i think contextually this article would make the point that it's directed at white people considering wearing dreads and not other non-white groups, but yes it is pretty corny to effectively frame black people as the only group that has a cultural tradition of locked hair

[–] Akuji@leminal.space 5 points 3 weeks ago

Aside from point 84, which I have some disagreements with as an antispecist, it's the only point I have a problem with. Everything else is sound and should be basic knowledge ; I lament how it's still relevant to point these out even today...
It would have been better to phrase it as something like "don't have dreadlocks if it's not culturally or religiously appropriate, just don't".
Religiously because I believe a serious rastafari (and not just someone who listens to Marley and smokes weed), whatever their ethnicity, also deserves to wear their locks proudly.

[–] sunflowercowboy@feddit.org 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

This is always ridiculous to me, it's a hair style. Not even a black thing.

Literally used by many backgrounds to make hair manageable while outdoors. Like how a bandana isn't a gangster thing when it's just good for sweat on your brow and keeping your hair back while you work.

It frustrates me to see it as a staple of butch fashion when it's not even utilized, but hey whatcha gonna do.

Then again, lots of things have been co-opted. Like how no one talks about cowboy culture being a predominantly Mexican thing. Vaquero the Spanish word that literally translates to cow-er, like bean-er. Roughly meaning he who works with cows or he who works with beans.

Vaquero eventually became buckaroo, and America kept the cosplay for their manifesting.

It's life, you live and you learn. And you'd be an idiot not to learn from those around you. Just seems a weird hill to die on

[–] SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A quick search on any search engine clearly shows that 'beaner' is a slur for mexicans, not someone who works with beans. So you are either dogwhistling or intentionally trying to justify some use of it that isn't the common understanding for some reason.

[–] sunflowercowboy@feddit.org 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

In Spanish the word is frijolero, the roughest translation is beaner. This is because frijol means beans and the ero at the end refers to someone with beans. In Spanish we use the word to mean the dude who sells beans. Like elotero, the corn seller or carnicero, the meat seller.

Yes it's used as a slur in English, that doesn't change the origins, if anything it further contextualizes how cruel it is. When beans are the consistent source of protein for many Mexicans. Without them, most of the country would be malnourished.

Then again, I'm just a frijolero :)

[–] SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Thank you for taking the time to explain, that is sad and cruel.

[–] SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

This article is very clearly about white people. Why bring up sadhus and sadhvis?

[–] Akuji@leminal.space 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Because I thought it was a bit unfortunate to omit that other people, to this day, also wear dreads as part of their culture. The point still stands, but should have been worded in a way that takes these people into account.

[–] SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 1 points 3 weeks ago

I think when someone is writing for a specific audience then it makes sense not to include everybody. I understand your dissapointment, however I don't think every article should be perfect and include every possible nuance, that's just holding folks to an unfair standard ioo.