I’m guessing that even before ancient Greeks circulated the tale of mythical Narcissus and before the first artificial reflective surfaces, humans were concerned about their appearance. Maybe that concern is reflected in some as yet undiscovered cave painting. I’m guessing. Why? Our species is obsessed with appearance.
Part of that concern stems in part, I believe, from our gregarious nature and part from our desire for convenience and comfort. The former relates us in society; the latter, self-relates. Think of the difference between—in some quarters there will be the gnashing of teeth over the following analog—having long hair fixed in a scrunchy or pinned up on a hot day versus hair fixed in a beauty salon for a formal evening out. We do, at times, merge comfort, social norms, and convenience, but in numerous settings, comfort elicits frown-faces of judgement. As one whose hair began its lifelong vacation when I was just 17 but who had hair before then, I can appreciate the dilemma of people with long hair who choose to get relief in summertime but who want to maintain a habitual social image.
Social Norms vs Reality
As a bald person, I was intrigued by the story about Puerto Rico’s new law banning discrimination against hair styles. In a land of eternal heat, long hair can be uncomfortable. But how casual or convenient does one style hair? Depends on the circumstance, I suppose.
HR job interviewers most likely conduct sessions with job applicants with appearance conforming to social norms and their particular company’s ideals in mind. Bank tellers and vice presidents usually don’t sport a “Hippy” disheveled look. I was unaware, however, that hairstyle discrimination was such a matter of concern that 26 US states, and now the Territory of Puerto Rico, had enacted laws against it, all modeled on California’s CROWN Act, which stands for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair.”
Is There a Problem? Only in the Eyes of the Beholder
If hairstyle is problematic feature, what other human features are even more problematic in the eyes of society and media? Skin color, of course, especially in the liberal media where race is an obsession.
Kamala’s skin currently qualifies as “Black” in the eyes of the liberal Press, whereas Ulsha’s skin is “Caucasian-brownish” in their eyes. Yet, both have Indian genes, Harris’s heritage tracing to southeastern India’s Tamil Nadu on her mother’s side and to her father’s maternal grandmother Iris Finegan and his paternal grandmother Miss Chrishy (née Christiana Brown). Usha’s heritage also derives from southeastern India, albeit not from Tamil Nadu, but rather from neighboring Andhra Pradesh. Yeah. You get it. There’s a commonality: Southeastern India. * And there’s a difference: Ireland. But in the eyes of the liberal Press, Kamala is decidedly—as Obama was labeled—“Black” and spoken of with respect, whereas Usha doesn’t get the same respect. For hypocrites, race makes a difference, and race doesn’t make a difference.
The liberal Press can’t see the commonality or the difference. That the liberal media’s pundits only see humans through a political lens tells the tale of an emotional approach to politicians and those associated with them. They are both concerned and unconcerned about race, depending upon, of course, the political association. Thus, the big uproar when Trump recently said, “I didn’t know she was ‘Black’.” Could he have gotten his idea from Kamala’s appearance on a cooking show during which she laid claim to her Indian heritage?*** Did those Irish ancestors taint his understanding? The pundits have gone full throttle on correcting his “faulty” notion.
Heritage and Hairstyle, Yes, Policy, No
So, we’ve been silly about ourselves for thousands of years, noting the slightest variations in appearance and using those variations—from personal fashion to skin color— as bases for evaluation and worth. Ideas, behaviors, and accomplishments take a backseat to superficial characteristics, especially in modern politics framed as they are by 24/7 talking heads with ubiquity.
The things that concern us about individuals and groups are frequently the things that contribute little to ability and accomplishment. The things that concern us are frequently those that have nothing to do with practical matters like guiding a country toward ever-increasing prosperity. Black, white, brown, or burnt siena, long hair, short hair, braided hair, those colors and hairstyles do not guarantee any company or country prosperity.
Part of that concern stems in part, I believe, from our gregarious nature and part from our desire for convenience and comfort. The former relates us in society; the latter, self-relates. Think of the difference between—in some quarters there will be the gnashing of teeth over the following analog—having long hair fixed in a scrunchy or pinned up on a hot day versus hair fixed in a beauty salon for a formal evening out. We do, at times, merge comfort, social norms, and convenience, but in numerous settings, comfort elicits frown-faces of judgement. As one whose hair began its lifelong vacation when I was just 17 but who had hair before then, I can appreciate the dilemma of people with long hair who choose to get relief in summertime but who want to maintain a habitual social image.
Social Norms vs Reality
As a bald person, I was intrigued by the story about Puerto Rico’s new law banning discrimination against hair styles. In a land of eternal heat, long hair can be uncomfortable. But how casual or convenient does one style hair? Depends on the circumstance, I suppose.
HR job interviewers most likely conduct sessions with job applicants with appearance conforming to social norms and their particular company’s ideals in mind. Bank tellers and vice presidents usually don’t sport a “Hippy” disheveled look. I was unaware, however, that hairstyle discrimination was such a matter of concern that 26 US states, and now the Territory of Puerto Rico, had enacted laws against it, all modeled on California’s CROWN Act, which stands for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair.”
Is There a Problem? Only in the Eyes of the Beholder
If hairstyle is problematic feature, what other human features are even more problematic in the eyes of society and media? Skin color, of course, especially in the liberal media where race is an obsession.
Kamala’s skin currently qualifies as “Black” in the eyes of the liberal Press, whereas Ulsha’s skin is “Caucasian-brownish” in their eyes. Yet, both have Indian genes, Harris’s heritage tracing to southeastern India’s Tamil Nadu on her mother’s side and to her father’s maternal grandmother Iris Finegan and his paternal grandmother Miss Chrishy (née Christiana Brown). Usha’s heritage also derives from southeastern India, albeit not from Tamil Nadu, but rather from neighboring Andhra Pradesh. Yeah. You get it. There’s a commonality: Southeastern India. * And there’s a difference: Ireland. But in the eyes of the liberal Press, Kamala is decidedly—as Obama was labeled—“Black” and spoken of with respect, whereas Usha doesn’t get the same respect. For hypocrites, race makes a difference, and race doesn’t make a difference.
The liberal Press can’t see the commonality or the difference. That the liberal media’s pundits only see humans through a political lens tells the tale of an emotional approach to politicians and those associated with them. They are both concerned and unconcerned about race, depending upon, of course, the political association. Thus, the big uproar when Trump recently said, “I didn’t know she was ‘Black’.” Could he have gotten his idea from Kamala’s appearance on a cooking show during which she laid claim to her Indian heritage?*** Did those Irish ancestors taint his understanding? The pundits have gone full throttle on correcting his “faulty” notion.
Heritage and Hairstyle, Yes, Policy, No
So, we’ve been silly about ourselves for thousands of years, noting the slightest variations in appearance and using those variations—from personal fashion to skin color— as bases for evaluation and worth. Ideas, behaviors, and accomplishments take a backseat to superficial characteristics, especially in modern politics framed as they are by 24/7 talking heads with ubiquity.
The things that concern us about individuals and groups are frequently the things that contribute little to ability and accomplishment. The things that concern us are frequently those that have nothing to do with practical matters like guiding a country toward ever-increasing prosperity. Black, white, brown, or burnt siena, long hair, short hair, braided hair, those colors and hairstyles do not guarantee any company or country prosperity.
- Andrea Flores. LA Times. Aug. 1, 2024 4:33 PM PT Online at: https://www.latimes.com/delos/story/2024-08-01/puerto-rico-ban-discrimination-protective-hairstyles-crown-act
- *Vatteluttu, the script of the Tamil, is to my untrained eye very similar to the script of Telegu. My ignorance of both languages prohibits me from speculating with confidence, but I’ll hazard that the ancestors of both women could have understood one another in the same way that Swedes and Danes can understand even without speaking one another’s language. I also hazard that fewer than six degrees separate Kamala and Usha.
- * * YouTube “Kamala Harris & Mindy Kaling Cook Masala Dosa”
RSS Feed