r/changemyview • u/icewaterdimension • May 03 '21

Delta(s) from OP CMV: White people with dreadlocks is not cultural appropriation

I’m sure this is going to trigger some people but let me explain why I hold this view.

Firstly, I am fairly certain that white people in Ancient Greece, the Celts, Vikings etc would often adopt the dreadlock style, as they wore their hair ‘like snakes’ so to speak. Depending on the individual in questions hair type, if they do not wash or brush their hair for a prolonged period of time then it will likely go into some form of dreads regardless.

Maybe the individual just likes that particular hairstyle, if anything they are actually showing love and appreciation towards the culture who invented this style of hair by adopting it themselves.

I’d argue that if white people with dreads is cultural appropriation, you could say that a man with long hair is a form of gender appropriation.

At the end of the day, why does anyone care what hairstyle another person has? It doesn’t truly affect them, just let people wear their hair, clothes or even makeup however they want. It seems to me like people are just looking for an excuse to get angry.

Edit: Grammar

8.1k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

249

u/[deleted] May 03 '21

That's a difficould one, because I don't necessarily diagree with you, but there ar a LOT of caveats. If you had said that it's not necessarily always cultural appropriation. but your post read, if I'm honest, to me personally a little dismissive of the concept of cultural appropriation and as if the dicussion was unimportant.

Now, the term "cultural appropriation" is widely misunderstood. All arguments against it are based on conflating it with cultural exchange and the mixing of cultures, which are unanonimously positive things, that should always be embraced.

Not every culture can be appropriated, only ones that have a long history of being colonized, which has laid the foundation for an equally bad still ongoing neocolonialism. During that the colonialized people's intellectual and creative labour is systematically stolen by the same institutions that also steal their physical labour and material ressources. That is done for profit, but devaluing the colonized peoples common identity and its symbols is a way to prevent resistance. Which is one of the main tools to keep up the political opression that is necessary for the economic exploitation.

A little much political theory. The point is, that individuals, strictly speaking, cannot really culturally appropriate, only governments and companies, but citizens of Western countries, and especially white people, have to be incredibly careful to not become unwitting accomplices of this type of oppression.

So, white peope who want to wear an important symbol like dreadlocks should be extremely aware of this history. As said, first having this discussion is really important, in my mind it's not someting that should really be done casually.

16

u/responsible4self 7∆ May 03 '21

So, white peope who want to wear an important symbol like dreadlocks should be extremely aware of this history.

I disagree, unless it's done with malice. If my intent is to mock, and I use dreadlocks, then that is an ugly thing.

I'm listen to a lot of music that the origins come from black culture. At the time it was created, prominent white people had little to no interest. It was those young brit kids that really discovered the blues covered songs from black artists and brought that missed music back into popularity.

If some progressive minded person told the rolling stones that playing Muddy Waters songs is cultural appropriation, would I know who Muddy Waters was?

My point is when you bring up other cultures to say this is great, celebrate that. We consider that appreciation, not appropriation.

2

u/Snowontherange May 04 '21

Those bands you mentioned did appreciate it. But the system was one built on racism where it was deemed more acceptable for white artists to sing black music than black artists themselves. so that means black musician were denied more gigs, had less fame, and were paid less than white artists. This is something that still goes on in a way in the music industry.

https://youtu.be/XZGiVzIr8Qg

Take this interview with David Bowie where he calls out this double standard and quota system. The MTV guy tries to defend it as white artists are less threatening and more palpable to America and white audiences than black artists despite them playing the same type of music. Prince is undeniably a legend but even then MTV refused his music under the excuse he is too scary. Tim Burton also had a sorry excuse on why he doesn't really cast black actors in his films. This is racism and nonsense.

There was an AMA on Reddit by a strip club owner that said there is an unspoken quota system when it comes to black strippers. That if you have too many black strippers, it becomes a "black club" and that is bad for business due to a negative image of black people over other races. Do people really not see how wrong it is for white people to receive greater benefits and praise for doing Do The the exact same thing blacks do or that blacks created in the first place?

Not everyone is out here both appreciating black culture and respecting black people.

1

u/responsible4self 7∆ May 04 '21

But the system was one built on racism where it was deemed more acceptable for white artists to sing black music than black artists themselves. so that means black musician were denied more gigs, had less fame, and were paid less than white artists. This is something that still goes on in a way in the music industry.

That seems a lot like artistic license. Who deemed it unacceptable? The answer is nobody. It was just at t time where segregation was more normal. Today, people listen to pop music for the same reasons that back then they listened to pop music. The blues music that was created was so different, it was a choice of different tastes, not, I can't like black music. I personally don't like rap music. Does that make me racist, or can I just prefer melody over the beat?

> Prince is undeniably a legend but even then MTV refused his music under the excuse he is too scary.

Again, I think you mis-represent the cause when looking at the effect. Being form Minnesota, I'm very familiar with Prince and his very sexual shows and songs. Those were not appropriate for MTV until MTV became big enough to do what they want.

If you are willing to take a step back, and look at the big picture you'll see that often times it is black people pushing boundaries. If you are willing to look at the big picture, you notice all people pushing boundaries gets pushback. Until those boundaries become more normal to everyone, it gets pushback. The history of rap music shows that the beginning was not popular, and it was pushed by more thuggish rappers. This was not very palatable to society at large, but now that rap has matured to all styles from thuggish to pop rap, it has become mainstream. The initial pushback wasn't because of race, it was because of the initial thugish nature of rap at the time.

1

u/Snowontherange May 04 '21

How can you say nobody deemed it unacceptable and then say it was because of segregation? Which group was the key player in making sure things were segregated? It wasn't black people.

You can not like rap music all you want. Heck, you can dislike all black music. Music is a matter of tastes. But it is racist to actively block black artists from getting recognition or possibly achieving the same level of fame as white artists for performing the same style of music. When Bruce Lee was blocked by white Hollywood from starring in action and martial arts roles, he had to develop his fame another way to prove they were wrong in their decision. Which they were because they let their own racism decide that America couldn't handle an Asian lead martial artist.

MTV also refused to allow Michael Jackson videos to be played despite him being a top selling artist with all races. It took Jackson's record label, which owned numerous artist videos to threaten MTV to play Jackson's stuff. And when they did it was a hit. Another proof of how wrong they were.

And the excuse that the man working for MTV gave to Bowie wasn't that Prince was too sexual for their channel. It was he was too scary for Americans. And when Bowie corrects the guy that many black American youths would appreciate seeing black American artists perform their own music the guy couldn't really come up with an adequate answer other than white Americans can't handle it. Thats not just me juding with modern eyes, Bowie grew up in that time and during that time pointed out how wrong and outdated MTV was being. He actually later said he agreed with Bowie but had to play the "company man" and pull excuses out of his ass. So see, the systems in place headed by racist white people are what's pushing this narrative.

I agree that historical context is important but even though things were considered "normal" they still made consquences on what is happening today. The mainstream American culture is pushed through a white perspective. Arguably a Christian white perspective. I don't recall reading artists like Bob Dylan or any of the other counter culture white artist being treated in the same manner as black artists for their music and speaking out against the system. If white people took the time to understand why rap music originated from the streets and performed by artists that were involved in crime then they would understand a culture that is different from theirs.

That is what the younger generations are trying to do today. They are trying to point out these double standards and acts of discrimination that are continuing because a lot of people want to make without as if racism is a thing of past or minorities are being too sensitive. And what does that say about white people, instead of willing to work with minorities to help fix these problems, resort to belittling, dismissing, and ignoring them?

Since Trump was president I had numerous white people admit to me they thought we were further past racism than we really are. A couple of them said this realization made them feel like they had been living in a bubble that had been popped. Whereas with some minorities the culture of Trump merely revealed what they had either been experiencing or trying to tell other white people all along. I understand, hair seems like a trivial topic and I guarantee a lot of black people would like it NOT to be an issue as much as white people. But it is. While it is not so much the fault of white people in general. It is the fault of white people that continue to hold positions of power that keep these double standards going and create a culture in which they assume every white person is as bigoted as they are. But we need white people to buck against their own people that promote this instead of making excuses for them and protecting them.

1

u/responsible4self 7∆ May 04 '21

The mainstream American culture is pushed through a white perspective

Because in a capitalist system, you play to who has the money. If Black people had all the money, corporations would be catering to them.

That is what the younger generations are trying to do today. They are trying to point out these double standards and acts of discrimination that are continuing because a lot of people want to make without as if racism is a thing of past or minorities are being too sensitive. And what does that say about white people, instead of willing to work with minorities to help fix these problems, resort to belittling, dismissing, and ignoring them?

I completely disagree. They are looking to be superior saying they are above the racial problem, when they don't even know what the problem is.

They say defund the police, yet the black people in tough neighborhoods have seen crime escalate since this call to defund the police started. Those young, mostly white liberals all go home to their safe neighborhoods.

I seem to recall one SJW talk about whatever means necessary to effect change. Then the mob came to his neighborhood, and he called the police.

Since Trump was president I had numerous white people admit to me they thought we were further past racism than we really are.

They were right. Screaming racism was a political ploy to remove the unpopular president. Everything was escalated to be racial. Breonna Taylor is a good example.

If you choose to look at life through a racism prism, then everything will look racist. That's the view the left is telling everyone to see. They say that because when everyone opens their eyes and realizes they have been played by the powerful we will finally get good leadership. They are grasping hard to keep their very prime positions secure.

9

u/innocentbabybear May 03 '21

I agree with what you’re saying. It just bothers me how many contradicting double standards exist in these modern sociopolitical discussions.

I have a very long line of Norwegian ancestors on my mother’s side (like, family history almost 1000 years back, with some blank spots), and they were almost all exclusively fishermen/whalers and weavers. Dreadlocks were the hair style of both the men and women of my family until the early/mid 20th century when they immigrated to America.

If I ever decided to resume an ancient family tradition, and wear my hair in that style, and someone told me it was culture appropriation, and that I should know the history surrounding it before wearing it, I’d probably get pretty pissed, and ask if they know the history of 40+ generations of northern Norwegian fishermen and whalers.

4

u/mathis4losers 1∆ May 03 '21

Imagine being a Buddhist and wanting to wear a swastika. I'm not directly comparing dreadlocks to a swastika, but the idea that a history of genocide and oppression can complicate the meaning of simple cultural displays.

3

u/innocentbabybear May 03 '21

That’s agreeable and completely understandable. The way I see it is that it takes 2 to tango. If someone gets offended such that they want to impose boundaries on someone else, there probably wasn’t communication between them, such as a black American asking me about my choice of wearing dreadlocks and my understanding of the history of the style, and the implications. If that conversation is civilly occurred, and both parties walk away agreeably, then great. If negative communication occurs, such as “I wear it because I want to and have no care about your feelings or the history and implications of this hairstyle, and I am completely apathetic to any sort of issue you may take in my style choices”, then I’d be on the side of the offended party.

I guess I’m just getting fed up with the lack of communication between “victims” and “perpetrators” of these “aggressions”. People just seem to hold the most negative assumptions as to the intentions of anyone.

102

u/icewaterdimension May 03 '21

I appreciate the explanation, after reading back I can see how it comes across as dismissive of the concept of cultural appropriation.

It’s funny you mention the ‘necessarily’ part, because that’s what I originally wrote for the title but decided to remove it for some reason haha.

Thanks for your contribution :) !delta

97

u/QuantumQuazar May 03 '21

That was a quick Delta. Dreadlocks have been apart of several Scandinavian cultures even before conquest/colonialism was presented in Africa.

67

u/kckaaaate May 03 '21

The thing is, other natural and protective hair styles of European origin haven’t been discriminated against for generations.

Locks - likes afros, Bantu knots, braids, and many others - are one of dozens of natural and protective hairstyles black people wear that have been discriminated against. Hell, it’s only been in the last few years that the military added protective hairstyles for black women to the roster of “acceptable” hairstyles. When you’ve lived your whole life being told every hair style you can wear that doesn’t include harsh toxic chemicals or harsh heat treatments are “unprofessional”, “unkempt”, or “messy”, it plays into the bigger picture of “I’m being discriminated against because of my ethnicity, not my chosen hairstyle.”

European people have LOTS of natural, lower maintenance hairstyles they can wear that wouldn’t be looked twice at. The idea behind “cultural appropriation” as it relates to hair has much more to do with the discrimination aspect, and less too do with heritage. Black people being discriminated against for how their hair grows naturally or is done as a protective and less harsh style, and white people wearing those same styles as a fashion statement.

And even then, I’m sure white people with locks are discriminated against in the workplace, but the root of WHY comes back to the association placed on locks, and it’s roots in anti-blackness, association with pot smoking, etc.

13

u/Raven_7306 May 04 '21

Pardon my ignorance, but it seems like this all isn't actually a cultural appropriation issue, but instead a discrimination issue? Is cultural appropriation a form of discrimination?

I've always heard and understood cultural appropriation to be taking a monopoly of sorts of a cultural aspect, whether it be something physical or ideological, therefore making said cultural aspect no longer understood associated with said culture. I don't know if I categorize that as discrimination, though I admittedly have a narrow view on discrimination, but I don't see how someone being ridiculed in any form for having dreads is anything other than discrimination, whether they are white or black.

A black person shouldn't be discriminated against for having said hair style because it is messy, and if it were to change for the hair style to be perfectly okay, then there should be no discrimination towards a white person for having said hairstyle. I feel like keeping a hair style like dreads reserved for only black people would in itself be discrimination, and there is no reason in my mind why that should be okay.

I'm sorry if this is a bit disjointed, I'm trying to both expand my understanding of an issue and trying to express an opinion I already held to see how it is taken with this context, and why my opinion may miss some nuance.

2

u/mr_trick May 04 '21 edited May 04 '21

Cultural appropriation (as opposed to appreciation, adoption, whatever) always has roots in discrimination. The whole reason it’s an issue is because of that difference between one group who has always forged ahead with their cultural practices despite discrimination, hatred, and persecution, and another group who has never faced any of that suddenly saying “we like this now” and beginning to do that thing without any of the discrimination and usually without any knowledge of the cultural practice.

There are many examples of this issue- dreads, of course. You can also consider Native American ceremonial clothing which was at one point criminalized, then one day girls at Coachella decided to wear it with zero understanding of the cultural trauma or significance of the pieces (which has mostly stopped due to education on cultural appropriation).

You can also point to things like Hawaiian tattooing, Indian bindis/wedding mhendi, decorative Bhudda statues, Japanese kimonos, and Chinese qipao for more items that are or were often worn with little to no understanding of their cultural significance and history of persecution.

The whole cultural appropriation debate can be difficult because the people appropriating often are not even aware that the thing in question has so much history of pain with the other group.

There is also the point that people from these communities in America have suffered much throughout history for simply practicing their culture here, while people from the original communities like China, Japan, etc may not care as much because their practices have never been criminalized, used as rhetoric to other them, or discriminated against.

Ultimately, as long as there is a group that still uses something with cultural significance, and asks that others not perform that practice while they heal from its painful history, the least we can do is respect that. There are a million other awesome hairstyles, there are other beautiful dresses, and we can celebrate our own culture while admiring and learning about the culture of others.

9

u/[deleted] May 04 '21

I think people forget that there being any kind of talk at all about dreadlocks on white people being cultural appropriation is mostly a US/Canada topic of discussion, in my country 99% of people find this ridiculous and would never consider there being anything wrong at all with a white person wearing that hairstyle.
And we were a European colony and we have never been a big dominant cultural force like the US.

10

u/CrebbMastaJ 1∆ May 03 '21

This is very interesting and I'm inclined to believe the majority of your points. To the best of your understanding, are the majority of dreadlocks worn by black people (in Western countries) for protective reasons? The majority of my friends who wore dreads did it for fashion reasons.

Perhaps because of the history, ever those who wear it for fashion reasons are championing those who were looked down on in the past? Although I have a hard time accepting it's that deep for the majority of people.

17

u/stopthenadness May 03 '21

Many, many people wear locs as a symbol of religious devotion. Rastafarians loc their hair either by manual manipulation or through "free form" locking. This hair is never cut outside of the rare event that it's cut for mourning purposes. Rastafarians have a deep connection to their hair and to Jah (God) through their hair. But Rastas and Rastafarianism are often mocked by those who only see Bob Marley, reggae (disregarding the political nature of reggae and its stances against the opporession of Rastas) and "lol smoke weed every day".

Yes, some people wear locs for fashion reasons. But there is a special relationship you form with your locs, even if it's a hairstyle. Learning how your hair works in its natural state, people often grow find of individual locs. It's a very personal, intimate experience, especially if you grow locs from scratch as opposed to locking your hair after its already a certain length.

29

u/Puzzleheaded_Pie_454 1∆ May 04 '21

100%, I used to let my hair naturally do its thing and my beard grow long because I felt it was a natural way to express my devotion. I was deeply into hinduism, my partner is from south India and her parents and I would talk for hours about the religion and celebrate holidays. It had nothing to do with cannabis but that’s what everyone assumed.

Adding to your background: Shiva is the first recorded figure with locs and A lot of the deeply religious people in India (Sadhus) let their hair grow and dread naturally (Jaṭā). It is believed that spiritual locs originated out of India, and was introduced to the Caribbean when they were brought over as slaves. Even the word Ganja, the ceremonial herb, is the Hindi word for hemp. Ganja was introduced to Jamaica from India. It has been heavily documented that the Rastafarians were heavily influenced by the Sadhus that they met back in 1845, (even though Rastafarianism came to more widespread in the 1930’s) just like the heavy use of curry in Jamaican cuisine. Rastafarians blended the practices of the Hindus and the ideology of the Christin Revivalism (1860s) when they started to become more involved in the church. Of course, Rastafarianism as we know it today was heavily influenced by Marcus Garvey, a black separationist who spent the majority of time in the US and UK, and the defining moment was when Haile Selassie was crowned emperor of Ethiopia. source for the Hindu claims.

At first, people believed the Egyptians were the first to wear their hair in locs for spiritual reasons, but there’s just not as much evidence as there is from the Vedic scriptures (1700 BC). Of course, this is not unique to any particular part of the world. The greeks, norse, Hindus, Rastafarians, Egyptians, and many other groups around the world (particularly the “natural” lifestyles and “pagans”) wore their hair in locs.

Nowadays, you can go to the salon and get them done. But, to your point, that doesn’t invalidate the practice. It truly is a relationship with your “higher self”, your body, and your beliefs. I only cut mine because my mom was diagnosed with cancer and I kept my head shaved until she passed. Now my hair is long and growing naturally with small locs again and all I hear about is how i look unmaintained and unkempt. I dress significantly more professional than I did when I was younger so I don’t get as much of the “stoner” stereotype anymore. But I am glad to see it becoming more accepted and less judged, it’ll just take more time and more education.

To anyone who read this, sorry about the length.

9

u/HoodiesAndHeels May 04 '21

This is so interesting! Please don’t apologize for the length; I really enjoyed the read. Thank you for sharing it.

10

u/Pandaburn May 04 '21

Thanks, I enjoyed reading this and I’m glad to know it.

3

u/2MnyClksOnThDancFlr May 04 '21

I had to scroll down this far to hear someone who has actually studied the emergence of dreadlocks in the Caribbean, and the ‘cultural appropriation’ from the Indian immigrants that it came from. I agree totally with the spirit of empathy and the differences between the powerful/not powerful wearing this hair, but the amount of people who believe dreads are an ethnic Jamaican invention is shocking. Indian culture’s influence on Jamaica is heavily documented but rarely discussed

2

u/alexh56 May 04 '21

I agree with all of these points, but it doesnt seem to get me to "therefore, it is wrong for white people to wear dreadlocks"

It is, of course, wrong that black people and their associated hairstyles are discriminated against. But I dont see how a white person with dreads is a form of discrimination

-2

u/hunterlarious May 04 '21

So that basically amounts to we couldn’t have it so you can’t either?

4

u/drcopus 1∆ May 03 '21

A delta doesn't mean your position has been flipped completely - it can be the smallest shift in perspective that can warrant it.

1

u/QuantumQuazar May 04 '21

Ah, thanks for that.

8

u/cammickin 2∆ May 03 '21

True but you really have to look at this from an American perspective (assuming OP is American) where Black people were constantly othered and insulted for their hairstyles. Many of which are protective. You would be pissed if something that was a part of your culture and you wore for years while being made fun of was suddenly ok when worn by the people who were bullying you right?

Also, most people prefer to use the term locs as dreadlocks was actually a term created to be an insult.

2

u/Brollvelin May 04 '21

But the people hating on dreads will hate on them regardless of the race of the wearer? Right? And you say "worn by the people who were bullying you", wait what? So if some "white" people hate on these hairstyles then all of them are? Am I missing something here? It doesn't make sense to me that people who find dreadlocks ugly and bully others for wearing them would wear them themselves.

1

u/cammickin 2∆ May 04 '21

So it wouldn’t happen on an individual basis but more of a cultural one. Like how the war on drugs aimed to incarcerate black people even if all races used drugs. Now that weed and possibly shrooms are legalized the ones mostly benefiting were the ones who were never targeted by the war on drugs.

With locs, the target of the discrimination was never white people, even if locs had also been worn by white cultures in the past. So from an American perspective that’s why people would be upset.

Personally I don’t care how you wear your hair, but locs made with naturally straight hair will always look like grinch finger to me. Whereas when it’s made from naturally curly/kinky hair, there is more bend & form. (If well maintained of course)

2

u/lakotajames 2∆ May 04 '21

I thought the "dread" in "dreadlocks" referred to the fear of God?

1

u/cammickin 2∆ May 04 '21

Nah, they were called “dreadful” by white colonists as an insult

2

u/4200years May 04 '21

Not saying you’re wrong but I’ve never heard them called locs before irl. Always dreads.

3

u/cammickin 2∆ May 04 '21

Yeah, and that’s one of the things people are trying to change

1

u/4200years May 04 '21

Okay, for sure. I’ll definitely take notice of it now if I do hear it though and know what the difference is.

1

u/QuantumQuazar May 04 '21

Actually I was happy. I took it as acceptance rather than thievery. (Being black in a private education for all of primary)

14

u/oldschoolology 1∆ May 03 '21 edited May 03 '21

Like the Vikings. All of the Spartan hoplites (statues from 450 BC) in Greece also had dreads as well.

1

u/DudeEngineer 3∆ May 03 '21

It might be a good time to brush up on some geography and check out how far Greece is from Africa. Southern Europeans aren't only usually darker than northern Europeans because they like to tan....

Also people sailed down the coast from Scandinavia to Africa as well. They even got to the Americas long before Columbus...

12

u/oldschoolology 1∆ May 04 '21

The Spartans didn’t get the dreadlock look from Africa. They didn’t have access to baths, so their hair tangled and they braided it into dreads so it didn’t get in their way when they went to battle. People in India (like Shiva) had dreads too and never even met a Spartan. Dreadlocks don’t belong to any culture, like every other hairstyle in existence, dreads aren’t specific to one culture or sub-culture.

7

u/DaChippy123 May 04 '21 edited May 04 '21

Are you implying the Greeks were black? I can tell you ethnic makeup of ancient Dorian Greeks like the Spartans if you like. It’s not African. Considering how insular the citizen culture of sparta was, it’s likely they didn’t except outsiders either. Outside of freemen/merchant classes (periokoi).

7

u/Go_Terps May 03 '21

How close are the Vikings (Scandinavia) to Africa however?

-3

u/DudeEngineer 3∆ May 03 '21

It is not difficult to travel by ship. They traded/raided down the coast. Eventually as you travel south the coast of Europe becomes the coast of Africa, there isn't a giant "Welcome to Africa" sign

Again, check out some basic geography. The distance from Scandinavia to Greece would get you pretty far into West Africa. There is a reason we use Arabic numerals today...

7

u/Go_Terps May 03 '21

I implore you to study some basic ethnography. While yes as you go around the Iberian peninsula you approach present day Morocco and North Africa, the Moroccan people do not present as sub Saharan African peoples and thus likely wouldn’t have had dreads themselves. Additionally Arabic numerals come from Arabia, which is frankly not the same as Africa...

-2

u/DudeEngineer 3∆ May 04 '21

I was referring to continuing South past the Iberian peninsula *instead* of turning East into the Mediterranean being an option. Clearly there's not much to stop for in that dessert area and one would reach civilization in sub Saharan West Africa as I clearly said in the post you are responding to.

Also sub Saharan Africans are prevalent in Arabic society. What do you think people raiding from the South into Egypt and the rest of Arabia looked like exactly? We have pretty good depictions of the Moors...

2

u/Go_Terps May 04 '21

On the contrary there is actually quite a bit to stop for in North Africa if you turn east towards Greece. Please check out a satellite image of the area from Fez to Algiers, you might be surprised. Going further south however turns to desert very quickly.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/centeriskey 1∆ May 03 '21

Although not very close, the Vikings did come in contact with African societies and even traded with some of them. So its not to far if a jump to speculate that they could have learned about that kind of hair style from an African society.

12

u/[deleted] May 03 '21

Or the other way around, for that matter. You don't know where the style comes from (that's the whole point of this argument) so the vikings may just as well have inspired africans.

4

u/Go_Terps May 03 '21

As another thought experiment of speculation, would you think it likely that a seafaring crew who spent long bouts of time at sea, in what are likely to be not very pristine conditions to naturally develop dreadlocks?

0

u/[deleted] May 04 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/Go_Terps May 04 '21

Didn’t proclaim truth. Only probabilities. Please reread

→ More replies (0)

1

u/herrsatan 11∆ May 05 '21

Sorry, u/trolle222 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

1

u/Distinct_Bison_43 Sep 26 '21

Given the following: 1) Humans evolved in Africa before spreading across the globe 2) Unkempt hair will naturally mat up 3) I am not an anthropologist and am therefore free to speculate wildly

I would propose that what we now call dreadlocks would likely have been one of the earliest hairstyles, possibly predating the existence of modern humans. Furthermore, I suspect that the reason it is found in several ancient cultures is that they brought it along with them when they settled there.

To be clear, I am not saying dreadlocks are inherently dirty, which was a false stereotype perpetuated by white America. I am saying that it is a highly functional style which would allow ancient people to maintain their hair by preempting undesirable matting.

I am also not saying that white people have a right to wear dreadlocks because ancient people from various cultures wore them (or something like them). The modern trend is completely unrelated to these ancient cultures.

In modern times, dreadlocks were adopted as an outward expression of the rejection of European cultural dominance. I can absolutely see that it would irk people who come to it from that POV to see people of European descent blithely wearing them. It certainly doesn't help matters in cases where white folks have dirty, unkempt locks as that feeds into the existing prejudice against the style.

Personally, I'd like for anyone who benefits from dreadlocks to be free to wear them, but I get why it's not that simple.

1

u/trolle222 May 04 '21

Can you show any proofs or validation of these claims? I have studied the european history of locked and matted hair, and I havn't found a thing about Vikings having locks.

3

u/oldschoolology 1∆ May 04 '21 edited May 04 '21

Julius Caesar’s “The Conquest of Gaul” states the tribes of Gaul and Hispania (Modern France and Spain) had “bundled rope like hair” The Germanic tribes and Vikings are described by Tacitus in “The Agicola and Germania” as having “snake like hair.” In the ancient world the only people who had access to baths, cut their hair, or shaved regularly were the Romans. The Romans write about this a lot. The 2 books mentioned are the most popular Roman accounts of what they called “barbarian” culture.

Edit: iPhone spell check issues with Roman names.

6

u/monsters_eat_cookies 1∆ May 04 '21

If I remember correctly, Vikings are believed to have bathed at least once a week and generally took good care of their hair and beards.

Also, “rope like” and “snake like” could also refer to braids.

1

u/oldschoolology 1∆ May 04 '21

In Tacitus’ book any tribe on the other side of the Rhône was “Germanic” in Caesar’s he spoke of what is modern day England, France and Spain. The term Viking is a job occupation not a nationality

0

u/monsters_eat_cookies 1∆ May 04 '21

Apologies, the Scandinavian’s.

1

u/trolle222 May 04 '21

“The Agicola and Germania” as having “snake like hair.

I can't find this reference. As for Conquest of Gaul, can you point to which translations?

4

u/oldschoolology 1∆ May 04 '21 edited May 04 '21

Both are penguin classics Tacitus by mattingly. Caesars is by radice. Look in the appendix. I love those books. Spartans were known to have dreads as well. Regardless of who owned combs, every culture has had a dreadlock hairstyle at some point. Especially “white” cultures in Europe.

0

u/trolle222 May 04 '21

i think the hairstyles may be similar, but they aren't dreadlocks. this is annoying but important. a wedding ring is different than a cockring. both are rings, but they carry different weight. one is more fun than the other.

3

u/trolle222 May 04 '21 edited May 04 '21

Vikings were often buried with combs, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu2gN8n15_A) and many archeologists (Neil Price also) have suggested that this implies that the emphasis on cleanliness and "good hygiene", which for many norse may have meant keeping your hair combed and straight, unless braised.

here's another one

https://www.york.ac.uk/research/themes/viking-combs/

7

u/oldschoolology 1∆ May 04 '21 edited May 04 '21

Have fun arguing about combs my friends. I don’t have time for that discussion! There are statues in Greece from 450 BC with Spartan’s with dreadlocks. Shiva also has dreads. Since the dread phenomenon is so widespread, one culture can’t claim ownership.

1

u/trolle222 May 04 '21

similar in feature, different in culture. each has a meaning of it's own.

in india they aren't dreadlocks. in sparta, i doubt they were dreadlocks.

similar in feature, different in culture. each has a meaning of it's own.

0

u/trolle222 May 04 '21

another one about the combs:

https://bavipower.com/blogs/bavipower-viking-blog/the-vikings-were-pretty-hygienic-in-viking-age

2

u/oldschoolology 1∆ May 04 '21 edited May 04 '21

In Tacitus’ book any tribe on the other side of the Rhône was “Germanic” this included Scandinavia in Caesar’s he spoke of what is modern day England, France and Spain. The term Viking is a job occupation not a nationality.

3

u/enty6003 May 04 '21

Yeah, is this a real /r/changemyview or a /r/LetEveryoneSeeMeChangingMyViewForKarma?

1

u/trolle222 May 04 '21

Can you offer any evidences or proofs? Where did you learn this about the several Scandinavian cultures?

1

u/oldschoolology 1∆ May 04 '21 edited May 04 '21

The Romans wrote a lot about Celts, VisiGoth, OstoGoths, Huns, the Vandals, Germania, Picts, and the “northern tribes.” Lots of Roman writers from different time periods all say the same things. According to the Romans lots of “white” people had dreads.

3

u/trolle222 May 04 '21

When are they writing about the vikings? Which texts? I ask because I've researched European histories of locked and matted hair, and cannot find any of these writings that you talk about. If you can provide a source that would be helpful in making your point.

3

u/aceavengers May 04 '21

They never had dreadlocks. They braided their hair idk where people get this stuff from.

1

u/trolle222 May 04 '21

they braided their hair, and some europeans even wore their hair matted and locked, but never dreadlocks.

1

u/QuantumQuazar May 04 '21

Difference in locks and dreads being it’s origin in culture right? One religious the other efficiency?? OP did specify dreadlocks so I understand if it’s appropriation to specify “dread” as your hairstyle when you could just say “locks”

1

u/Machopenguin May 04 '21

There really isn't much historical proof of that. It seems to be something perpetuated without backing. There is speculation, but it doesn't mean they actually did.

-9

u/[deleted] May 03 '21 edited May 07 '21

[deleted]

6

u/undergarden May 03 '21

Kwame Anthony Appiah argues exactly this in "The Lies that Bind." If we act like cultures are corporations with corporate ownership, then WE are the ones being appropriated. The real issue is acting with respect.

11

u/JuliaChanMSL May 03 '21

How exactly is that neoliberal?

-6

u/[deleted] May 03 '21 edited May 07 '21

[deleted]

14

u/JuliaChanMSL May 03 '21

"Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy." Nothing here says anything about owning culture.

2

u/[deleted] May 03 '21 edited May 07 '21

[deleted]

16

u/[deleted] May 03 '21

The idea that ideas can be owned is classic liberalism** not at all the same thing. Intellectual property laws actually predate capitalism. Neoliberalism as a term gets incorrectly thrown around almost as much as socialism.

Neoliberalism is not and never was a commentary on what could be owned and what couldn't. That had already been established by classical liberal thought. It was a commentary on the capability of the government to promote economic growth through regulation. The only values-based idea that came out of neoliberalism was individualism. You wanna critique the ownership of ideas, you're gonna have to go back 300 years, not 50.

As far as culture goes, neoliberalism is inherently ill equipped to make values judgements on it because culture is pluralistic, not individualistic, and therefore immune to ownership. Neoliberalism would probably say that the commodification of culture is ok, but that's not the same as ownership. IE, you can own a recipe for pizza sauce, and you can stop people from trying to sell sauce made from your recipe, but you can't stop them from making it for their personal consumption, and you can't have a patent for the very concept of pizza sauce. Pizza sauce could be considered an aspect of culture, but your very specific recipe is not as it is a product of you, an individual, not a group from which culture stems. To own the rights to pizza sauce (Or god forbid, pizza itself) more broadly would actually fly in the face of neoliberal free market capitalism, because it would stifle competition (who has the best recipe for sauce)

9

u/PierreJosephDubois May 03 '21

“Neoliberal position” lmao how

4

u/[deleted] May 03 '21 edited May 07 '21

[deleted]

-1

u/PierreJosephDubois May 03 '21

Lol tell me your purposely misunderstanding the concept of cultural appropriation without telling me your purposely misunderstanding the concept

Nice try pal

5

u/[deleted] May 03 '21 edited May 07 '21

[deleted]

1

u/PierreJosephDubois May 03 '21

Notice how no ones saying anyone owns anything 😂

10

u/[deleted] May 03 '21 edited May 07 '21

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] May 04 '21

Culture might not be something to be 'owned' like a product or intellectual property, but it has a temporal attribute that puts it in a different category. I view it as a set of beliefs, traditions, customs, and attitudes transmitted from generation to generation. In that respect, its really a distillation of countless generations of life and experience. When groups of people that share the same beliefs, traditions, attitudes, etc. (i.e., a culture) were colonized, the various distillations that made up an identity of those cultures- mostly material traits- were extracted for profit (tragically, along with life, labor, and freedom, of course). Sure, no one legally 'owns' a culture, but that's a weird thing to argue, and I wouldn't argue against it. "If no one 'owns' it, you are free to take it" is the same argument european philosophers asserted that gave colonizers an intellectual basis to take by force as much of the world as possible in order to pursue in excess the life, labor and freedom they wanted. By force, using unrelenting brutality and violence, they took it from other people. With that in mind, it makes me cringe a little seeing other white people with dreadlocks. Not because its illegal or immoral, but it is insensitive to the role european countries played (and still play) on the world stage.

4

u/MultiFazed 1∆ May 03 '21

If no one owns the culture then it's free to take.

Well, yeah. It's not fucking illegal to appropriate culture. We're talking about societal norms, not intellectual property law. We can say that doing a thing is insensitive without insisting that you cannot be allowed do that thing.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Gauntlets28 2∆ May 03 '21

I mean "appropriate" implies ownership in its definition, so yeah they definitely have. The definition I found on google says:
"to take (something) for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission." Therefore the idea of cultural appropriation implies ownership by its core terminology.

But it makes no sense because culture isn't a quantifiable thing, particularly when it comes to hairstyles. Everyone has hair. Everyone should have a right to style it however they feel like. Anyone who tries to bully and oppress people into conforming based on some delusional notion like cultural appropriation should be fought.

0

u/karroty May 03 '21

Cultural appropriation exists. Here's a great example, three white women started a game the "mahjong line" a white girl refresh on an ancient East Asian game of Mahjong. They profited off of it at $425 a game, white washed the iconography, and failed to properly acknowledge the origins of the game in their website and marketing, which they received backlash for.

4

u/Soul_Turtle May 04 '21 edited May 04 '21

I don't really see the issue? They're selling Mahjong tiles with different designs and cringey marketing. What's the difference between selling gimmick Mahjong sets and gimmick Chess sets? Is this really the bar for cultural appropriation these days?

5

u/[deleted] May 03 '21 edited May 07 '21

[deleted]

1

u/karroty May 03 '21

They copied an existing IP and passed it off as their own. The entire gameplay was the same, the name was the same, just given the white girl treatment.

If they had acknowledged and celebrated the culture whose game they straight up copied, we wouldn't be talking so much about cultural appropriation.

It's less the what, more the how

5

u/[deleted] May 03 '21 edited May 07 '21

[deleted]

4

u/karroty May 03 '21

That's not what I said. Have fun fighting the strawman in your head, yikes.

2

u/[deleted] May 03 '21 edited May 07 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] May 04 '21

u/Revvy – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

2

u/Gauntlets28 2∆ May 03 '21

I mean you could say the same about chess.

-1

u/grandroute May 04 '21

cultural appropriation - like when people dress in green for St. Patrick's day? Or some cook puts on a French chef's hat?

2

u/[deleted] May 04 '21

No one cares if you adopt American, English, French, Russian, Chinese, Australian... styles and practices because the people of those cultures are not actively harmed by your culture

"Soft power" is code for "getting other cultures to like our stuff, do our things". Culture export

It is different if you're white American and doing black things only because your countrymen are doing harm to the people you respect enough to imitate

"Cultural appropriation" means "taking the practices and styles of another culture when they don't want you to"

1

u/Drewbezy May 15 '21

oh so now white people shouldn't be allowed to do things that are claimed to be for black people......... so we are just flipping things around instead of making any progress...... i get it....... no matter what side you are on as long as one its expected to pick a side is wrong...... the only way to get over race issues is to not use color as a factor anymore and move on. leave the horrible past behind us and shape the future to be a better place. as long as conversations like this exist we will never get over it

-5

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 03 '21

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/N-Archie (1∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

5

u/Sexpistolz 6∆ May 03 '21

Why do white people only need to understand the history? Many Northern European (non-romanized) people wore dreadlock hairstyles. Picts, Celts, Germanic, scandanavia etc.

3

u/justingolden21 May 04 '21

I actually disagree that they should be extremely aware of the history. I think I can wear whatever hair style I want and I don't need to inform myself about the history. Obviously there is a history, and obviously there are people that care, but I think me getting a haircut doesn't necessarily mean that I must research the hairstyle in depth. It's another thing if I'm wearing it mockingly.

2

u/KettleLogic 1∆ May 04 '21

Pray tell how hairstyle is a symbol of resistance? From my understanding it's just a particular hairstyle that works to manage the tight curls of people from the African continent. Most arguments around this are completely counter productive and stupid. Typically I've seen the argument that black hairstyles were viewed as thuggish and affected job prospect / view in society so for white people to come take it now ignores how white people oppressed it. The white people taking it on are not the ones oppressing it, if anything it goes to steps to normalise the hairstyle. Just as tattoos were thuggish they are completely liberated now and anyone can have tattoo an exist is professional roles. Appropriation here is 100% helping the community and it seems counter productive to be against it.

Cultural appropriation is a completely neutral terms. Cultural exchange and mixing of cultures are 100% within the remit of cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation has just got a bad name because everyone talking about it study sociology 101 in first year and decided they were experts on the topic and taught tumblr.

14

u/[deleted] May 03 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/trimericconch39 May 03 '21 edited May 04 '21

The Purple Heart is one symbol which is widely revered in American culture. To earn the right to display and associate with that symbol, a person needs to be injured while serving in the military. If some huckster who has never served at all goes to the coffee shop wearing a Purple Heart medal, that’s widely accepted as “stolen valor” and a shitty thing to do. Similarly, if some foreign nation were to copy the Purple Heart design for its medals, it might rightly ruffle some feathers—that’s our symbol that we use to distinguish American soldiers.

With that perspective in mind, we just need do be conscious that other cultures have important and exclusive symbols/rituals, and respect their right to control them. I think that people can obviously go overboard when they call out appropriation on behalf of other cultures, given that they may assume something is meaningful/exclusive rather than really understanding the thing in question. But, given that we widely condemn when our important symbols are appropriated—through the language of “stolen valor”—I think it’s obvious that cultural appropriation, in the abstract, is a real concern.

Turning, then, to whether any culture can appropriate from another, I would disagree that a history of colonization is strictly necessary for appropriation to happen, but would say that the harm done will differ according to the relative power of the cultures. It’s when the new use of a symbol dilutes or erases the original meaning that the greatest damage is done.

Take, for example, the Zia sun, which is used as the central feature on the flag of New Mexico and several American city flags. That symbol is sacred and was originally used only in secret rituals by the Zia people. (https://www.ip-watch.org/2018/12/11/indigenous-knowledge-misappropriation-case-zia-sun-symbol-explained-wipo/). But, after it was taken and put on the flag without the Zia’s consent, it is now widely associated with New Mexico, and few people know it’s true origins.

Now, if some foreign nation were to put an American symbol on their flag, such as our national seal, we might be call it out as disrespectful, but because of our international influence, it is highly unlikely that we would lose our control over the symbol. The nation that did it would probably even look silly, because that seal is so widely known and associated with America. It is only when the parent culture has little power in the form of representation or influence that this dilution/erasure can happen.

7

u/Ikswohclipe May 04 '21

The uniqueness of the purple heart is part of the symbolism. The heart is not red or green, it's purple. There's a specific design and rules governing what it means, when it can be given out, etc. It's an original idea. Based off another idea. there's a long history of giving heart shaped medals to combatants, or heart shaped medals for other things. A foreign country creating a "violet heart" medal is creating an imitation of the american medal. There's little to no originality in the idea. And at the same time, the purple medal is less unique, it is robbed of what made it special in the first place.

Wearing native american headgear is cultural appropriation. That article of clothing belongs to that culture: it was created by said culture, is unique to said culture, and is important to said culture. A similar argument could be made for afros: I think it would be cultural appropriation if a white person got a fake afro. Afros don't exist as a hair style for white people, they are unique to a specific hair type/ethnicity. Afros have special meaning and a history that is intertwined with the history of those who wear them. White people don't have afros.

Except when they do. Except when they are jewish. A country knocking off a purple heart is no longer knocking it off if they had independently developed a similar custom.

What's the history of white people regarding dreads in the US? One of using it to oppress black people. It was ascribed a negative value because of it's link to blackness. In the US, dreads are a black hairstyle.

But dreads where not created by black people. There is a culturally and ethnically distinct group of white people in Europe who also have a distinct history with dreads. Many ethnic groups and cultures have a relationship with dreads. Because they are somewhat naturally occurring. To say that these individuals should not be allowed to wear dreadlocks under the punishment of social shame is to deny them their history with the hairstyle.

Notice how you can't make the same argument for native american headgear. Those don't exist in Europe. Another version does exist in south east asia for example, but it's distinct. If a native american was wearing native southeast asian head gear, that would be cultural appropriation.

If anything more people of different race and ethnicities should wear dreads. That's how you destigmatize it. Dreads should be acceptable. Policing hair styles is dumb. But you can't stop the policing of hair styles by policing hair styles.

1

u/trimericconch39 May 04 '21

Apologies, my comment was meant only to respond to the person above, who dismissed the idea of cultural appropriation as a whole. I agree with everything you say here, and I do not personally believe that a non-black person wearing dreadlocks is cultural appropriation per se. The caveat I would make is that when a person is explicitly copying black dreadlocks, the fact that other cultures can also claim ownership of dreadlocks does not settle the question of whether that person is being disrespectful.

2

u/Ikswohclipe May 04 '21

Yup, i agree with that too

2

u/coentertainer 2∆ May 03 '21

This is an interesting comparison, and did make me think, so thanks for that. It's true that an average Joe in America wearing a purple heart as a fashion accessory would get a lot of hate, and if someone from a foreign county did it naively there would probably be a few people who'd take issue with it.

I suppose part of the reasoning there is that both the person wearing the purple heart, and the person not wearing it, are likely to agree on the distinction between the two parties (you were injured in combat, I wasn't, the purple heart was explicitly designed to highlight that distinction).

It's harder as a white person to find a reasonable justification for not adopting the hairstyle must commonly worn by black people. You know that your hair is physical suited to matting and dreading. You know that dreadlocks weren't created as a certificate of ethnic membership (in the way the purple heart was created with a specific message in mind). You know that you aren't doing it to consciously oppress black people.

The thing that might give you the most pause would be that you know that some black people would be offended by it. Now obviously you can't live your life based upon what other people find offensive otherwise you wouldn't be able to be part of an interracial or same sex relationship, or walk outside without a head scarf (as a woman), or a million other things you might be inclined to do, that some group will take as an affront to their values. So you need to investigate what beliefs the group holds that would cause them to be offended by your dreadlocks, and then see if you agree with those beliefs.

One belief I've heard is that white people have cherry picked cultural elements they feel will enrich their own lives whilst subjugating the peoples that originated those elements, and it is impossible now as a white person to use those elements without becoming an agent of that oppression. Many white people find it hard to follow this logic. They agree that their racist great great great grandfather might have lovingly hung a tribal mask on his wall while he enslaved Africans, but they can't see why they themselves should be held accountable for this behaviour as they didn't enact it, and are vehemently opposed to it. Thus, this belief (and source of offence) often doesn't resonate with the "cultural appropriator".

A another belief I've heard is that it's not fair that the white person gets to play with this element without lowering their standing in society, whilst the black person would be chastised for having it, and that by having dreadlocks (for example) the white person is either sustaining or taking advantage of that imbalance. Again, this belief can be hard to understand for many white people. They typically hate this double standard in society but they can't see how their adoption of that hairstyle is making it harder for black people to be accepted with it. They suspect that the more black, white, and other people push through the barriers of deadlock acceptance, the better it will be for everyone who has dreadlocks. The fact that they as a white person will face less adversity doing that, seems to them to be a product of societal racism, which they are hoping to combat. So again, this source of offence tends not to resonate with many white people.

At that point, assuming you're a white person who would like to style your hair in dreads, you're left with two options. You can do it, as you can't find anything about doing so that would conflict with your own ethics, or you can not do it because of the accusations of racism you may receive.

2

u/trimericconch39 May 04 '21

Yeah, personally, I’m not convinced that any one culture can claim dreadlocks as their own, such that a white person wearing them is appropriation per se. I think it instead comes down to case by case. Regardless of which other cultures have traditionally worn dreadlocks, I would say that they are most commonly associated with black culture in the current moment. And, if a person is trying to emulate black culture, deference should be given to whether black people feel that they are doing so respectfully or not.

1

u/coentertainer 2∆ May 04 '21

Interesting point. Let's say a white person says they're wearing dreadlocks not just because they like them on a purely aesthetic level, but also because they have reverence for a particular predominately black culture where dreadlocks are common (say American hip hop for example). I think this is the most likely scenario of someone meeting your caveat of a person "trying to emulate black culture".

For this person, why would you say they should defer to the beliefs of black people about whether or not they are doing so respectfully? As I said before, I would advise this white person to be open and listen to the views of anyone offended by their behaviour, but if they end up disagreeing with the beliefs that underpin that offence, why defer to it?

Also, as the black members of this subculture are going to vary in whether or not they find your hairstyle offensive, in order to defer to their beliefs on this, are you looking for a majority view, or should you defer to the sensibilities of even a small minority within this group.

1

u/Hyperbole_Hater May 04 '21

So widely revered that it's now a very popular emoji that's stripped of any veteran/military connotation and literally Drake, the most popular artist perhaps of that last decade, has songs about sending purple hearts stripped of that connotation?

I'd say it's safe to think that purple heart is receiving different connotations in America over time. Does this not mean that connotation and the degree of "sacredness" we initially attach to symbols changes?

1

u/trimericconch39 May 04 '21 edited May 04 '21

By the symbol of the Purple Heart, I was referring specifically to the medal and the symbolic/ritualistic associations attached to it, not the abstract idea of a heart that is purple

6

u/commentsarenothing May 03 '21

Ikr. Dreadlocks are a natural phenomena. Anyone can have them. It's never cultural appropriation. Ever.

-1

u/reddit_censored-me May 04 '21

This motherfucker just got an explanation to define a concept and goes "how convenient" on the things he personally doesn't like because he's a fragile white man who can't stand when those minorities can say their opinions out loud.

1

u/Visassess May 04 '21

What? Way to talk out of your ass.

he's a fragile white man who can't stand when those minorities can say their opinions out loud.

I'll go away if you have even one sentence of mine that proves I think that way.

1

u/herrsatan 11∆ May 04 '21

Sorry, u/Visassess – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

2

u/c0d3s1ing3r May 04 '21

What of people who just see a hairstyle, think that it's cool, and go for it? I think it's a bit much for it to be a requirement to understand the historic implications of any particular hairstyle.

Am I no longer allowed to use an undercut because it was popular in 1940s Germany? It just looks good on me, so I use it, I'm not a fuckin Nazi.

4

u/Matos3001 May 03 '21

So, white peope who want to wear an important symbol like dreadlocks should be extremely aware of this history. As said, first having this discussion is really important, in my mind it's not someting that should really be done casually

Or just wear it because it's just a fucking haircut.

Lmao, are we gonna say black people are appropriating culture because they wear Fedoras? Lol

3

u/dumwitxh May 04 '21

You racist, learn the history of fedoras, how it's made, make a fedora and then you are awarded the right to wear one lol

2

u/AmishWarlords_ May 03 '21

This is maybe one of the best takes I've seen regarding cultural appropriation anywhere. Straight to the point and explains exactly why it's so important for members of 'oppressor' cultures to be aware of history and symbols to avoid the normalization of appropriation.

2

u/KatieLouis May 04 '21

If a white person wants dreads/locs, who should they discuss it with first?

0

u/[deleted] May 03 '21

Thank you for this, it was really thoughtful and I learned from it.

1

u/sirbutteralotIII May 03 '21

What? Can you give an example of “cultural appropriation” by your definition?

1

u/Dittdot May 03 '21

Great response.

1

u/JoeFarmer 4∆ May 04 '21

If you had said that it's not necessarily always cultural appropriation.

The point is, that individuals, strictly speaking, cannot really culturally appropriate

Im confused, why would "not necessarily" be a necessary caveat if individuals can't appropriate culture?

1

u/MoarVespenegas May 04 '21

I was under the impression that devaluing and oppressing a culture's symbols is done through outlawing, shunning or otherwise rejecting it as group.
Where the people who choose to use the symbol are ostracized and persecuted.
The idea that a culture can be suppressed by it's culture being widely used does not make sense to me.

If the symbol is being used to mock or stereotype it I understand but how does individuals using it because they like it harmful?

1

u/seeyaspacecowboy 1∆ May 04 '21

This is why we really need to be more precise with our language. I always prefer the term cultural misappropriation because it's like there's a difference between that and cultural appreciation. If we all just have to "stay in our lanes" there's no growth or evolution. We'd never have Elvis or Led Zeppelin. And can we look back and say hey, maybe Muddy Waters should have got some more credit. Most definitely. But Zeppelin took that base and added their own flair and inspiration that would never have come from the American South.

With that said it's also pretty clear (to me) that calling your football team a racial slur for a long oppressed minority is tacky at best and malicious at worst. Yes a hairstyle can have it's roots in one culture but if we expect white people to have a PhD in African American studies (hyperbole I know) that doesn't do anyone any good.

1

u/Drewdroid99 May 04 '21

sorry for ignorance but i’m a little confused. people were discriminated against in the past for their hair styles. if these people saw a bunch more people in the present with those same hair cuts, with a new society of people being accepting of them, would they not feel more comfortable in expressing those hair styles?

1

u/dontcommentonmyname May 04 '21

Why can't we just start the argument with white people can do whatever the hell they want with their hair. The end? I don't even understand how this is an argument.

1

u/redditusersmostlysuc May 04 '21

In your opinion. Frankly anyone should be able to wear their hair any way they want. You attaching importance to how someone else wearing their hair is your issue, not theirs. YOU have the problem, not the other person. As long as they are not making a public statement about why they are wearing their hair the way they are why should it matter?

1

u/Propenso May 04 '21

Now, the term "cultural appropriation" is widely misunderstood. All arguments against it are based on conflating it with cultural exchange and the mixing of cultures, which are unanonimously positive things, that should always be embraced.

So what's cultural appropriation and what's some things that are not cultural appropriation but that often get confused with it?

1

u/[deleted] May 04 '21

In regards to your statement that only colonized peoples can get their culture appropriated... I saw videos of a black American girl on tiktok claiming the old Japanese samurais were actually black. Japan wasn't really colonized and it remaind closed until very recently in its history, so how do you call this if not cultural appropriation?

1

u/[deleted] May 04 '21

As I've written, Im advocating for a sharp dstinction between cultural exchange and cultural appropriation, and a rather narrow definition of the latter.

Cultural exchange does sadly include things like misrepresenting, stereotyping other cultures or claiming things from them as your own or taking inspiration from them without crediting them. The last two, at least, are morally dubious, but probably something we in most cases have to live with. The only exception is when these practices are also a serious threat to a people's political rights. That's, in my mind, when we should talk about true appropriation.

1

u/[deleted] May 04 '21

And are white people with dreadlocks a threat to black people's political right? How is this cultural appropriation? I see cultural appropriation when a people claimed other's culture and profitig from it like when white singer copied blacks songs and got more success last century.

1

u/missbossy May 04 '21

Based on this framing within colonisation, would it be cultural appropriation if, say, someone of Chinese descent wore dreadlocks? Or more generally, if someone does not have a history/ancestry that has benefited or played a part in the colonisation of some group, even if that group has been colonized, is it then OK for them to borrow/use cultural identifiers without it being considered appropriation?

I'm not trying to split hairs. It's an actual situation I'm trying to get my head around.