4/12/17

In “The Talk: After Ferguson, a Shaded Conversation about Race” by Dana Canedy, the author talks about the precautions that she would come to tell her son when dealing with the police. She lists these precautions or procedures as “Always address police officers as sir or ma’am. Do not make any sudden moves, even to reach for identification. Do not raise your voice resist or run.” These tips seem like the common logic of how to act when in contact with an officer but when they reach a certain age as the author’s friend states “before they were no longer seen as cute” everything a person of color does can be seen as dangerous. I’ve seen this in the news; black men are dehumanized with mugshots and labels such as thug and criminal making them seem as though they are just a dangerous person and not a human with rights. On the other side, white people who commit crimes are labeled as children, and you see their prom or Instagram photos making them more appealing and worthy of a second chance. This image that the news puts out groups black men into a bubble of being dangerous, causing these prejudices to be made and fear to be put into people. I see why the author’s son wouldn’t want to be seen as black because he would want to be seen as an innocent child rather than a dangerous criminal.

My mom always told me and my brothers not to let our good be evil spoken of, which means taking extra steps to make sure people see that you are in the right, leaving no room to assume you could be in the wrong. I don’t know if other races take extra steps to seem less dangerous or even have “The Talk” with their children, I can only speak for myself. What I do know, is that a lot of races face prejudice and labels that have been put out through the media and events, but in order to get out of our labels and be treated like the majority group what has to be done?

Let's talk about hair...

Hair is a key part in identifying what kind of person a human may be. For instance, if you see a man with a shaved "jar-head" haircut, it's natural to assume they're in the military or have some kind of combat background. According to Ayana Bird and Lori Tharps, in their article "When Black Hair is Against the Rues," they discuss how black women's hair has been scrutinized by the U.S. army in a recent grooming policy that limits or completely bans hairstyles traditional to black women. In another article titled "Oppressed Hair Puts a Ceiling on the Brain," written by Alice Walker, she discusses how throughout life people discover new things about themselves that form their identity. For Alice, it was discovering her beauty within her natural black hair. In both articles, I was able to see how fashion trends and military regulations may not take other ethnicities into account. For example, in "When Black Hair is Against the Rules" the two author's claimed, "Army’s regulations assume that all hair not only grows the same way but can be styled the same way. For example, one permitted hairstyle is a bun. Yet because of the thickness of a lot of black women’s hair, a bun is not always possible unless the hair is put into twists first. But twists and dreadlocks, no matter how narrow and neat, are banned in the policy and labeled “faddish” and “exaggerated.” Each of these articles may talk about hair, but each shared different themes, for "Oppressed Hair Puts a Ceiling on the Brain," it was a sense of freedom and realization that influenced Alice Walker into appreciating her natural beauty, rather than other fashion trends. On the other hand however, in "When Black Hair is Against the Rules" Ayanna Bird and Lori Tharps take more of a powerful and objective approach when they explain how black hair is not being taken into account when the Army released hair regulations for women. All together, both of these articles express the invisible perception held by people that discourages natural black hair.

Black Hair

After reading, “Oppressed Hair Puts a Ceiling on the Brain” by Alice Walker and “When Black Hair is Against the Rules” by Ayana Byrd I realized that there being persuasive to different audiences. Walker I talking to a group of college students, which she states in the beginning of her article. She is persuading them to let their natural hair loose and free. Not to oppress your hair but to let it live life. I felt she was connecting it to the college life that she lived, at the university where she is speaking. Byrd is talking to the people in charge of the hair rules for going into the Army, women’s hair specifically. She doesn’t agree with the hair rules nor how they are stereotypically being presented. She is persuading them to rewrite the rules because they are offensive and some are even impossible to do. For example, when she talks about putting their hair into buns, she explains that natural hair doesn’t just go into a bun, it had to be twisted or dreaded to be put into that style. She s giving them an inside on what it’s like to have “black hair” and maybe they will understand that their rules aren’t reasonable for every race. Other than that, I feel that both authors are persuading people with “black hair” not to let others influence you to hide your natural hair. I have processed hair and it made me want to go natural again to help the cause, the more the fight maybe rules can be changed. People don’t know what you go through unless you speak about it. Race and differences should be noted when making rules or decisions because like Byrd gave the idea of, what if the shoe was on the other foot?

Oppressing Hairstyles

In “Oppressed Hair Puts a Ceiling on the Brain”, Alice Walker talks about her personal growth and how the idea of being limited by her hair put a cap on this growth. Walker appeals to her audience in a lighthearted, humorous way and speaks from a personal perspective. “When Black Hair Is Against the Rules” by Ayana Byrd and Lori L. Tharps, the authors relate to the same experience, and primarily focus on how the armed forces discriminate against certain hairstyles because they do not follow their agenda. I think that both authors were trying to convey the idea that America favors an agenda of primarily white characteristics, and that this mainstream idea of what is acceptable or normal can be limiting to the expressive freedoms of minority groups. Walker talks about how her own conception of how she thought she had to wear her hair was limiting her from truly being herself and embracing who she was. Although there was no physical law restricting her from embracing these hairstyles and no-one was directly telling her that she couldn’t wear her hair in its natural state, there was a psychological tendency to want to be like everyone else that was limiting in its own respect, as well as a societal tendency to regard these hairstyles as “lesser” or “abnormal”. I think she was trying to explain to her audience that oppression can take many different forms, and that having to limit or change yourself in any way to appeal to the “norm” can be dangerous and destructive to one’s sense of individualism and self-expression. Byrd and Tharps also hit on this same point in a more direct way by giving concrete evidence of this oppression through examples of how the military prescribes certain hairstyle restrictions because they do not follow their primarily white agenda.   

April 10th blog

In the two articles they both are talking about restrictions on hair and by their race. In Oppressed Hair Puts a Ceiling on the Brain, Walker talks about how her hair is what restricts her and that her hair prevents her from having certain freedoms. In When Black Hair is Against the Rules, it says that America has put a ban on "black hair" which is basically for black women who have cornrows, Braids, dreads, etc. In the first article, Walker is mainly trying to tell her audience that she has been just because she is a certain race, she is underpriveleged and is not privleleged like the white race. Her spirit is lost because she has to struggle more than a white woman in order to succeed for the future. In the second article, the authors are trying to show how it is wrong how they are reverting back to their old ways in which they are trying to ban "black hair" and they show how before "black hair" was seen as sheep wool and was less human than white people's hair. This is unhuman because people should not be judged by their hair or by their race. The American Army should be more focused on protecting America and not focused on "Black hair" and instead of oppressing the hair they should accept it. Black women should not have their spirits crushed just because their hair is different than white people's hair. And the races should be equal to one another and not have certain privileges just for being a certain race.

April 10th

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?

Robotic Communist Society

        Could you imagine a post-work society, one that contains robots doing all of the labor, while humans sit back and live a luxurious life? According to Bryan Merchant in his recent article, "Fully Automated Luxury Communism," he explains how some supporters believe that the idea of a fully automated luxury communism would take the workload off of people and allow them to live a luxurious lifestyle without many work hours, if any at all. For example, Aaron Bastani gave some hints of what this lifestyle could potentially be like, when he said “The demand would be a 10- or 12-hour working week, a guaranteed social wage, universally guaranteed housing, education, healthcare and so on.” Merchant later goes on to mention how this is only the beginning of technology advancements, when he talked about how 35% of jobs in the UK are at risk of being lost, due to automation. Merchant explains how technology is only going to keep increasing and we're barely getting started, claiming that for generations there has always been speculations and thoughts about a utopia society, where labor is minimal and luxury is high. In the end, Merchant explains how this thought process is based largely off of politics. For instance, he used the popular rap group "Migos" as an example, when he stated, “You get these music videos the kids love, where it’s completely outlandish, luxury everywhere. The story of capitalism is that if you work hard and play by the rules you can get this, which is obviously bullshit." The idea is that the government may claim if you obey and do as you're told that you will live a great life with no financial issues; however, for most communist countries, this has never been the case.