These two pieces are very different because in Oppressed Hair Puts a Ceiling on the Brain Alice
Walker talks about how she doesn’t really like her hair. She says her spirit
would want to soar away but her hair would anchor her down. Her hair has costs
her some of her freedoms. As a black woman, it was hard to grow hair. In When Black Hair Is Against the Rules it
basically says that “AMERICA has always had trouble with black hair.” People don’t
like the looks of black hair such as cornrows, braids, twists, and dreadlocks. The
army wanted to put a ban to black hair. This is wrong because its racially
biased and offensive to the black community. If these African Americans are
wanting to risk their own lives to take a bullet for their country let them AT
LEAST let them choose their own hair styles. We should have other concerns such
as making sure our soldiers make it home safely but our attention is on hair???
America needs to focus on what is important instead of making them wear “hair
extensions and wigs” because it takes a lot of money and time to be spent at a
hair salon for the upkeep of their hair and where in the desert can they just
roll up and get their hair done?
Alice Walker’s approach to discussing African-American hair is one that differs greatly from the approach of the two authors of the second reading, Ayana Byrd and Lori Tharps. Walker’s approach to the discussion of her hair is one that comes from a place of humor and spiritual openness. She discusses with the reader how as the years have passed and she has grown her handling of her hair has also grown. For instance, she states that she “realized that there was no hope of continuing (her) spiritual development, no hope of future growth of (her) sole, no hope of really being able to stare at the universe and forget (herself) entirely in the staring (one of the purest joys!) if (she) still remained chained to thoughts about (her) hair.” This gives the reader a clear sense that to her, her hair is more than just hair. It is a connection to her journey through life, and this gives her hair a essence of great importance that is not often considered simultaneously persuading the reader to feel the same. The two authors of the other piece take a different approach. Their approach comes from a feeling of offense. They share that, “the Army policy’s language was “offensive” and “biased””, and give multiple examples of how this is only the latest in a long line of mistreatment of African-Americans due to their hair. This is also a very persuasive technique because it makes the reader better understand that discrimination can take place against any aspect of a person, even one as small as the texture of their hair. Overall I believe both pieces do an excellent job of opening their readers eye to an issue that could have otherwise been easily over looked if they themselves are not living through it, and I too believe that this subject is one of importance for if we allow discrimination in any facet it will continue to be an ongoing issue.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your synopses of Oppressed Hair Puts a Ceiling on the Brain, it’s clear that Alice Walker is personifying her hair to make it easier for us to understand her connection with the larger discussion; her identity as being an African American woman and the restrictions she faces because of this. This approach works best for her audience of college students for the simply reason as it doesn’t exactly discuss a sensitive subject (the inferiority one can be made to feel due to their race) but instead creates a connection to it that the audience can understand after the whole story is presented. In When Black Hair is Against the Rules, Ayna Byrd and Lori I. Tharps are less subtle with their position. The article itself creates a direct approach to the issue by describing how the army sublimity creates a sense of oppression by creating regulations that would only regard to those of a certain race. Presenting the information and explaining why it is a problem, makes it easier for someone who would not typically find the army’s rules an issue, makes it very easy to understand why it should be considered an issue. I personally have never thought oppression to still be very present in our society today however, both pieces of writing helped me understand how it actually is. It seems almost ridiculous that we still make others feel inferior for any reason at all when we claim to be such an “advanced” society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in the idea that these two articles are very different from each other. “When Black Hair Is Against The Rules” talks about how black hair in the army is no longer allowed. This particular article is aimed towards an audience of individuals with black hair and or African Americans with black hair. Because all of African Americans have black hair and have to style their hair differently then other races with black hair you could say this is directed towards African Americans. The article also makes it clear plenty of times that they are specifically talking about black people. For example when it says “ The current policy is the equivalent of a black majority military telling its thousands of white soldiers they are required to have dreadlocks or afros.” This is a great example because it shows that the army is pretty much telling black people they cannot have hair because of how it grows. They are explaining how it would not make sense to telling people to have a certain type of hair even though we cannot control how hair grows.
ReplyDeleteWhile the articles "Oppressed Hair Puts a Ceiling on the Brain" by Alice Walker and "When Black Hair is Against the Rules" by Ayana Byrd and Lori L. Tharps both discuss the issues of black hair and how it has been viewed, they take different approaches on the concern setting contrasting tones. "Oppressed Hair Puts a Ceiling on the Brain," focuses on the author's personal experience of spiritual growth and how she was raised as part of her culture to change and adjust her hair. Through her growth, Walker has learned how to embrace her natural hair and is advocating women to do the same. She takes a much more free-spirited and supportive approach to the topic. On the other hand, Byrd and Tharps take a much more defensive stance as it calls out the military for its unjust rules on acceptable hairstyles. This article implies that the military does not embrace the diversity of all ethnicities. When examining the hair rules for the military one can easily see that gender is the only thing taken into consideration regardless of race or texture. The rules are delegated to more fine rather than coarse hair. In comparison to "Oppressed Hair Puts a Ceiling on the Brain" this article serves to condemn the military for its biased regulations.
ReplyDelete