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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.