I had been looking forward to seeing the film since I first discovered the trailer a few months ago. Overall I thought the film was funny and I commend his attempt. It is Chris Rock. His antics have long tickled me and the conversation of black hair has intrigued me for nearly a decade. In fact, my undergraduate thesis project attempted to tackle the topic.

An author for theybf, today’s top source for all black celebrity gossip, insinuated that the film showcases only “ghetto” hair salons and stylists—a term which has become the proverbial descriptor for all things unsavory and by extension black. Can we please retire that misused “adjective,” right along with n-word and bitch? Teresa Wiltz of The Root offered an insightful critique of the documentary, noting the film’s misogynistic undertones—its depiction of black women as overly-superficial, illustrating the lengths some go to in order to have “good hair”; $1,000 hair extensions, and thousands of dollars a year dedicated to hair maintenance. This comes as no surprise, I do remember feeling unsettled as a woman viewing Rock’s comedy specials, such as Bigger and Blacker and Never Scared.

Furthermore, I was perplexed by the lack of consideration given to particular components of the issue, considering its complex origin, consistent presence, and varied modalities. When interviewing black men, Rock never questions their hair preference. Did these men prefer natural hair or relaxed hair on black women? Did they like both? What did these men find attractive? Was this omittance due in part to Rock’s assumption that black men “naturally” prefer women with relaxed, straightened hair? As the film’s creator and writer, it is quite telling that he does not address the matter. I firmly believe that the majority of black men prefer straightened, relaxed hair (although that is changing).

Rock also did not address the negative depiction of women who choose not to relax their hair. As Wiltz noted, of the female celebrities Rock interviewed, Tracie Thoms was the only one who wore her hair visibly non-relaxed or straightened. Perhaps he believes there is truth to the idea that black women with natural hair are unattractive, militant, masculine, and unsophisticated. When he made his rounds promoting the film, he described Oprah Winfrey as a slave when seeing her childhood picture before her first relaxer. He also stated that she was delivering the “mean” news when seeing  footage of Oprah with an afro. (Clip 2)

These comments although made in jest are surely not those expected of one who desires to earnestly examine the complexities of black hair with sincerity and “compassion” to borrow Wiltz’s term.  Even though these comments were made in an offhanded  manner, the political implications of   black women’s coiffure are very much contemporary and relevant;  let us not forget the New Yorker’s depiction of Michelle Obama as a gun-toting extremist wearing an afro.

Unfortunately, in 2009 black women who wear their hair naturally are viewed as aggressive and unattractive by society as a whole and by a large amount of African-Americans, men and women alike. Chris Rock appears to follow suit.

___________

View a previous post on the film here.

Oh Oprah . . .

Last Thursday’s Oprah Winfrey show highlighted the story of a Zimbabwe woman Tererai Trent who overcame poverty, an adolescent marriage, and an abusive husband to attain her Ph.D. in the United States, fulfilling her lifelong goal of obtaining an American education. Trent is scheduled to receive her doctorate degree in December of this year.

For her achievements Trent (and Oprah) graciously and partially credits Jo Luck, a white woman from Heifer International, who visited her country in 1986 or 1991 (depending on which web site is actually accurate) encouraging Zimbabwe women to fulfill their aspirations. Luck told Trent, “It is achievable” after hearing Trent’s dream of receiving an education. Luck (now Heifer International CEO) made an appearance on the show as well.

Trent’s real-life story was one of several inspirational accounts of female empowerment lifted from the pages of the newly-published book Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. The husband and wife author team (Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn) were featured on the show as well. And in true Oprah form, each audience member received a complimentary copy of the book with the option of attending a private book-signing following the show.

Also featured on the show were actor Ben Affleck and his work with rape victims in the Congo and Lisa Shannon, a white woman who sponsored two Congo rape vicitms after viewing a report on rape in the Congo on Oprah’s show in 1995.

On the surface these stories of female empowerment, hope, and outreach are all inspirational and touching but these accounts are couched within layers of exoticism, notions of the white man’s burden, and the elevation of the immigrant narrative.

The works of Affleck, Luck, Shannon and Oprah herself are all laudable expressions of humanity. We at BGTC have no reservations with people helping people, but at the same time we must critically examine everything. It is only through analysis can we make solid reasoned decisions about the world in which we live and navigate daily.

We live in a nation where there 39.8 million people (13% of the pop.) live in poverty. It is important to note that the definition of poverty for the United States Census is extremely low, for instance the poverty threshold for one person on their own is $10, 991.00, basically 916.00 a month, or $30.00 a day. When you compare that with the increasing cost of college education, we have a problem in our own front yard. According to the CollegeBoard the average cost of tuition for in-state enrollment in a two-year college is $2,402.00, or roughly 22% of their annual income. So why is there such push to help those abroad when there is so little effort domestically? Is it because to acknowledge the shortcomings of our society would illuminate the extreme inequities in our social and economic structures? Would it effectively illustrate that the difference between the ruling 1%, in Zimbabwe really isn’t that different from the ruling 1% percent in the United States? It is easier to project inequity onto a foreign locality, another people; but it is a true test of humanity to address the failings of a culture that provides one with comfort at the expense of another’s survival.

And lest we forget Oprah’s thoughts on America’s inner-city youth. When asked why she decided to construct her $40 million school for adolescent girls in South Africa and not in rural Mississippi (where she was born) or inner-city Milwaukee (where she was raised), she stated “I became so frustrated with visiting inner-city schools that I just stopped going. The sense that you need to learn just isn’t there.  If you ask the kids what they want or need, they will say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don’t ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school.” According to the US Census 29.4% of the population under the age of 18 live in poverty in Mississippi and  14.5% of the same demographic group in Wisconsin live in poverty.  Perhaps young people in these two states may desire iPods and sneakers like the rest of society, but it is certain that they need all the help they can get to progress.