skirtcafe.org

I just came across this: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/200 ... ideosearch

Just more (presumably) gender-based inequality (not to mention religious/racial/other)

sigh...

It's a pain in the chair

Uncle Al
Duncanville, TX

Good grief. And the kid's hair wasn't even that long! I wonder what that pack of rascals would think of us?

That's racism, pure and simple. Native American's long hair IS their heritage. The last time the United States Gov made Native American children cut their hair was in the 1880's around the time of "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee". Today, that is nothing but racism. Would they tell a black child he couldn't have cornrows? I don't think so.

Since1982 wrote:That's racism, pure and simple. Native American's long hair IS their heritage. The last time the United States Gov made Native American children cut their hair was in the 1880's around the time of "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee". Today, that is nothing but racism. Would they tell a black child he couldn't have cornrows? I don't think so.

My thoughts exactly, Skip.
Grrr!

That community needs a stiff dose of the modern world.
If only there were some way to arrange a "move in". I'm thinking of a few families from some diverse heritages/religions/cultures: Orthodox Jew, Muslim, Sikh. That would give them an education, and put them on the spot when they tried to enforce arbitrary hair or dress codes.

Kris

I would love to be wealthy enough to get these guys a lawyer for the civil rights trial!!!!!!!!!!
Notice (as some one said, a child of color with cornrolls) - NO one is all up in arms about this cause no afro hair is in trouble.

That is discrimination nothing else.
what I think is worse, is that when any rule that was made up before, under other circumstances, is challenged with new circumstances, nobody asks what the rule was for?
What is the thought BEHIND the rule? If people don't know WHY the rule is there, then the rule is not worth the paper it may be written on.
When people get the answer, then they can see if there is any reason to keep the rule as is or adjust or even abolish it all together.

Why can't boys wear long hair? If it is hygene, that is easy to check, and even short hair can be unhygenic.
Too girlish? Fu..ng discrimination.
What else could be the "reason"?
I certainly cant think of any.

That is the same as anybody that says to you "men are not allowed to wear skirts here, at school, or your job, in the park, whatever." Ask them "tell me why". Most possibly they can only read anything that happens to be on paper, without being able to THINK, just the same as the school boord,
Just dumb bast..ds! When people don't think, are illiterate, are disrespectful, that is when these things happen.

Be aware of people who will not and cannot think.

Yes, this is a bunch of garbage. Now, most of the Native
Americans, on a reservation, go by Indian rules. But, if they
life OFF the Reservation, they must abide my 'white-mans'
rules. Now, as a young child, this can be traumatic. The
long hair should have no bering in this case. If the child
were much older, involved in a 'shop-class', either wood
or metal, then for saftey, long hair is not allowed. It must
be pulled back, up and out-of-the-way OF ANY POWER TOOLS.

But for a 6-7 year old child---this 'ain't gonna' happen! They are
to young for any 'shop-classes'.

It seems that the 'School Board' is suffering from Opticalrectumitis

They really haven't figured out that if they find themselves
in a hole, the need to stop digging!

Uncle Al
Duncanville, TX

Huh?

Uncle Al wrote:Yes, this is a bunch of garbage. Now, most of the Native
Americans, on a reservation, go by Indian rules. But, if they
life OFF the Reservation, they must abide my 'white-mans'
rules.

American Indians, or American caucasians, or Afro - Americans or any Americans, regarding hair and length thereof, don't need to abide by ANY rules if they are safe with long hair. "White mans" rules for anyone in America went out the door about 1956 when Elvis Presley grew out a pompadour hair style. As far as living on reservations go, there are tons of native americans and part native americans that don't need to live anywhere they'd rather not live, and 'specially not on reservations. Native Americans in North America NEED the reservations to put dozens of CASINOS on. Not to live on.

"White mans" rules for anyone in America went out the door about 1956 when Elvis Presley grew out a pompadour hair style.

This thread is starting to stray into some troubling waters and I believe a re-think is required.

Other than for safety reasons (already mentioned), arbitrary rules concerning the length of a man's hair tend to have more to do with dominance behaviour than anything else; it's a self-insecure domineer that is made uneasy by anyone who might dare to be different -- and longhairs tend to be different. They have a tendency to think for themselves and to not put up with a whole lot of bull----. Does that profile remind you of anyone here (who happens to have the cubes to really bend the "rules")?

So, without much effort we can pretty easily put the "Racism Card" back in the deck; the fact that the boy's family played it was an attempt to "game the system". It would have been more productive to attack the "dress code" as being needlessly sexist, which, if anybody locally actually thought about it, would likely garner support from most citizens. (Notice, however, that even the local women in the town meeting were opposed to the length of the lad's hair; I tend to suspect that nobody in that town was thinking that day.)

As a half breed Cherokee - not rasied on a reservation (mixed blessing here, you do know American Natives are still living in poverty conditions - casinos help but not ALL tribes have them)(Casino issuse being a different one, but just to say - Casinos are about the ONLY form of self run industry that the U.S. Government will ALLOW tribes to have for self support)

I find this hair thing disturbing. It goes all the way back to the forming of the nation. Back to the time that Pres. Washington "coined" the name Redskins and called to total removal from the planet the Natives on the ground his white friends wanted to live on. (This can be looked up on the net. A little known letter from the Pres to his General for a - kill them all mission)
You do not see any lawyer or Ministers going on the news all upset about this issue because it is about a half breed native and NOT someone of color. American Native have been and ALWAYS will be even more suppressed the "former slaves".
This was are land, stolen by blood, money, and trickery - but is a "Hell" for the people now in heritance of it.

Civil rights is all about the Blacks and noone else - ever hear of a white person sueing for civil rights(?) - no. NOONE out there will even think of helping the Natives, it would ruin thier careers.

we can pretty easily put the "Racism Card" back in the deck

Racism is most frequently of this type, actually --- not an overt act of explicit hostility, but rather an unthinking act of omission, followed by an unwillingness to see the issue from the others' point of view.

This very much is racism, and it's the most hurtful kind.

Tennessee also has a bad history, shall we say, with Native Americans. Andrew Jackson was an important character in the founding of the state --- yes, the same Andrew Jackson who actively pursued a policy of genocide and made it onto our $20 bill.

question for imadube. would you say there's anything wrong with this sentence?>>> Famoose movee starr frum the 50's Garye Coopere in his most famoose movee "Highe Noone" wass a veree good aktor......<<< Would you see anything wrong with that, Imadube?