I feel compelled to write this post because I find popular discussions on this topic are painfully lacking in nuance, and whenever it comes up in social media, I always have to bite my lip and avoid saying anything, lest any partial answer I give be misconstrued. Here's the crux of the matter: Within the past 20-30 years, it has been a popular trend for white people to wear dreadlocks, which are seen in popular culture as a black hairstyle most famously associated with Rastafarianism. Recently, this has become a contentious issue, as white people donning this hairstyle are accused of appropriating black culture. White people have responded in turn by pointing out examples of dreadlocks in other cultures, and specifically in European history, such as among the Vikings and Celts. There's a lot of history that gets left out in such discussion, but more than that, I feel like such discussions end up focusing on the wrong things and missing the point entirely.
So I'll start this off by saying that so far as I've been able to discern, the whole "Faerie Locks" thing among the Celts is dubious at best, and they most likely wore braids rather than locks. But it is definitely true that locks are far from unique to black culture. In India, they are known as "jatta," and they are worn by sadhus -- Hindu holy men who renounce material possessions, live austere lives of prayer and meditation, and, among other things, are forbidden to comb or cut their hair. The god Shiva is portrayed with long, flowing locks, with which he is said have soaked up the waters of Ganga, goddess of the Ganges, and prevented the world from drowning. A similar practice exists in Tibetan Buddhism among Ngagpas -- tantric specialists who are not ordained monks but receive a skra dbang, or hair blessing, which is said to infuse their hair with dakinis, and as such should never be cut or combed. Various Sufi groups have also adopted the practice.
Locks are also mentioned in the Bible. Numbers 6:1-21 describes the Nazirite vow, an aesthetic vow taken up for a finite duration as both a commitment to holiness and a penance for sin. It includes in part the injunction "During the entire period of their Nazirite vow, no razor may be used on their head. They must be holy until the period of their dedication to the Lord is over; they must let their hair grow long." (Num 6:5). The most famous Nazirite in the Hebrew Scriptures is Samson, who is described as having seven locks of hair.
The Nazirite vow is rare, but not unheard of, among modern-day Jews. However, there is one religious group today that is strongly influenced by the Nazirite vow: Rastafarians. When people associate dreadlocks with Rastas, they rarely ask where Rastas themselves got the idea. The truth is there are a few different sources. It's true that they saw pictures in the media of Ethiopian soldiers wearing locks, as the style has indeed been common among a number of African cultures. They also saw saddhus among the Indian immigrants that populated much of the Caribbean. But as an Abrahamic faith, they were particularly drawn to the aforementioned Bible verses, and effectively adopted the Nazirite vow as central to their faith.
So are there any verifiable examples of locks from European history? Yes. Some of the earliest depictions of them in history come from the Minoans. The Archaic period in Greece, from about the 8th century BCE until the second Persian invasion, features many of what are called kouros statues, depicting free-standing young naked men. Over half of such statues depict the men wearing locks. Spartan warriors, meanwhile, were depicted wearing locks under their helmets. The look, however, does not appear to have survived into Classical Greece, and you'd probably receive some strange looks if you sported them in the time of Socrates.
So where does that leave white people today? Do such historical examples justify sporting locks, and prove the SJW left wrong for insisting they're being appropriative? Not exactly. Yes, people in ancient Greece dreaded their hair centuries before Plato and Aristotle, but that means very little in a modern, post-colonial context. The same could be said of "faerie locks," if such a thing turned out to be legit. Whatever ancient precursors there might have been, locks have been anathema to European civilization for centuries. They've most commonly been associated with homeless beggars who don't have regular access to showers and baths (side note: please keep this in mind before accusing a homeless person of cultural appropriation). Thus, their association in the West has long been one of poverty and filth, and its association as a traditional black hairstyle has only compounded this stereotype by adding layers of racism.
Its current popularity can be most directly traced to the popularity of reggae music, and the black performers associated with it. And in spite of the other cultural contexts in which it exists, we have to understand that this fits within a larger cultural pattern of white people co-opting black culture for their own entertainment. From music to slang to fashion, white people in this culture have a long history of using black culture for their own forms of expression while simultaneously enjoying the social and economic benefits of whiteness and refusing to extend those benefits to black people. A white person sporting such a look is far more likely to have Bob Marley in mind than Shiva, or some obscure Bible verse, or ancient Greek statues, and even if the latter categories do apply, that is not the cultural context we inhabit.
Cultural appropriation is often talked about as if it's a form of intellectual property where we determine what "belongs" to this or that culture, and so white people may think pointing to historical examples of white Europeans with dreadlocks justifies the modern-day obsession with them. Sadly, this assumption is also shared by a lot of people who are trying to speak out against cultural appropriation, and the result has made discussion of this history taboo in many circles. This kind of discourse is riddled with the genetic fallacy (literally).
Cultural appropriation is first and foremost about colonialism. It's about the fact that white people get to commodify other cultures without sharing the social and economic benefits of whiteness. What has been a time-honored tradition or mark of identity for other cultures gets swept up in the storm of neoliberal capitalism and becomes yet another commodity to be consumed. It's not about cultures being stuck in time or denying that genuine cultural exchange is possible. It's about recognizing this commodification of culture as an extension of the theft of their land and livelihood that characterize colonialism. It's this colonial legacy that prevents genuine culture exchange from occurring. So long as we enjoy the benefits of whiteness, our relationship to other cultures remains parasitic, not reciprocal.
Like it or not, we live in a context of white supremacy, in which black people and other POC have long had to live with the humiliation of having their culture consumed by white people for entertainment, while they themselves are denied all the benefits of whiteness. So even with all this history, we still don't get to tell them that they can't get upset over this. It's not about property, but about respect, and looking for historical loopholes doesn't do us any favors in that regard. It might not seem fair, but neither is colonialism, and until we undo the latter, we are still the oppressors, and our lifestyle choices have repercussions for the oppressed far beyond what we intend.
So here's a handy little checklist for white people who are attached to their locks: Are you a Jewish person who has taken the Nazirite vow? Are you a convert to Hinduism who has become a saddhu and renounced all material possessions? Are you a Ngagpa, or have you joined a Sufi order that forbids the cutting or combing of hair? If you answered yes to any of these questions, I would be so bold as to suggest that you may in fact have legitimate reason for your adopted hairstyle. If you answered no to all of them, as I suspect would apply to most white people with dreads, I invite you to explore why this hairstyle is so important to you, and whether it's really worth it to alienate black people and make them feel wounded and disrespected by your choices.
So I'll start this off by saying that so far as I've been able to discern, the whole "Faerie Locks" thing among the Celts is dubious at best, and they most likely wore braids rather than locks. But it is definitely true that locks are far from unique to black culture. In India, they are known as "jatta," and they are worn by sadhus -- Hindu holy men who renounce material possessions, live austere lives of prayer and meditation, and, among other things, are forbidden to comb or cut their hair. The god Shiva is portrayed with long, flowing locks, with which he is said have soaked up the waters of Ganga, goddess of the Ganges, and prevented the world from drowning. A similar practice exists in Tibetan Buddhism among Ngagpas -- tantric specialists who are not ordained monks but receive a skra dbang, or hair blessing, which is said to infuse their hair with dakinis, and as such should never be cut or combed. Various Sufi groups have also adopted the practice.
 |
| Saddhus with their jatta bound up |
Locks are also mentioned in the Bible. Numbers 6:1-21 describes the Nazirite vow, an aesthetic vow taken up for a finite duration as both a commitment to holiness and a penance for sin. It includes in part the injunction "During the entire period of their Nazirite vow, no razor may be used on their head. They must be holy until the period of their dedication to the Lord is over; they must let their hair grow long." (Num 6:5). The most famous Nazirite in the Hebrew Scriptures is Samson, who is described as having seven locks of hair.
The Nazirite vow is rare, but not unheard of, among modern-day Jews. However, there is one religious group today that is strongly influenced by the Nazirite vow: Rastafarians. When people associate dreadlocks with Rastas, they rarely ask where Rastas themselves got the idea. The truth is there are a few different sources. It's true that they saw pictures in the media of Ethiopian soldiers wearing locks, as the style has indeed been common among a number of African cultures. They also saw saddhus among the Indian immigrants that populated much of the Caribbean. But as an Abrahamic faith, they were particularly drawn to the aforementioned Bible verses, and effectively adopted the Nazirite vow as central to their faith.
 |
| Rastafarian with traditional dreadlocks |
So are there any verifiable examples of locks from European history? Yes. Some of the earliest depictions of them in history come from the Minoans. The Archaic period in Greece, from about the 8th century BCE until the second Persian invasion, features many of what are called kouros statues, depicting free-standing young naked men. Over half of such statues depict the men wearing locks. Spartan warriors, meanwhile, were depicted wearing locks under their helmets. The look, however, does not appear to have survived into Classical Greece, and you'd probably receive some strange looks if you sported them in the time of Socrates.
 |
| Kouros statues featuring young men with locks |
So where does that leave white people today? Do such historical examples justify sporting locks, and prove the SJW left wrong for insisting they're being appropriative? Not exactly. Yes, people in ancient Greece dreaded their hair centuries before Plato and Aristotle, but that means very little in a modern, post-colonial context. The same could be said of "faerie locks," if such a thing turned out to be legit. Whatever ancient precursors there might have been, locks have been anathema to European civilization for centuries. They've most commonly been associated with homeless beggars who don't have regular access to showers and baths (side note: please keep this in mind before accusing a homeless person of cultural appropriation). Thus, their association in the West has long been one of poverty and filth, and its association as a traditional black hairstyle has only compounded this stereotype by adding layers of racism.
Its current popularity can be most directly traced to the popularity of reggae music, and the black performers associated with it. And in spite of the other cultural contexts in which it exists, we have to understand that this fits within a larger cultural pattern of white people co-opting black culture for their own entertainment. From music to slang to fashion, white people in this culture have a long history of using black culture for their own forms of expression while simultaneously enjoying the social and economic benefits of whiteness and refusing to extend those benefits to black people. A white person sporting such a look is far more likely to have Bob Marley in mind than Shiva, or some obscure Bible verse, or ancient Greek statues, and even if the latter categories do apply, that is not the cultural context we inhabit.
Cultural appropriation is often talked about as if it's a form of intellectual property where we determine what "belongs" to this or that culture, and so white people may think pointing to historical examples of white Europeans with dreadlocks justifies the modern-day obsession with them. Sadly, this assumption is also shared by a lot of people who are trying to speak out against cultural appropriation, and the result has made discussion of this history taboo in many circles. This kind of discourse is riddled with the genetic fallacy (literally).
Cultural appropriation is first and foremost about colonialism. It's about the fact that white people get to commodify other cultures without sharing the social and economic benefits of whiteness. What has been a time-honored tradition or mark of identity for other cultures gets swept up in the storm of neoliberal capitalism and becomes yet another commodity to be consumed. It's not about cultures being stuck in time or denying that genuine cultural exchange is possible. It's about recognizing this commodification of culture as an extension of the theft of their land and livelihood that characterize colonialism. It's this colonial legacy that prevents genuine culture exchange from occurring. So long as we enjoy the benefits of whiteness, our relationship to other cultures remains parasitic, not reciprocal.
Like it or not, we live in a context of white supremacy, in which black people and other POC have long had to live with the humiliation of having their culture consumed by white people for entertainment, while they themselves are denied all the benefits of whiteness. So even with all this history, we still don't get to tell them that they can't get upset over this. It's not about property, but about respect, and looking for historical loopholes doesn't do us any favors in that regard. It might not seem fair, but neither is colonialism, and until we undo the latter, we are still the oppressors, and our lifestyle choices have repercussions for the oppressed far beyond what we intend.
So here's a handy little checklist for white people who are attached to their locks: Are you a Jewish person who has taken the Nazirite vow? Are you a convert to Hinduism who has become a saddhu and renounced all material possessions? Are you a Ngagpa, or have you joined a Sufi order that forbids the cutting or combing of hair? If you answered yes to any of these questions, I would be so bold as to suggest that you may in fact have legitimate reason for your adopted hairstyle. If you answered no to all of them, as I suspect would apply to most white people with dreads, I invite you to explore why this hairstyle is so important to you, and whether it's really worth it to alienate black people and make them feel wounded and disrespected by your choices.
No comments:
Post a Comment