Monday, November 2, 2009

claim they know more about something "black" than black people themselves do

This guest post (which also appears here) is by Renee, who blogs at Womanist Musings. Renee lives in Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada, and she writes about herself, "I am a committed humanist. I believe in the value of people over commodities. I believe in the human right to food, clothing, shelter, and education. I am pacifist, anti-racist, WOC. My truth may not be your truth, but I intend to speak it nonetheless."


Roger Ebert Proves Good Hair Was Made For White People


When I heard that Chris Rock was making a documentary about Black hair, I tried to keep an open mind.  The fact that he claimed that he was making it for his daughter, was enough to make me hope that he would put aside the misogyny that he has shown in the past. Unfortunately after viewing the film, it was clear that Rock had missed the mark in several ways. 

Rock created a movie that satisfied the voyeurism of Whiteness on the issue of Black hair. It even allowed Roger Ebert, a White man, to play the role of expert. Don’t Black women have enough to put up with, without White men believing they know everything about our beauty rituals? Whiteness never seems to miss the opportunity to inform us about ourselves.

Yes, Ebert knows all about relaxers because he read about them on Wikipedia.

Rock shows a hair-raising demonstration of an aluminum Coke can literally being eaten up in a bath of sodium hydroxide. It may help to recall that another name for sodium hydroxide is "lye." God forbid a woman should put that on her head! What Rock doesn't mention is that few women do. If he had peeked in Wikipedia, he would have learned (emphasis mine): "Because of the high incidence and intensity of chemical burns, chemical relaxer manufacturers have now switched to other alkaline chemicals." Modern relaxers can also burn if left on too long, but they won't eat up your Coke cans.

Don’t you just love that he went to the most reliable source to learn about chemical relaxers. Why do Black hairdressers even go for training when they can turn to Wikipedia to learn everything they need to know to do their jobs? Of course, he takes care to remind us that it can still burn, thus establishing his expertise on the matter. Wow is anyone else impressed? MMM but wait he has even more to share.

The use of the word "natural hair" is, in any event, misleading. Take a stroll down the hair products aisle of a drugstore or look at the stock price of Supercuts. Few people of any race wear completely natural hair. If they did, we would be a nation of Unibombers.

This is the kind of nonsense you get when Whiteness decides that it is expert on everything. Clearly Ebert does not understand the importance of natural Black hair, but ignorance alone is not enough to stop him from running off at the mouth. When a White person dyes their hair a different color, what does it say to the world? How many people even know if the person they are talking to is a “natural” blonde or brunette? I guarantee you that if you are talking to a woman whose hair has been fried by a relaxer, you know it immediately. Whiteness does not openly acknowledge it because it speaks of conformity. It speaks of an internalization of White beauty standards.

Try and walk around for a day or two with an Afro, dreads or a twist out. People will line up to tell you that you look unkempt. Natural hair is considered radical by Whiteness because it speaks of an independent spirit and heaven forbid Black people walk around with the belief that they/we are actually worth something. Natural blonde, red, or brunette mean nothing socially. We don’t see this as political because Whiteness is the norm. Black bodies are politicized precisely because we live in a culture that is determined to decide worth based in the constructed class of race. There is only one race, but Whiteness needs differentiation to maintain its superiority. And this is specifically why Blackness is eroticized, constructed as exotic and marginalized at every turn.

Just when you think the well of greatness has run dry, Ebert finishes with this:

. . . with some black men in a barbershop that gets into areas that are rarely spoken about. The movie has a good feeling, but why do I know more about this subject than Chris Rock does? Smile.

Yes, you did read that correctly, Ebert just professed to have more knowledge about Black hair than a Black man. Will the arrogance never come to an end? You can tell that the man has never even been inside a Black barbershop because he has declared the conversations that Rock filmed to be a rarity. Barbershops and beauty salons have always been the hub of conversations in the Black community. On a typical day you can participate in conversations about race, gender, politics, history, sports etc., but I guess all of that was just play acting until it got authenticated by Roger Ebert. Maybe he thinks we just grunt at each other when no camera is around.

Whiteness as expert allows it to control the discourse. With this power it can decide what is important and which bodies are affirmed and on what time frame. Ebert may have just seen himself as reviewing a movie, but this was a documentary that was completely outside of his experience. No trip to Wikipedia or long term relationships with Black people will equip a White person to engage in a judgment call on African American culture. It is an exercise in privilege to think otherwise. Let’s just face facts, Whites have to actively be taught about Blackness and anti-racism, whereas, from birth, a Black child has to fight just to be seen as human. The only “natural” thing that Ebert is equipped to talk about, is his own unacknowledged privilege.

54 comments:

  1. Roger Ebert has been married to a black woman, Chaz, for decades. I reckon he has some household familiarity with black hair. A Google image search shows her with either relaxed hair or wigs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Isn't Roger Ebert married to a black woman? Shouldn't this be mentioned in the post?

    http://justlikemecouples.blogspot.com/2008/08/chaz-hammelsmith-ebert-and-roger-ebert.html

    They look kinda sweet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. being in a relationship with a black person does not make you an expert on aspects of black culture. roger ebert does not have the lived experiences of a black woman because he's married to one. he has the lived experiences of a white man.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe that Chris Rock's movie was indeed made for White people. He wasn't shedding light on anything that a group of women within a group of women encounter. In addition, he didn't add different perspectives. Rather, he made it seem as though ALL Black women act in a monolithic fashion toward their hair.

    Furthermore, he made it to laugh at Black women. Rock isn't a stranger to misogyny toward Black women. So making this film at their expense is not surprising.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oops, I pushed enter too soon.

    I do agree with FilthyGrandeur, though. Marriage/relationships do not give you expertise.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, I read Ebert's entire review and I didn't see anything wrong with it. He wasn't passing himself off as some "expert". He did hint that he may know a thing or two about hair, presumably because he is married to a black woman. Yeah, that doesn't make him an expert. But that doesn't make him completely clueless either.

    Ebert also says this in his article:

    "I imagine a good many black women would tell Chris Rock that having "good hair" simply means having hair that is healthy, strong and abundant. Why must it also be straight? Yes, many black women enjoy their straight hair, whether natural or by way of extensions. They look great. But often they go back and forth among hairstyles; that is the way of women, unlike us male clods who settle on a hair style in grade school and stick with it like Rod Blagojevich."

    I don't see why it's wrong for Ebert to have an opinion on this movie just because he's a white male. If that were the case, then he should have no opinions about anything that he's never directly experienced and neither should anyone else. Personally, I think that's just silly.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Elsariel
    It is precisely because he is white that he has no business commenting on this issue. He has no idea what it is to negotiate this. This is not something you can read about in a book or in his case Wikipedia and have an understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, he does seem obliviously white-lensed in a way in that review, which is kinda muddled; is it about black hair, and what Ebert knows (i.e., doesn't know) about it, or is it about the movie?

    Vick scribbled,

    Isn't Roger Ebert married to a black woman? Shouldn't this be mentioned in the post?

    Why, if it's not mentioned in the review itself? If Ebert's going to claim her as his "in" to blackness, instead of spouting off like a magical, white Wikipedia whiz who knows more than a black man does about it, then it's up to him to do that, not Renee.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with Elsariel's comment. Ebert is allowed to have an opinion on this issue.

    But I have NOT seen the documentary, so I can imagine your frustration at Chris Rock including a white male in this documentary about black women's hair.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have no interest in seeing this film as a black woman. I believe Rock has issues with his mother or black women who have rejected him in the past. This movie simply puts us on display for everyone else*s entertainment. I would be less weary. Wait...it already has been.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I...don't think Ebert is so much reviewing the movie as he is getting defensive, perhaps because his wife at least sometimes relaxes her hair. I think it's a pretty sanctimonious rant for a white man to go on.

    (And we wouldn't be a nation of Unibombers if we didn't use hair products! I tried going a month without washing my hair with anything other than water, and my hair ended up slightly less dry and more manageable, but it didn't dread or tangle--throughout most of history, people haven't HAD most of the weird chemicals we now put on our hair. Not everyone's hair reacts the same to basic washing and brushing, and "natural" is going to look very different with different hair types. My "natural" doesn't get me stared at or insulted or turned down for jobs because my white-girl hair is straight.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. As an anti-racist black woman I have to side with Roger. I am glad he corrected the old canard that most black women use lye relaxers -- that was thrown in the movie to make black women see more crazier and more other. And no, Renee, you can't look at a black woman and tell if her hair has been "relaxed" black women have all textures of hair and a good relaxer doesn't leave you hair fried. And finally, I LOVE that Roger de-exotifies black hair care practices by pointing out that whites do unnatural things to their hair -- but only unnatural things done to black hair get the "Ooh, how quaint" anthropological gaze. If anything Roger's post critiques Rock for making the film for white people by pointing out how Rock twisted facts and exotified his own people.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @AE "Why, if it's not mentioned in the review itself? If Ebert's going to claim her as his "in" to blackness, instead of spouting off like a magical, white Wikipedia whiz who knows more than a black man does about it, then it's up to him to do that, not Renee."

    He does mention it in the review, genius. It's just that you and the author of the post missed it, ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Renee

    By that logic, then, no man should have ANY business discussing or giving advice or having any opinion on something like, for instance, pregnancy.

    Men cannot become pregnant. They cannot know anything about what it's like to be pregnant. Therefore, they should never offer any discussion on it whatsoever. In fact, there should never be any male gynecologists because, since they're male, they cannot properly sympathize with females or their anatomy and have no business doctoring them. Yes? No?

    If not, how is that different to this case? Because of skin color?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Vick wrote,

    He does mention it in the review, genius. It's just that you and the author of the post missed it, ;-)

    Where does Ebert mention his black wife in the review? I'm not seeing it. If you're thinking it's the line at the end ("why do I know more about this subject than Chris Rock does? Smile."), and he's smiling because he's thinking of his black wife, that may be so, but it's really too oblique to count as a "mention" of her, and thus as an authoritative source for his claim that he knows more than Chris Rock does on these matters.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @macon - If you want to stick with Renee's ridiculous, overblown interpretation of that last line in Ebert's review, then be my guest.

    Or better yet, write Ebert and see what he meant. Bet I'm right.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ Elsariel

    The (a?) problem with Ebert's review is that he isn't just passing an opinion on the quality of the movie qua movie (i.e. "the pacing was slow and the camera work was crappy"). Rather, he is actively judging the movie's subject--in other words, black women.

    Furthermore, he actually takes it upon himself to speak for them ("I imagine a good many black women would tell..."). He couldn't get a quote from one of the, oh, ZILLION actual black women who have something to say (one way or the other) about THEIR OWN hair? What comes across, instead, is his own opinion, except he is trying to "authenticate" it or some such--an implicit acknowledgement that he does not, in fact, have the authority to pass judgment here.

    Granted, I'm not sure he could even quote black women fairly here, because then it's a matter of the quote that he chooses being the one that aligns with his opinion...but at least in that case, black women aren't denied agency!

    (There's probably a larger issue(s) here that I'm missing completely; these just seemed, to me, like two glaring reasons why this is a case of If You Don't Live It, You Don't Get To Judge It).

    ReplyDelete
  18. Vick,

    What matters is what Ebert wrote, not what he might've meant by it.

    If you interpret that one last word in the review as a readily interpretable signal to readers about his black wife (when most of his readers don't even know that Ebert does have a black wife), and thus as validation of his claim that he knows more about black hair than a black man does, then your interpretation is the one that's "ridiculously overblown." And so is your sarcastic claim above that he "mentions" his black wife in the review.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Willow said...

    "Furthermore, he actually takes it upon himself to speak for them ("I imagine a good many black women would tell...")."


    His quote is a statement of opinion, not fact. ("I imagine...") These are HIS opinions. He's not saying that all black women think that having good hair means it's "healthy, strong, and abundant". He says he imagines many black women would describe good hair as such.

    I see that as a huge difference.

    Eberts criticism of the movie is that Chris Rock doesn't do much cross-analyzation of the facts. Rock mentions the harmful effects of traditional chemicals on hair, but not the advancements and alternative products that are becoming more mainstream.

    The actual quote, by the way, is this:

    "The movie has a good feeling, but why do I know more about this subject than Chris Rock does? Smile."

    Meaning, why does Ebert have more facts on hand about black female hair care products than Chris Rock points out in the movie? His critique isn't that he knows more than Chris about black culture, it's that Chris didn't give all the facts and information about said subject.

    I really suggest for anyone to read his actual review: Good Hair

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Elsariel
    His critique isn't that he knows more than Chris about black culture, it's that Chris didn't give all the facts and information about said subject.

    He didn't give all of the facts in his critique either and some his assertions regarding Barbershops particularly highlighted his ignorance.

    @Vick
    When you come up with an actual critique instead of personalized attacks let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You know, to everyone saying Ebert is allowed to have an opinion, of course he is. But not all opinions are equal. He could have done a really great, insightful review as an outsider without personal experience, but instead he chose to be arrogant about it. He could have written about what he went in knowing, what he learned, what issues it addressed, what he took away from it. I don't see anything wrong with disputing the lye claim, though he should have cited something better than Wikipedia, and he shouldn't have acted like a web search made him an instant expert.

    The comment about all women using chemical products shows he doesn't totally get it. The pressure for women in general is one thing, but black women are the only ones whose hair is made to be a political statement. Sure, women with curly hair are expected to straighten their hair to get anywhere in business. Gingers aren't taken seriously or are mocked for it ("firecrotch", for example). And go forbid you have grey hairs, even if you're 60. But being considered "unkempt" or "wild" is just no where near the same as being considered animal-like or "radical". And when non-black women straighten or dye their hair, they aren't called sell-outs or accused of trying to be more white. The whole issue is a big mess and way too complicated to be understood after watching a single film about it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The (a?) problem with Ebert's review is that he isn't just passing an opinion on the quality of the movie qua movie (i.e. "the pacing was slow and the camera work was crappy"). Rather, he is actively judging the movie's subject...

    You haven't read many of his other reviews have you? ;-) In my experience as a long-time reader of his column, he never hesitates to grapple with content.

    I don't see any arrogance here, just a bemused critique of what Chris Rock doesn't seem to address. It's his job to look at plot holes, and if Chris Rock isn't addressing basic facts (the likes of which can be found on Wikipedia) then why shouldn't Ebert call him out on it? Not because he's an expert, but because he's not satisfied with the level of information provided to him as a viewer.

    The idea that he's somehow not entitled to voice an an opinion about the movie because he has no lived experience is ridiculous on its face. His criticisms are restricted to how the movie presents the issue. As far as he was concerned, it didn't satisfy his questions, satiate his need for depth, or address the premise adequately. He is saying implicitly that as far as this movie goes he knows more about this than Mr. Rock.

    Am I reading between the lines to cast Ebert in a favorable light since he's one of my favoritest columnists in the whole wide world? Maybe, but I just don't see what Renee is describing here. Since I read him regularly and I'm familiar with his style, perhaps my perceptions are colored differently. I read this review well before this post came out and understood it the exact same way- Ebert was being critical about a lack of depth in a documentary, which in turn is why I myself decided to skip it.

    That Ebert was claiming to literally know more is highly unlikely. Ebert frequently pontificates on factual matters relating to content of the films he reviews- not because he's an expert, but because he's not. If he notices a nonsensical plot point, or a fallacious argument, or something that seems irrelevant, why didn't the director/producer/writer realize there was a problem? He's assuming audiences went home after that movie and started looking things up on Wikipedia. Why shouldn't he review it with the audiences' expectations, prejudices, and research habits in mind? That he himself did not give a more complete and nuanced evaluation of the subject than he did is irrelevant- he's not trying to make a documentary on it.

    I agree this is an actual tendency among privileged people, but I think this is a poor example- even if it applies in this case, because it would still only be tinged by the habit, not soaked through and through with it as Renee tried to demonstrate.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 'When a White person dyes their hair a different color, what does it say to the world?'
    In the States, probably nothing, given your complex ethnic mix.
    But Sweden's best known Crazy White Loner With a Handgun, the Laserman, felt the need to dye his hair blonde (it turned a lurid orange, as dyes meant for Northern European hair do not work well on straight black hair) and put on blue contact lenses to hide his brown eyes. To be an Aryan Warrior, you need to look the part.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ebert's article comes off as completely patronizing, BUT, it's still a bit disingenuous of you not to mention his wife, who is Black.

    ReplyDelete
  25. What does Ebert's wife have to do with the review he wrote? And why is the real issue here being lost in translation?

    It's Ebert's audacity to grapple with a subject he has absolutely no subjective knowledge on and the interpretation that he is acting as if he does.

    It would've been more insulting for him to say, 'I have a black wives so I *know* all about these kinds of things.' Do any of you in objection to Renee's review really think that's true or am I missing something?

    I'm glad he wrote the review because he is entitled to his opinion. But his white privilege is showing by monopolizing black women and refusing to do real research of the politicization of black hair and its diversity; waters that he and Rock clearly did not tread in the film.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ashlee said...

    "But his white privilege is showing by monopolizing black women and refusing to do real research of the politicization of black hair and its diversity"


    The way that I read his review, that's his criticism of Chris Rock. I don't see how it's "white privilege" to point out things about black hair that Chris Rock missed showing in the movie.

    Is it really so impossible that Ebert can't be educated even a little bit on black hair? Really?

    Honestly, the complaints about the article smacks more of "how DARE a white man talk about black ANYTHING" rather than really objecting to his actual review of the movie.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I have seen Good Hair, and I enjoyed it for what it is - a brief look into the economic and social issues surrounding the "Whitening" of Black women's hair.

    Having read Ebert's review, for me, the disconnect comes with what comes off as quibbling about things that are, IMO, the least important elements of the film. Somehow, whenever it comes to things particular to Black people, White people want to be able to have a complete understanding of the matter at hand delivered in digestible form. A documentary about Black women's hair (a subject that thousands of books, articles, interviews, and conversations have been devoted to) is apparently supposed to cover ALL the bases within a scant 90 minutes. Many White people seem to think that Good Hair is really Everything You Want to Know About Black Women's Hair (But Were Afraid to Ask).

    ReplyDelete
  28. I must have missed the memo where marrying one black person made you an expert on black people as so many comments here imply.

    ReplyDelete
  29. thelady said...

    I must have missed the memo where marrying one black person made you an expert on black people as so many comments here imply.


    I must have missed the memo where Ebert was passing himself off as an expert.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Roger needs to sit down and shut up. Makes no difference whom he married--he's white and, if anything, he adds to the problem.

    I saw the film and was disappointed that Chris Rock didn't discuss that many black men prefer long and straight hair (hence another reason black women straighten their hair), and for the sake of his own integrity, Chris should have interviewed his wife. Did he think that would go unnoticed?

    I was also annoyed that Chris allowed the "natural hair is difficult to manage" and "natural hair is difficult to run your fingers through" go unchallenged. Natural hair is NOT difficult to manage when using the proper tools (i.e., anything but a fine-tooth comb that was made to be used on white people's hair) and it is easy to run one's fingers through natural hair. I do it all the time.

    As usual, Chris is out to make fun of people while making money.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Natural blonde, red, or brunette mean nothing socially."

    That kind of leaped out at me. I completely disagree. For women, blonde means stupid, fun, sexually available, mean, young, attractive. Or maybe sweet and pure, depending on what you're wearing. Red means fiery and probably Irish. Brunette means smart, sophisticated, serious. For men, blonde means Morally Pure Hero, or Scary Aryan Villain, or maybe just Kind Of Nerdy. Brunette usually means nothing in particular. Red means fiery and probably Irish.

    But that's kind of beside the point, which is that white people should not act like they're experts on black culture.

    That seems like an odd thing to say, to me. It's like you're working from the assumption that there is a black culture that is so distinct from white culture that white people can't have any understanding of it. That's not an assumption I'm personally comfortable with.

    I do think Ebert shows a lack of understanding throughout most of his review. It seems clear to me, based on the comments I see on this blog and elsewhere from black women, that hair is a huge issue for them, but Ebert seems dismissive of this fact.

    He basically argues that hair isn't really that big of a deal because women go back and forth between hairstyles all the time (unlike us male clods, hur hur knuckledrag), and that "Few people of any race wear completely natural hair." That really fails to acknowledge the emotional and political aspects of the issue. And economic. I mean, dying your hair and getting it cut costs significantly less than what some black women spend on their hair just to make it look presentable.

    The other thing that bothers me is that he does this under the guise of normalizing and de-mystifying black women - it's like he's saying, "Chris Rock tried to explain black women, but here's how they really are - see, they're really not that weird after all!" Which is kind of a positive thing, except for, again, his dismissal of the emotional and political weight of the subject.

    Also that comment at the end is really creepy. I have seen the barbershop clip, and it's about sex with black women and how hair issues get in the way. So my interpretation of his concluding comment is that he wonders why he knows more about sex with black women than Chris Rock (*wink* Ihaveablackwife *nudge*). Which... ew.

    So, I agree that Ebert's review is arrogant and privileged and clueless. I just don't know that I agree that a given white person can't at least sometimes have more authority than a given black person on a "black" subject.

    However, they should base that authority on something a bit more substantive than Wikipedia and knowing a black person.

    ReplyDelete
  32. A. Ebert didn't claim he knew more about black hair than black PEOPLE do, he pointed out some facts one black PERSON had wrong -- and Renee and others seem to not be grappling with the fact that Ebert was right. Is it ok for Rock to spread hair misinformation b/c he's black? Should a white man not call him on it b/c he's white? Does it not matter if Ebert is right? Shouldn't a white man who loves his black wife -- and mother-in-law, neices, maybe daughters and granddaughters jump in when somebody of any color is twisting facts to make black women's grooming practices seem like a sideshow spectacle?

    B. @rvcbard - what Ebert is talking about isn't film minutia -- Tyra Banks was on her show the other day doing an experiment to show how dangerous lye was -- Chris's portrayal of lye as a dangerous chemical blacks use to straighten their hair has caught the public imagination, and Ebert was right to point out that many, if not most relaxed black women, aren't using lye.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Or better yet, write Ebert and see what he meant

    His intentions are irrelevant to the topic of this post.

    Ebert's article comes off as completely patronizing, BUT, it's still a bit disingenuous of you not to mention his wife, who is Black.

    why is it renee's responsibility to point out something that Ebert himself did not mention in his own review?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Until we as blacks quit using this "whiteness" and all those other unnecessary words racism will exist because they have proof we are comparing and putting them in a category....where is your christian values....love one another....who cares what they say we need to set better examples...Jesus never saw color or "whiteness" so don't you use it..We are better than that, show it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @flan, First, racism exists not because of the language of blacks but because of institutional injustice.
    You say, "Jesus never saw color or whiteness"... Um, actually Jesus was quite aware of racial distinctions. For example, that was one reason he used the parable of the Good Samaritan. Samaritans were a hated ethnic group during His time so He made the hero of His parable Samaritan to prove a point -- something He couldn't have done if He were colorblind.

    ReplyDelete
  36. And Jesus was described in the Bible as having woolly hair and bronze skin!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Roger Ebert has been married to a black woman, Chaz, for decades. I reckon he has some household familiarity with black hair. A Google image search shows her with either relaxed hair or wigs.

    So he knows about one black woman's hair, and her opinion on it. Obviously it leans towards relaxed hair, my opinion would be different because I don't wear relaxer and have never worn a weave or wig. I also use natural products and some of us don't use "black" hair care products from grocery stores or wal marts.

    ReplyDelete
  38. . I am glad he corrected the old canard that most black women use lye relaxers -- that was thrown in the movie to make black women see more crazier and more other.

    No lye relaxers still are harmful and not much different that lye relaxers, at least Ph wise. It's lye "lite" so to speak. I ironically 1st learned about this from a white ex-boyfriend who is a former hairdresser.

    And no, Renee, you can't look at a black woman and tell if her hair has been "relaxed" black women have all textures of hair and a good relaxer doesn't leave you hair fried.

    It isn't the quality of the relaxer, it is the strength of the hair and how it is cared for.


    -------------

    If not, how is that different to this case? Because of skin color?

    Not the same. Gynecologists have varying opinions and methods, and if one does or says something you don't like you can get a second opinion. If a person makes a statement about a whole group of people based upon race, especially black people, folks take it as gospel truth and don't seek a second opinion. They believe what Ebert and Chris Rock say as gospel truth, and just because one is married to a person of color doesn't mean they are an expert on their culture. My husband is half German, I cannot proclaim to know about German culture just because I am married to one. That's just silly.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I was also annoyed that Chris allowed the "natural hair is difficult to manage" and "natural hair is difficult to run your fingers through" go unchallenged. Natural hair is NOT difficult to manage when using the proper tools (i.e., anything but a fine-tooth comb that was made to be used on white people's hair) and it is easy to run one's fingers through natural hair. I do it all the time.


    Exactly. The problem with this movie is that it covered one aspect, which was black woman want long straight hair, and they can only achieve it through perms, wigs, and weave. This is the very reason I get people coming up to me asking me if my hair is real, because in their minds I must grow an afro, and my hair must be hard. My husband is able to run his fingers through my natural hair just fine and I have hair longer than the average person of any race.

    ------

    Ebert didn't claim he knew more about black hair than black PEOPLE do, he pointed out some facts one black PERSON had wrong -- and Renee and others seem to not be grappling with the fact that Ebert was right.

    He wasn't right, no-lye relaxers aren't a "safer alternative", it's been proven time and time again.

    Ebert spread misinformation just like Rock did, and he did it under the guise of being an expert of black women's hair.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The potent chemical in lye relaxers is sodium hydroxide, and the potent chemical in no-lye relaxers is guanidine. Guanidine has a lower PH and is therefore safer.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Siditty said...

    "If a person makes a statement about a whole group of people based upon race, especially black people, folks take it as gospel truth and don't seek a second opinion."


    That's a sweeping generalization. You cannot possibly know that. Some people may see it as the gospel truth and some people may not.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The potent chemical in lye relaxers is sodium hydroxide, and the potent chemical in no-lye relaxers is guanidine. Guanidine has a lower PH and is therefore safer.

    The difference in Ph is not much different. This has been proven time and time again.

    ----------

    That's a sweeping generalization. You cannot possibly know that. Some people may see it as the gospel truth and some people may not.

    I say it based upon my experiences with white people, which I have been around way more white people than black people in my life, and yes maybe that warps my perception of white people. I say it based upon my hair conversations with white people which tend to be "you must have a weave or wig because my black friend told me black women can't have long hair" or "your hair isn't in an afro, why can't you do an afro with your hair?" or "can I touch your hair? It's soft, not hard, it doesn't feel like a brillo pad at all" or "do you use Crisco in your hair?"

    ReplyDelete
  43. Siddity, one has a lower ph than the other and is thus safer -- whether or not there is "not much difference" between the ph's is your opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Siddity, one has a lower ph than the other and is thus safer -- whether or not there is "not much difference" between the ph's is your opinion.

    If you talk to a hairdresser, the opinion is that neither is safer. Lye you keep in your hair for a shorter period of time, no-lye you keep in for a longer period of time, either or, neither are all that safe or "safer" than the other. Your hair's Ph is between 4.5-5.5. Lye and No-Lye relaxers at minimum are double this, thus causing damage. You are literally chemically breaking down your hair for the purpose of straight hair. Keep a no-lye relaxer in your hair all day and see what happens to it.

    http://www.nietsha.net/apps/blog/show/840478-are-no-lye-relaxers-better-and-or-milder-

    ReplyDelete
  45. Siddity,

    Thanks for bringing some much-needed knowledge to this conversation.

    From my personal experience, I've noticed now that my hair is natural the hair strands are much thicker and stronger than when it was relaxed. Also, many stylists have a tendency to leave the relaxer on the scalp longer than necessary in the belief that the longer it sits, the straighter the hair. A former stylist of mine did exactly that, and I ending up with sores and scabs on my scalp!

    ReplyDelete
  46. @ The Chemist
    Roger Ebert's tendency to assume the position of somebody else is one his qualities I find a little more annoying about his reviews. He does seem to pass himself off as somebody who knows more than other black people, and it's especially a shock that he would shamelessly cite Wikipedia as a definitive source of information. And I say this as somebody who often admires a lot of his writing. Maybe he thinks assuming such a role is key to reviewing a movie of which he is not the target audience. But I do say this, and I mean it with respect that he really should stick to movies.

    Even if movies are framed in the form of talking about race...Ebert often talks of how asinine he finds it that white people will only watch a film that exoticises people of color. Or how Americans will not watch a film that is in another language, but subtitled. "People who 'don't do' subtitles suffer from a form of deafness." Now that's a sentiment of his I can stand behind.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Elsariel and Vick:

    Thanks for educating us cullud folk with your insightful comments. I'm sure the other culluds on here are greatful! Yes Sir!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Herneith@ said...
    @Elsariel and Vick:

    Thanks for educating us cullud folk with your insightful comments. I'm sure the other culluds on here are greatful! Yes Sir!


    Huh. I didn't know I was doing any "educating" whatsoever. I was only sharing my own opinions on the subject like everyone else.

    *shrug* Well, whatever. This isn't the first time I received a sarcastic comment for going against the grain here. I'm sure it won't be the last, either. =)

    ReplyDelete
  49. "A former stylist of mine did exactly that, and I ending up with sores and scabs on my scalp!"

    This happened every time I got a relaxer. Lye or No Lye. My hair did become stronger. I flat ironed my hair the other day to learn that it now reaches my butt. With a relaxer I was considered to have long hair, but never this long. I think natural hair is beneficial to growth, but people don't see it and assume short, since it is curly or coiled.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I do think it is relevant that Ebert is married to a black woman. When the author of the blog says "maybe he [Ebert] thinks we just grunt at each other when no camera is around," she seems to be suggesting that has very little contact with blacks.

    As other commenters have noted, being married to a black woman certainly doesn't make Ebert an expert on black hair or black culture. However, when the blogger is trying to discredit him with wildly insulting statements (e.g., the aforementioned comment about grunting) about his supposed views of African Americans, I do think it's relevant to note that his wife is black.

    ReplyDelete
  51. from all i've read, Elsariel is talking sense.

    why moan over Ebert not taking enough time researching other issues of black hair?

    he is a critic...not an expert people

    ReplyDelete
  52. i'm a white guy who's had a curiousity about the culture of hairstyle in general and black folks' hair in particular.

    one thing i've noticed is that black men rarely relax their hair...but many, many black women do. i think this must be because black men DO NOT wish to have hair like Whites; but a lot of black women-for whatever reason-DO. it's hard to understand why else they would go to the considerable, expense, trouble, time and limitations(can't get it wet)unless they too wanted the long, flowing, silky hair that many white women grow naturally. yes i'm aware that PLENTY of white women and girls dye and perm their hair-but the processes are NOWHERE NEAR as radical(and potentially damaging)as what it is necessary to do to african hair to make it look european. not only that, but these chemical relaxers are commonly called 'Perms' in an attempt(i feel) to make the whole thing seem more normal. and of course there was a time-'50's, early 60's-when white women processed the hell out of their hair...

    as for WHY black women wish to have hair like white women? well, it must be because natural black hair is penalized(i.e. imus) and euro hair-on women anyway-strongly valorized by men of all races.

    it wasn't always like this. no way; look at films and photos of black women in the 70s...'perms' were not the norm.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Reply to Randy,

    That might be less of a race issue (though it is still a race issue) than a gender role issue, deserving of its own discussion entirely. In general, women are expected to be more self-conscious about their appearance. Men like us are expected to not be so fanciful. We're expected to wear more plain, inconspicuous colors, less jewelry, and not to play so much with our hair. Of course, those characteristics only run an inch deep. Or mens' magazines wouldn't have that creepy narcissistic vibe that they do.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I'm a black man, i have a beautiful red-brown color, i'm not going to be ashamed of it either?

    And i don't have nappy hair, my sisters don't either, neither do my cusins nor my mother, aunt's or uncles on my mothers side.

    Not all so-called "BLACK" PEOPLE HAVE NAPPY HAIR, JUST LIKE NOT ALL "WHITE" people have good hair.

    I've seen some white with nasty nappy hair, just nasty frizzy nappy crap, why does everyone try putting the blacks down> are you afraid of us? even other ethnic groups in the world do this, even though they are of the african race as well, by the way white's aren't really white, they're pink, and blacks are really brown.

    Also as for the wing remark, my sister wears wigs even though her hear is twice as long as the wig and her hair is really good.

    She saids she wigs the wig because she does'nt have to do it every morning, she put's her hair up and puts the wig over it.

    Also just because you are married to a person of a certan ethnic group does'nt make you an expert.

    Also black people! stop letting these idiots dictate how you are to look sound and feel about yourselve's.

    ReplyDelete

Please see the "commenting guidelines" before submitting a comment.

hit counter code