On the subject of dreadlocks, for example: Let’s take a look at the definition of appropriation. I’m gonna copy paste this straight from Google: “ ap·pro·pri·a·tion əˌprōprēˈāSH(ə)n/noun the action of taking something for one’s own use, typically without the owner’s permission. example: ‘the appropriation of parish funds.’ ” Cool. So now that we know what that means, we can figure out who specifically owns this hairstyle. Easy, right? Except there are several cultures and religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity / Celtic folk, etc) that wear dreadlocks or have worn dreadlocks. It is not exclusively black culture. Aside from that, who gives a shit? It’s hair. Nobody owns any particular hairstyle.
Wrong.
The problem is that you’re lumping together a whole bunch of things that are not dreadlocks: don’t look like dreadlocks, aren’t called dreadlocks, don’t have the same social/historical meaning as dreadlocks; all in the same category like they’re the same thing. That’s a form of cultural erasure, and it’s not accurate.
The only confirmed matted (not dreaded) hairstyles of Europe were the glibbe and the plica polonica, neither of which look anything like dreadlocks. And the Vikings were sticklers for having untangled hair, to the point where they kept combs on them at all times (which they were eventually buried with, signifying their importance) and kept their hair in braids. Not only do we have the burial record we have perfectly preserved bog bodies which all have elaborately braided styles. Viking warriors did cake their braids with mud to protect their hair during battles, but they did not have dreads. The South Asian jata worn by practitioners of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism is a style only used by ascetic monks, and is matted (not dreaded, see below), and are also caked with ash from sacred ceremonial fires so that’s a false equivalence as well.
Moreover, no one is attempting to imitate the plica polonica, or they’d have one giant beaver tail, or the glibbe, which is matted bangs, or the jata, which require ash. They are imitating the way the African diaspora SPECIFICALLY style their hair into locs, which is unique and different from all the other examples you mention.
Additionally it is a hair texture issue. Afrotextured (3c-4c type hair) dreads naturally because of its corkscrew shape.
All other types of hair matt, which is a whole different process where the cuticle of the hair has to be damaged and raised, revealing the living inner sticky core of the hair in order for the hair strands to stick to one another.
Obviously, these 2 things are not the same.
That’s why all it takes for black people to have dreads is a little twisting and some kind of moisturizing product, and a life time commitment to constant maintenance & hygiene.
And why white people do silly shit like back combing, the ‘twist n rip’ method, elmers glue, not washing their hair, and other forms of damage, lack of hygiene and neglect to achieve an imitation of the real thing they consider a ‘low effort’ hairstyle.
See the difference now? That’s why the imitation of ‘locs’ in the picture you provided are a matted disgusting mess.
Okay. Those are all some pretty specific and accurate points. Thanks for educating me on that. I redirect to my final point: Who gives a shit who wears what hairstyle?
White people, apparently.
White people have made laws against black people’s natural hair, say black people’s hair is unprofessional, continue to make rules against natural black hair, fire black people for their for their natural hair, threaten black people with expulsion for their natural hair, assault black people for their hair etc. And all but the 1st example are from within the last 5 years.
Maybe if white people stopped giving black people so much shit about their natural and cultural hairstyles, black people wouldn’t be calling out white people’s hypocrisy.
