575
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
575 points (100.0% liked)
News
23367 readers
2785 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Incorrect. The oppression of someone because of their race is racism. A minority could be oppressed because of their sex and that would be sexism, not racism. A minority could be oppressed because of their socio-economic standing and that would classism, not racism. A minority could be oppressed just because the oppressor is an asshole, and that would not be racism.
Agreed. Although, I would say western standard more than white, but it's more a subset rather than something separate.
Depends on the culture. Also you're talking about modern western culture. Not white culture in general. Even the US, which is a baby of a country, has had presidents who had long hair while in office. Almost as late as the 1850s.
I've yet to see anyone actually make a case for young black young men having/desiring long hair more than young white men. My experience is the exact opposite. Of course that is anecdotal and I'm not offering out to prove anything, but only to say why I don't simply accept the claim as a postulate.
Sure. But assuming that because something affected a black person it means it must be racism is not equality and we are not better off with it. And that is what I believe is happening here. I mean, we're talking about policies that existed in historically white schools even before segregation. It's not like schools wanting kids to have short hair is some new thing, it's always been a tool of conformity to western standards. That now being applied to black people too is not racism, it's just dumb as it always has been.
The oppression of racial minorities is racism. This was evident based on the context of our discussion, but your argument splits hairs anyway.
We are discussing a school in the United States in the year 2024. So it makes sense we would talk about modern White people culture here in the United States in this post-wig time period.
The abundance of articles on a casual google search demonstrate this is something Black people are struggling with. It's not a secret.
It affects Black and Hispanic people disproportionately. That's the give away that the policies are racially motivated.
It is being applied to students now to erase Black culture which is a form of racism. The fact it has affected White people previously and is currently doesn't exclude it from being racist. White people being harmed by inequality doesn't mean it's not inequality. Again, we are all harmed by inequality, but not all of us are harmed equally. Black people are harmed more by racism, but we are all harmed by racism even if it's to a lesser degree. White people would be better off without racism.
I've repeatedly stated that this is a policy meant to enforce conformity among boys and is likely not racism. The only one ignoring context on this point is you.
lol. Just a couple of posts ago you had a whole paragraph arguing about how it's cultural heritage.
Apparently you don't know what heritage means:
Your argument is literally that because there is a history of long black hair, having them cut their hair is racist. But now when that point falls apart under scrutiny, we are no longer talking about the past and tradition, we are talking just about current culture.
Now, do the trick you always do when your point gets destroyed and whine about me "splitting hairs."
Still waiting for this evidence. You've alluded to a lot, but have provided nothing.
On this point we agree. What we disagree on is that we know this particular rule is racist or being applied in a racist manner or that it's intent is to erase black culture. I think (although could be convinced otherwise) it's the same thing that it has always been: forcing conformity on young men.
Here is the ACLU report on school dress codes impacting minorities:
https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/dresscodereport_2-1-24.pdf
Page 29 has stats on how dress code enforcement impacts racial minorities.
Black people are overrepresented in disciplinary action while White people are underrepresented in disciplinary action. While Hispanic people are not disproportionately overrepresented by a significant margin, they are still among the most targeted by disciplinary actions which is probably why news articles mention them.
This is factually incorrect as I already demonstrated. The policy disproportionately targets Black people to in order to erase their culture. Also, your argument being wrong is not context.
My point is that wigs are no longer part of White People's culture. Everyone knows this. Your argument is disingenuous.
My point is that wigs aren't relevant to the discussion. They had largely fallen out of favor in the US public at the start of the 19th century. White men started to wear their hair short. The fact that some Presidents still wore them in the 19th century, a minority of White people to be sure, is not relevant. Also, while some early 19th century US presidents wore wigs in their youth some of them they may have stopped by the time they took office or while holding office. It is common knowledge that wigs are not part of White people's cultural heritage in the US.
Your argument about wigs has no merit and ignores what is actually happening as described in the article. No one is forcing people to wear wigs. They are forcing people to have short hair. Short hair has been the enduring cultural heritage of White men in the United States.
To White people's standards of physical appearance. Your argument keeps leaving this out. Your argument relies on ignoring facts to attempt to ignore the policy's racism.
If the claim is that rules/laws are applied unfairly on black students (or people in general), I absolutely agree. The stats strongly support this. But this all stems from a claim that there is a bigger culture among young black men to have long hair, for cultural reasoning, than for young white men. Just say you don't have the evidence for this. It's really that simple.
No, what you've shown is that punishment is disproportionately doled out against black people. Something I agree with. But if that is the metric used to label a rule/law as racist, then virtually ever rule and law is racist. Which is, of course, nonsense. What you are arguing is that our justice system has biases in it, and something we both agree with.
Then why talk about heritage at all? And who is talking about wigs? Not me.
Blatant projection.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to claim heritage when it comes to black people, but then only talk about modern western culture (which you attribute solely to white people) when it comes to white people. The reality is that if we look at modern western culture, even for black people, it's predominately short hair. If we want to look at heritage of people, there are plenty of white heritages, include in the US itself, of men having long hair. It's you who has the double-standard. If this is the metric by which we measure racism, then it's you who is racist.
The ACLU report goes into detail about this starting at page 21. Pages 21 to 29 cover racial discrimination.
https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/dresscodereport_2-1-24.pdf
Yes, systemic racism exists in our society. It is deeply embedded in our intuitions.
Because it is relevant to the discussion. The wigs specifically are not.
The long hair styles were wigs.
An argument about wigs being the cultural of heritage of White men in the United States is disingenuous.
This is argument is historically inaccurate. White men in the US have historically had short hair. It's been that way since the early 19th century. Black men have a historical culture heritage of long hair that predates the policing of black hair in the United States.
Ad hominem attacks reduce your argument's credibility. edit: typo
No one is talking about wigs? WTF? Why do you keep lying?
lol. I'm done.
Long hair styles were wigs. Your argument was refuted so now you're relying on splitting hairs over what hair styles actually were.
After calling me a racist too. ROFL XD
Incorrect. And that's a fact (not opinion, maybe you'll learn). It's so easy to look up to make sure you aren't wrong. . .and still you don't? Amazing.
I just said using your own metric, you're racist. I don't agree with your metric, which should be obvious.
Your argument has abandoned the premise we are discussing in favor of focusing on wigs again. I took the time to add some sources to the lower section of my argument since your argument now rests on splitting hairs over hair styles and ad hominem attacks.
Getting back to the discussion at hand, policies regulating hair length are racist against Black people.
I'm not forcing people to cut their hair or denying them their cultural heritage. So by my argument's own metric your argument is incorrect about its conclusion. Still though, I have nothing to do with this discussion. Ad hominem attacks about me do not add credibility to your argument. Your argument has been refuted by the evidence presented. Again here is the source.
https://www.aclutx.org/sites/default/files/dresscodereport_2-1-24.pdf
Here is some stuff I learned about wigs that refutes your argument about long hair not being wigs in reference to 19th century US presidents.
Long hair styles were wigs. Your argument even referenced 19th century US presidents with long hair styles. Those long hair styles were wigs which were worn in their youth at the end of 18th century and which were mostly abandoned by those presidents by the time they took office in the 19th century in favor of short hair.
Here is a source that covers the relevant time period. Lincoln occasionally wore a wig.
https://www.sishair.com/presidents-who-wore-wigs/
One notable error in the article is that Washington's hair was powered to make it look like a wig. But that he was a president during the 18th century when wigs were still popular, which explains that fashion choice.
https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/facts/myths/ten-misconceptions-about-washington/
This wiki page has some more details backed up by sources. Again, some of these 19th century presidents had worn wigs earlier in life, but Jefferson and John Quincy Adams had, as far as we know, mostly stopped by the time they were actually in office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wig