unchallenged, what's to stop our government from allowing employers to put low-income blacks in a similar situation? And then in what way will this be different from the situation in 1860? 150 years, and the best moral progress we'd be able to boast is that slavery has been privatized and there's a higher percentage of free blacks. Let's not kid ourselves: There is very little practical difference between a chattel slave and an exploited worker. We already live in a city where police can beat up handcuffed black suspects with impunity. (Have you noticed that these handcuffs have little chains on them?) I'm just saying: Things are not as secure as they appear. America still needs a civil rights movement, and part of that movement means putting some bright lights on the Baltimore PD and the Maryland criminal justice system and Mayor Frank Melton and other offenders when things start backsliding. For the good of our country and the people living in it, we can't afford to do otherwise. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Dec 24 2006

We already live in a city where police can beat up handcuffed black suspects with impunity. (Have you noticed that these handcuffs have little chains on them?) Next thing you know you are going to be telling me that we should change the color of the cue ball and eight ball because that is racist, gives Blacks a feeling of inferiority, thus irreparably damaging their self esteem, and makes them think they are going to be slaves as society approves of it. Instead of handcuffs, we should just use stun guns then to subdue suspects. Knock them out completely. It won't involve the use of chains (can't use ropes/binders either as Blacks were once lynched) and thus satisfy everyone so that no one is reminded of slavery.

Kingfish

Dec 24 2006

[quote](Have you noticed that these handcuffs have little chains on them?)[/quote] Not all, Tom. The hinged is becoming popular because it restricts movement better. It was also Black officers which beat up one black suspect I can recall. I don't believe there's a white officer that would do something that foolish around here. He'd be lynched before returning to the station, innocent or not. One interesting assumption all this makes is that white people don't wear dreadlocks or the like. They say "Three of the four are almost exclusively by blacks". Almost, huh...

Ironghost

Dec 24 2006

Kingfish writes: Next thing you know you are going to be telling me that we should change the color of the cue ball and eight ball because that is racist, gives Blacks a feeling of inferiority, thus irreparably damaging their self esteem, and makes them think they are going to be slaves as society approves of it. Hey, y'all are the ones getting upset about the "back in chains" comment. I'm just saying that if you're handcuffed (using the old-school variety), you are quite literally back in chains. Not figuratively. Literally. Instead of handcuffs, we should just use stun guns then to subdue suspects. Knock them out completely. You're joking, but some officers aren't. Ironghost writes: Not all, Tom. The hinged is becoming popular because it restricts movement better. Duly noted. It was also Black officers which beat up one black suspect I can recall. Why does this matter? There were black slave traders and overseers, too. Look, if I can't get you to agree to anything else in this thread, at least give some serious thought to the undeniable truth that it is quite possible to commit a racist act against a member of one's own race. This goes back to the "personal responsibility" bit; it doesn't matter if the officer is a friggin' Black Nationalist who pickets on weekends, who just happened to get pissed because the kid said something that made him angry. If he can beat the kid with impunity when the suspect is black but can't if he's white, then that's a much more serious problem than any question of officer intent. I don't believe there's a white officer that would do something that foolish around here. He'd be lynched before returning to the station, innocent or not. I doubt that. One interesting assumption all this makes is that white people don't wear dreadlocks or the like. They very seldom do, but a few do. Some whites probably didn't make it through the Jim Crow literacy tests, either. The point is that there is a clear racist effect of the bill. Intent, and the fact that it affects a few whites on the side, is completely irrelevant to this. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Dec 24 2006

My point would be that there isn't a "Clear racist intent" in the bill at all. Telling everyone to look the same on the job isn't akin to throwing them "back in chains". I don't understand how you can make that inference. Also.. [quote]Department officials said they consulted with the Black Officers' Organization in forming the policy. It will go into effect on Jan. 1, the same time as Baltimore swears in its first female black mayor. Sheila Dixon said Tuesday she's aware of the new policy and supports it. [/quote] From the MSNBC article. How are you going to classify her, Tom? If you're accusing a mere dress code of being the first step towards enslaving blacks again, wouldn't she have to be the enemy as well? It seems there's support for the policy across the board, rather than mass protests.

Ironghost

Dec 24 2006

I am taking issue with the chains comment because the person who said that meant that white people were wanting to enslave black people and this was one step closer to doing so. Its nothing but demagoguery. Those kind of comments trivialize slavery and belong on the shelf with comments that trvialize or deny the holocaust. It merely makes people who oppose the dress codes look foolish and guilty of overreacting.

Kingfish

Dec 24 2006

You're both missing the point. Intent does not matter. The race of the perpetrator does not matter. What matters--and what brings black folks a step closer to chains--is the racist effect of the policy. I mean, this is why Frank Melton is getting away with his racial profiling and so forth: Because he's black, so it's assumed that he couldn't possibly have racist intent. But does it really matter what his intent is? Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Dec 24 2006

I know. What I'd like to say is that I doubt making someone have a reasonable haircut isn't going to automagically enslave them. Lord knows I couldn't join because I don't shave. While it's a weird requirement (have they had this problem before? Lord...) being a policeman isn't a requirement for life. Perhaps a bit of talking can result in some more logical and well-thought out hairstyle policies. To say banning four styles of haircuts is akin to throwing blacks in chains again is jumping to a far conclusion. This policy is no where close to that in intent.

Ironghost

Dec 24 2006

IG writes: I know. What I'd like to say is that I doubt making someone have a reasonable haircut isn't going to automagically enslave them. See, this is part of the problem--when white folks think "reasonable," half the time that means "white." (And I'm being very gentle here because I catch myself saying this sort of thing all the time.) There's nothing less reasonable about dreads, cornrows, et. al. Less white, yes. Less reasonable, no. In our culture the two words are often identified together when they shouldn't be. To say banning four styles of haircuts is akin to throwing blacks in chains again is jumping to a far conclusion. All policies with the clear intent of repressing black expression while celebrating white expression bring us closer to that situation. Do they create it? No. Neither does one drop fill a bucket. But enough drops do. What we're trying to do is stop the dripping. This policy is no where close to that in intent. Again, intent is not the issue; effect is. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Dec 24 2006

And obviously I totally understand the "intent" and "effect" confusion, because I said "clear intent of repressing black expression" when I meant "clear effect of repressing black expression." We have been trained to believe that intent matters more than effect by white "moderates" who supported mild segregationist policies without espousing segregationist views, but it really doesn't. What matters is how people's lives are affected. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Dec 24 2006

Oh, and here I thought we were arguing the meaning of "Clear". :D Because I'm white means I can't see this as a step towards reenslavement? I don't understand. What I see is that the Baltimore PD wants everyone to have a reasonable haircut, and doesn't think dreads or a mohawk look good on anyone in uniform. I think the one problem area is what LW brought up, that this policy doesn't seem logical to black females. I do believe a little non-confrontational conversation on that topic among reasonable people would work. Or, heck, just adopt whatever codes the military uses. If it's fine for them...

Ironghost

Dec 24 2006

I don't know why you think I was trying to change how hair is worn. Pretty much a non issue to me. I didn't say that you did. I apologize if it sounded like I did somehow. To everyone's benefit, here is a quote from the book Hair Story: Untangling the Roots of Black Hair in America by Ayana D. Byrd and Lori L. Tharps: One of the first things the slave traders did to their new cargo was shave their heads if they had not already been shorn by their captors. The "highest indignity," wrote Ayuba Suleiman Diallo, a member of a prominent West African family who was kidnapped and forced into slavery, was when his Mandingo assailants shaved his head shaved his head and beard to make him appear as if he were a prisoner of war. Given the importance of the hair to an African, having the head shaved was an unspeakable crime. Indeed, offers from Frank Herreman, director of exhibitions at New York's Museum for African Art and specialist in African hairstyles, "a shaved head can be interpreted as taking away someone's identity." Presumably the slave traders shaved the heads of their new slaves for what they considered sanitary reasons, but the effect was much more insidious. The shaved head was the first step the Europeans took to erase the slave's culture and alter the relationship between the African and his or her own hair. Separating individuals from family and community on the slave ships during the middle passage furthered their alienation from everything they had ever known. Arriving without their signature hairstyles, Mandingos, Fulanis, Ibos, and Ashantis entered the New World, just as the Europeans intended, like anonymous chattel.

LatashaWillis

Dec 26 2006

Another quote: In this new land dominated by pale skin and straight hair, African hair was deemed wholly unattractive and inferior by the Europeans. Many White people went so far as to insist that blacks did not have real hair, preferring to classify it in a derogatory manner as "wool". Descriptions of black hair in the early 1700s - in runaway slave advertisements, slave auction posters, and even the daily newspapers - use this classification, almost as if by likening the hair to an animal's, Whites would be validated in their inhumane treatment of Blacks. "Before you can subjugate or oppress people you must relabel them as subhuman," declares Joy DeGruy Leary, a mental health therapist and doctoral candidate studying the transgenerational trauma African-Americans suffered because of slavery. Once the feminine beauty ideal was characterized as requiring "long straight hair, with fine features," says DeGruy Leary, White slave owners sought to pathologize African features like dark skin and kinky hair to further demoralize the slaves, especially the women. Aided by the scientific community, which had officially relegated dark-skinned "woolly"-haired people to the bottom of the evolutionary ladder, the slave owners' brainwashing took root. "Black women began to perceive themselves as ugly and inferior," DeGruy Leary says. "And if you believe you're inferior, then you're much easier to control." On the part of the slave owners, she adds, this brainwashing was not accidental, but deliberate. When the slave women internalized the slave owner's racist rhetoric, which was almost inevitable, it wasn't long before they passed the pathology on to their sons, daughters, and future generations. This is why even today, there are black women straightening their hair, bleaching their skin, avoiding the sun, avoiding the pool, wanting smaller noses and so on.

LatashaWillis

Dec 26 2006

One more thing to mention: The whole issue began in slavery, but later on, most of the pressure started coming from within the black community. When I first went natural, I got more complements from whites than blacks. Blacks were giving me funny looks like I had a third eye or something. So, this debate transcends racial lines.

LatashaWillis

Dec 26 2006

Got to agree with L.W. on all the points. In a society where we're all trying to "fit in" and yet be unique, what's the point of single in out a specific hair style? Keep it practical and safe. If it's a safety hazard/job impermeant, all for changing it. Corn rows? Who's that hurting? Most officers today wear the "shaved" look. Fine, practical. Very utiliatarian. But it reminds me of "skin heads". A bit un-nerving when facing law enforcement. Should we ban it because it scares the hell out of me? Don't think so.....

Doc Rogers

Dec 26 2006

Thanks for your input, Doc. These sort of discussions are never easy, especially when it affects the author personally in some way.

LatashaWillis

Dec 26 2006

We've just got to remember, everybody, and I mean everybody, forms instant opinions based on looks. I respect anybodies right to pierce, tattoo, shave, etc... but don't expect others to share your view. Hell, there's a whole new Game Show based on appearance! Personally, I seek "unique" folks because they offer the best learning/interesting perspectives. If I want mainstream, I'll turn on the TV. Personal decleration , I'm mainstream .

Doc Rogers

2006-12-26T22:57:56-06:00

ID

109588

Comment

I've scanned the comments, and I agree that hyperbole is not needed. However, to latch on to it and ignore it to the point that, well, you miss the point is also not needed. To say just because the mayor and police chief, who are both black, agreed that this was okay shows that a few of you don't really understand a lot of the dynamics going on in black culture. There is a lot of self-loathing and self hate. There is also straight up fear of being seen in public with nappy hair as it has been mocked for so long. This is so much so that people will scold you or even stop speaking to you for choosing to stop straightening your hair. This is so much so that if you take a random sample of black women in the mass media, almost all of them have straightened hair and usually weaves or wigs of some sort. I'm not in the military, but I reside in Seoul, and, as far as I can see, the military DOES allow natural hairstyles. I believe it has to be above the collar and conservative styles. I'm not completely sure simply because those rules don't apply to me. I'm just mentioning what I see. This policy, in contrast, essentially demonizes the African hair texture and the styles that it can be worn in. Tightly coiled African hair doesn't lay flat. Tightly coiled African hair, however, can be worn in conservative styles. I should know as I've worked in some very professional environments. You would never implement a policy that implied to white female officers that the natural texture of their hair is unprofessional. However, in this case, they're leaving both black female and black male officers with only the choice of shaving their hair down to just above the scalp.

Author

ExpatJane

Date

2006-12-26T23:16:52-06:00

ID

109589

Comment

I've seen the game show two or three times, and I enjoy the suspense even though I don't completely agree with the concept. I don't know how well I would do on something like that because I have trouble making those kinds of assumptions without feeling like I'm being judgmental.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-12-26T23:17:01-06:00

ID

109590

Comment

Thanks, ExpatJane, for sharing your personal experience.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-12-26T23:24:08-06:00

ID

109591

Comment

LW, some of us give in to our personal judgements. Even fewer recognize we do. But in life and business, we gotta make snap decisions that affect immediate outcome. The whole point of the SHOW! I'd fail misaberly on that show. I'd have to ask way to many questions first. Appearance would be only distracting. Doesn't make for good TV.

Author

Doc Rogers

Date

2006-12-26T23:30:44-06:00

ID

109592

Comment

An update from Patricia Gaines, the founder of Nappturality.com and the creator of the petition: The Baltimore Police Dept has RESCINDED the policy against natural hair styles. The new policy will be in effect after Jan 15th. I am still keeping the petition online until the new policy has been written and can be reviewed. The officers of the BPD Thank you for all your support!! NAPPTURALITY'S PETITION AGAINST RACISM I am still waiting on an article of some sort to fully back this up. In the meantime, I also read a post from one of the group members who lives in Baltimore, and she said this: A HUGE Thank You to all the sisters and brothers of Nappturality for supporting us B-more Nappies. I am just watching the reports on the 6:00 news. It sounds like they will revise the policy to say something to this effect; Hair should be neat, collar length and fit under the uniform cap... I hope to get more specifics soon. Thanks to everyone who signed the petition, and if you haven't signed it yet, your still have several days to do so here.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2007-01-04T22:41:28-06:00

ID

109593

Comment

Wow. This is fantastic news! Thanks, Latasha... Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2007-01-05T03:48:55-06:00

ID

109594

Comment

I can't sign right now as I'm still mourning the Godfather of Soul, the Doctor of Funk, Mr. Dynamite, Soul Brother Number One - James Brown. I'm all for the natural though. I'll sign later.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-01-05T09:35:06-06:00

ID

109595

Comment

Thank you, Tom. Ray, you're STILL crazy!

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2007-01-06T19:19:02-06:00