Have you run into 'the natural purists' yet?
I call them that because they believe you should 'accept' your hair as it is. And what they mean by this is that you should do nothing to alter or enhance in any way. They are against straightening no matter how its done and whether it damages or not. They tell you that if you have type 4 hair that does not naturally shine, that you should just 'accept' it that way and not try to use any product to get the shine you want.
They tell you that you are too 'reliant' on products. To me, they make natural hair feel like a religion and that I'm violating some holy sanctity if I choose to enhance what my hair naturally does. And I wonder if they never enhance anything about themselves. Do they never enhance their eyes with eyeliner, or their lips with lipstick?
I have nothing against natural sisters straightening their hair, and I know some of you feel this way too. As long as the mentality is not that straight hair is superior to your natural texture and you are not damaging what God has given you, why not switch it up? Isn't this what makes life interesting and fun? Being able to try to new things, even a different persona for awhile?
Personally, I love to enhance what God blessed me with. Does it mean I'm ashamed of it as it is? No, it means I'm proud of it so I play with it. I find freedom in it.
I like my eyes, I play them up with eyeliner and sometimes I leave them as is because I know they speak volumes on their own. I like my height but I still wear heels once in awhile.
I don't know about you but if I ever meet a 'purist' preaching to me about how wrong it is to do this and that to my own hair, I will have to tell them (ever so politely) to please mind their own follicle.
Showing posts with label Hair Debates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hair Debates. Show all posts
Does It Seem to Offend or Bother People If Your Curls Aren't 'Forever Poppin'?
Has anyone else had this experience of hearing others 'suggesting' that they put some 'curls' in their natural?
I have gotten the impression that some naturals cannot leave the house without 'curls poppin' on their heads. And lately I got a comment suggesting that I 'put some curls' in my twa.
It's like people - surprisingly most of whom are other naturals, are bothered or offended by those naturals not choosing to make 'forever poppin curls' their everyday look. They feel inclined to point out tips for getting our curls to 'pop' like somehow the state of hair which does not have 'poppin' curls is compromised, broken or unhealthy. And often, they make these suggestions with the most innocent expectation that we should react with disbelief or shame once they point it out, the way we would tell someone with weave that their tracks are showing and expect them to run for cover. (Why does this visual make me giggle?)
Anyway, my real reason for bringing this observation to you, Curlies, is that it has caused me to wonder if we, naturals, managed to escape the relaxer box only to put ourselves into the silky curls box.
Many naturals I have encountered talk about the 'liberating' experience of no longer being a slave to relaxers and weaves and that for them the natural journey is one of 'self-acceptance.' Yet I have observed that, for some of these same naturals, appearing in public when every strand of hair is not in place (dutifuly moistened, and perfectly curled) is a sacrilege to all that is pure and holy about being natural.
I could be afraid to leave the house unless each curl glistened with perfect concentric determination but guess what? I don't choose to. And for no other reason than because I don't care to. I didn't go through the process of chopping off my relaxed hair and ending my reliance on relaxers, where I didn't want to leave the house until every strand lay smooth, silky and shiny, only to come to another prison.
I love my hair just the way it is and if it bothers others or offends someone that I am ok going about with my head of hair as its naturally inclined to be, then I can only be sympathetic to their sadly narrow-minded view of things.
I think its kind of whack that we should take ourselves out of one box to put ourselves into another and this is what affirms for me that it IS just hair. Because it's not about the hair. It's never really about the hair. Its about the refusal to widen our spectrum of what is beautiful. It is about our fear of not being good enough, cute enough, pretty enough according to others.
We are still eating all that society throws on the ground at us, when it lets us know the singular aesthetic is the eurocentric idea of beauty. We say we are not but our goal is always to look as close to that as possible and in the natural world, how closer can we get that defined, silky-looking curls? "If only I could get my curls bigger and more defined?" "Why don't my curls pop?" "I wish I were a type 3 like you, your texture is so pretty."
Don't you think its old and sad and tired that we can't let go; can't stop eating the poison even when we pretend we are 'liberated' from it?
Anyway, to answer the question of the person who asked why I don't get some curls in my hair: Because I think I look quite perfect with it just the way it is. Thanks.
I have gotten the impression that some naturals cannot leave the house without 'curls poppin' on their heads. And lately I got a comment suggesting that I 'put some curls' in my twa.
It's like people - surprisingly most of whom are other naturals, are bothered or offended by those naturals not choosing to make 'forever poppin curls' their everyday look. They feel inclined to point out tips for getting our curls to 'pop' like somehow the state of hair which does not have 'poppin' curls is compromised, broken or unhealthy. And often, they make these suggestions with the most innocent expectation that we should react with disbelief or shame once they point it out, the way we would tell someone with weave that their tracks are showing and expect them to run for cover. (Why does this visual make me giggle?)
By the way and to my naturals out there, 'poppin curls' is not an indication of anything but what it is. Healthy hair comes in all forms and as long as you have inspected your strands and scalp and determined your hair is healthy, turn a blind eye to (or like me, just roll your eyes and suck your teeth at) the ignorance.
Anyway, my real reason for bringing this observation to you, Curlies, is that it has caused me to wonder if we, naturals, managed to escape the relaxer box only to put ourselves into the silky curls box.
Many naturals I have encountered talk about the 'liberating' experience of no longer being a slave to relaxers and weaves and that for them the natural journey is one of 'self-acceptance.' Yet I have observed that, for some of these same naturals, appearing in public when every strand of hair is not in place (dutifuly moistened, and perfectly curled) is a sacrilege to all that is pure and holy about being natural.
I could be afraid to leave the house unless each curl glistened with perfect concentric determination but guess what? I don't choose to. And for no other reason than because I don't care to. I didn't go through the process of chopping off my relaxed hair and ending my reliance on relaxers, where I didn't want to leave the house until every strand lay smooth, silky and shiny, only to come to another prison.
I love my hair just the way it is and if it bothers others or offends someone that I am ok going about with my head of hair as its naturally inclined to be, then I can only be sympathetic to their sadly narrow-minded view of things.
I think its kind of whack that we should take ourselves out of one box to put ourselves into another and this is what affirms for me that it IS just hair. Because it's not about the hair. It's never really about the hair. Its about the refusal to widen our spectrum of what is beautiful. It is about our fear of not being good enough, cute enough, pretty enough according to others.
We are still eating all that society throws on the ground at us, when it lets us know the singular aesthetic is the eurocentric idea of beauty. We say we are not but our goal is always to look as close to that as possible and in the natural world, how closer can we get that defined, silky-looking curls? "If only I could get my curls bigger and more defined?" "Why don't my curls pop?" "I wish I were a type 3 like you, your texture is so pretty."
Don't you think its old and sad and tired that we can't let go; can't stop eating the poison even when we pretend we are 'liberated' from it?
Anyway, to answer the question of the person who asked why I don't get some curls in my hair: Because I think I look quite perfect with it just the way it is. Thanks.
Hair and Moisture - How Much Do We Really Understand?
Posted by
Bee
on
5/06/2010
|
Labels:
Baggying,
Deep Conditioning,
Dry Hair,
Glycerin,
Hair Debates,
Healthy Hair,
Humectants,
Moisturizers,
Natural Hair,
Over-Moisturizing,
Sealants
I can't stress enough the importance of reading your hair. And this goes, not just for Naturals but for those with all types of hair. Many of us, (and I too have been guilty of this) become so in love with or lazy about our routines we just mechanically keep doing the same things and then wonder weeks later why our hair are still dry or limp, or why our scalps are still flaky.
Moisture OverDose
The other thing, and one of the reasons we should pay attention to our hair, is that it is possible to over-moisturize our hair. I have read so many crazy suggestions around moisturizing. One person recommended applying a deep moisturizing conditioner mixed with some other water-based ingredients, and baggying the hair overnight. Every night!
Now if you happen to have hair that is not receptive to water, as in does not seem to absorb water well, this may be ok advice, I don't know. But if you notice your hair feels limp and super-soft, but maybe too-soft, is brittle and is not holding a curl, then maybe you have been leaving too much water in your hair for too long.
Like I said, we all have different hair with different needs. Hair's absorption rate for water varies individually but, on average, hair does not need to be doused in copious amounts water 24-7, I mean we are not mermaids. (Think of this: Hair and nails share similar properties and needs. What happens to our nails when we have our hands in water for a long period of time ie. that delicious but super-long bath? )
Sealing in the water moisture when we do apply water is the key. There are numerous amounts of good sealants provided by oils or butters. Some people say their hair does not like oil. I am going to dispute this. I have found that to some degree, the hair has to be used to oil. My hair seemed to hate oil when I first started this journey. It would just sit on top of my hair. But I didn't give up. I just learned what kinds of oils my hair responded favorably to and what kinds of oils it didn't. For me, I found that thicker oils like castor oil worked well on my kinky curls. I got creative and started mixing butters (just oils that are solid at room temperature) with thin oils to get that thick-oil consistency my hair loves. And I stopped applying oils to dry hair - made sure to dampen hair first. But dousing the hair in water spritz's throughout the day, never giving it a chance to dry? Well if nothing else, creates a breeding ground for bacteria and a recipe for over-moisturized hair.
Does Your Deep Conditioner Match You?
We love our deep conditioners. We rave about how much our hair adores them - me included. But do you know what your deep conditioner does for your hair? Do you know that there are different kinds of deep conditioners? There are reconstructors/protein conditioners that attempt to restore protein to the hair shaft and there are moisturizing conditioners meant to seal moisture in the hair shaft. These all, of course, provide only temporary protection for the hair. Did you also know at different times your hair may need different types of conditioners?
Here is a key:
If your hair feels over-moisturized - very limp, fragile, and super-soft, won't hold a curl or breaks when you touch or gently pull on it, then you probably need a strengthening/reconstructing conditioner, generally a protein treatment.
If your hair feels dry, hard, and brittle, then a moisturizing conditioner is the answer. Our individual hair types (I'm not referring to the 1a-4b typing system) kind of lets us know which type of conditioner we may need as the staple but changes in the hair's behavior (usually responses to stress, diet or your regimen) will also indicate that you may need to switch it up.
For example, protein treatments should pretty much be a must and a staple for relaxed heads because the hair cuticle's integrity is compromised and protein links have been broken and so are impaired. You will notice after a relaxer, hair is super-soft and may be limp. To prevent breakage, a protein treatment temporarily restores the protein lost during relaxing - temporarily (which is why you have to keep it up).
Natural heads, unless you have colored or apply heat regularly or genetically have super-fine hair that's prone to breakage, you are generally in more need of moisturizing treatments because natural hair tends toward dryness. But this does not mean from time to time, especially if you have a regimen based on almost constant water moisturizing, that your hair will not need a protein treatment to restore its strength. Just remember, all treatments are temporary. It should also be a sign you need to adjust your regimen and probably reduce how often you wet your hair.
Glycerin is Two-Faced
I have noticed that some Curlies swear by glycerin and its become a staple of mine too. But some use glycerin undiluted, applying directly to hair. Especially if you live in a hot, or cold, dry environment, this is a recipe for constant hair dryness. Why? Glycerin is a self-serving water-absorber. It works great for our hair because diluted, it actually will pull water out of the air, thereby acting as a humectant for hair. But glycerin does not distinguish where it pulls moisture from. So undiluted glycerin on hair plus dry air means glycerin will likely make your hair even drier by pulling moisture away from your hair. A bit of glycerin added to water goes a long way and adding a few drops of oil helps to prevent glycerin from drying out your hair in dry climates.
I hope this post shed some light on some of our most common misconceptions about the products we use. The takeaway: listen to your hair, always. She is telling you what she needs.
Moisture OverDose
The other thing, and one of the reasons we should pay attention to our hair, is that it is possible to over-moisturize our hair. I have read so many crazy suggestions around moisturizing. One person recommended applying a deep moisturizing conditioner mixed with some other water-based ingredients, and baggying the hair overnight. Every night!
Now if you happen to have hair that is not receptive to water, as in does not seem to absorb water well, this may be ok advice, I don't know. But if you notice your hair feels limp and super-soft, but maybe too-soft, is brittle and is not holding a curl, then maybe you have been leaving too much water in your hair for too long.
Like I said, we all have different hair with different needs. Hair's absorption rate for water varies individually but, on average, hair does not need to be doused in copious amounts water 24-7, I mean we are not mermaids. (Think of this: Hair and nails share similar properties and needs. What happens to our nails when we have our hands in water for a long period of time ie. that delicious but super-long bath? )
Sealing in the water moisture when we do apply water is the key. There are numerous amounts of good sealants provided by oils or butters. Some people say their hair does not like oil. I am going to dispute this. I have found that to some degree, the hair has to be used to oil. My hair seemed to hate oil when I first started this journey. It would just sit on top of my hair. But I didn't give up. I just learned what kinds of oils my hair responded favorably to and what kinds of oils it didn't. For me, I found that thicker oils like castor oil worked well on my kinky curls. I got creative and started mixing butters (just oils that are solid at room temperature) with thin oils to get that thick-oil consistency my hair loves. And I stopped applying oils to dry hair - made sure to dampen hair first. But dousing the hair in water spritz's throughout the day, never giving it a chance to dry? Well if nothing else, creates a breeding ground for bacteria and a recipe for over-moisturized hair.
Does Your Deep Conditioner Match You?
We love our deep conditioners. We rave about how much our hair adores them - me included. But do you know what your deep conditioner does for your hair? Do you know that there are different kinds of deep conditioners? There are reconstructors/protein conditioners that attempt to restore protein to the hair shaft and there are moisturizing conditioners meant to seal moisture in the hair shaft. These all, of course, provide only temporary protection for the hair. Did you also know at different times your hair may need different types of conditioners?
Here is a key:
If your hair feels over-moisturized - very limp, fragile, and super-soft, won't hold a curl or breaks when you touch or gently pull on it, then you probably need a strengthening/reconstructing conditioner, generally a protein treatment.
If your hair feels dry, hard, and brittle, then a moisturizing conditioner is the answer. Our individual hair types (I'm not referring to the 1a-4b typing system) kind of lets us know which type of conditioner we may need as the staple but changes in the hair's behavior (usually responses to stress, diet or your regimen) will also indicate that you may need to switch it up.
For example, protein treatments should pretty much be a must and a staple for relaxed heads because the hair cuticle's integrity is compromised and protein links have been broken and so are impaired. You will notice after a relaxer, hair is super-soft and may be limp. To prevent breakage, a protein treatment temporarily restores the protein lost during relaxing - temporarily (which is why you have to keep it up).
Natural heads, unless you have colored or apply heat regularly or genetically have super-fine hair that's prone to breakage, you are generally in more need of moisturizing treatments because natural hair tends toward dryness. But this does not mean from time to time, especially if you have a regimen based on almost constant water moisturizing, that your hair will not need a protein treatment to restore its strength. Just remember, all treatments are temporary. It should also be a sign you need to adjust your regimen and probably reduce how often you wet your hair.
Glycerin is Two-Faced
I have noticed that some Curlies swear by glycerin and its become a staple of mine too. But some use glycerin undiluted, applying directly to hair. Especially if you live in a hot, or cold, dry environment, this is a recipe for constant hair dryness. Why? Glycerin is a self-serving water-absorber. It works great for our hair because diluted, it actually will pull water out of the air, thereby acting as a humectant for hair. But glycerin does not distinguish where it pulls moisture from. So undiluted glycerin on hair plus dry air means glycerin will likely make your hair even drier by pulling moisture away from your hair. A bit of glycerin added to water goes a long way and adding a few drops of oil helps to prevent glycerin from drying out your hair in dry climates.
I hope this post shed some light on some of our most common misconceptions about the products we use. The takeaway: listen to your hair, always. She is telling you what she needs.
The Push to Be Natural - Is It Fair?
So I wanted to do this post for some time now but just did not have the time.
[Before I begin, my computer is driving me nuts. The space bar is not working well so please forgive if you see words typed up together, it is late and I'm tired].
I felt the urge to address this topic after reading an interesting post on another natural hair blog site elaborating on the blogger's opinion about why non-naturals (weave and relaxed heads) have not embraced natural hair or why they continue to echo ignorant stigmas around natural hair.
The blogger (who I won't name as not to offend anyone) had a good point when she said that there is fear behind the hesitation to go or be natural - I can see that. I had it in myself when I contemplated going natural.
But I noted a tone in the blog that I have picked up here and there on different blog sites mostly by veteran naturals. The tone is one of either disdain, intolerance or self-righteousness depending on how the opinions about those who have not embraced natural hair, are expressed. Some approach it in subtle ways, some express frustrations that are highly relatable when in response to negative comments made to them by non-naturals about their natural hair. Some make their opinions known in more direct, almost impatient - and arguably militant ways.
I say to each his own.
We are all entitled to our opinions and alot of what these naturals say are undeniably true. The most recent post, however, raised, for me an interesting question - that is: Is it fair for us naturals, to judge non-naturals' reasons for not joining the natural bandwagon?
Is it fair for us to, not just assume, but to propagate, as an educated perspective on some kind of soap-box, the belief that non-naturals have a secret self-hatred about who they are and what grows out of their bodies?
Is it fair, as this blogger did, to go so far as to conclude that the self-hatred extends beyond what grows naturally from them into a hatred of their own blackness? A desire to cover it up with weaves? To subdue and smooth it away with relaxers?
Hair, we all know, represents different things to different people but is it going too far to insinuate that our hair is an expression of our race and thus, by hiding it, we are showing shame about our race?
I personally don't think it is fair. I think it's a militant way to be. I think its a dogmatic way to look at ourselves as a race, as a people.
I understand how powerful our hair can be. It obviously evokes strong emotions in us. It evokes a sense of power and courage when we cut years of relaxed growth off and leave only a few inches of natural hair on our heads. It evokes a sense of accomplishment when we see the resulting length and strength of hair we have taken care of for months or years. It evokes a sense of pride and strength to know we withstood the crazy stares, the negative comments, even the ridicule.
I get that.
But I feel like at the end of the day, we should not forget that its just hair. Its not a movement. Our hair that is so malleable and elastic and free-spirited should never become a catalyst or reason for militance or dogma or intolerance. And oh the arrogance that we should look down from our new place of fluffy- and coily-haired glory to the very place we came from and show intolerance to those who may not yet have arrived at the enlightenment that is natural hair.
Isn't the decision to go back natural just another stage in the series of epiphanic self-discoveries we find ourselves faced with time and again in life?
If we liken going natural to seeing the light and anything-but to darkness, then should we be so harsh in our criticism of non-naturals? Think about it - if you are in the dark, you can be accused of no more than ignorance and maybe fear (and maybe not even fear if you do not hesitate to leap as soon as you know better).
I just think we do not do the beauty of natural hair any justice by turning it into some kind of platform from which to preach to the rest of the world. We show grace and tolerance and let shine the natural example of our very individual beautiful naturals. I think left on its own our natural hair are as the flowers in the field: So bright, so damn gorgeous, its beauty draws in even from far and everyone wants to comes closer just to be apart. I mean that's partly what drew me to natural hair!
I do believe relaxed and weaved heads with disdain for natural hair are in the dark, and those with disdain for their own natural hair are even sadder to me. But let's remember that for most of us, relaxing began not as an activity of self-hate or to smuff out/tone down our blackness but as children sitting at our mothers' knees inhaling the heady camphor of the noxious cream and believing with childish naivete, the flowy-haired promise we saw on tv.
We were 5 or10 or, in my case, 11. Our immature brains did not have the forethought to assess the damaging implications, much less to entertain the statement it would make to those who remained or returned to natural.
And most of us stayed relaxed not out of self-hatred but out of ignorance of how to change all we knew and care for a new kind of hair with its own demands and trials.
Let us, natural sisters, be patient and tolerant and have faith that our hair has its own way of speaking its beauty that don't need a microphone or a platform; that don't need to convince anyone - especially those who aren't ready to hear it.
Whew! Now that that's out of the way - I'm going to bed.
G'nite Curlies! ....Yes and, of course, your two cents on this topic are welcome. :)
[Before I begin, my computer is driving me nuts. The space bar is not working well so please forgive if you see words typed up together, it is late and I'm tired].
I felt the urge to address this topic after reading an interesting post on another natural hair blog site elaborating on the blogger's opinion about why non-naturals (weave and relaxed heads) have not embraced natural hair or why they continue to echo ignorant stigmas around natural hair.
The blogger (who I won't name as not to offend anyone) had a good point when she said that there is fear behind the hesitation to go or be natural - I can see that. I had it in myself when I contemplated going natural.
But I noted a tone in the blog that I have picked up here and there on different blog sites mostly by veteran naturals. The tone is one of either disdain, intolerance or self-righteousness depending on how the opinions about those who have not embraced natural hair, are expressed. Some approach it in subtle ways, some express frustrations that are highly relatable when in response to negative comments made to them by non-naturals about their natural hair. Some make their opinions known in more direct, almost impatient - and arguably militant ways.
I say to each his own.
We are all entitled to our opinions and alot of what these naturals say are undeniably true. The most recent post, however, raised, for me an interesting question - that is: Is it fair for us naturals, to judge non-naturals' reasons for not joining the natural bandwagon?
Is it fair for us to, not just assume, but to propagate, as an educated perspective on some kind of soap-box, the belief that non-naturals have a secret self-hatred about who they are and what grows out of their bodies?
Is it fair, as this blogger did, to go so far as to conclude that the self-hatred extends beyond what grows naturally from them into a hatred of their own blackness? A desire to cover it up with weaves? To subdue and smooth it away with relaxers?
Hair, we all know, represents different things to different people but is it going too far to insinuate that our hair is an expression of our race and thus, by hiding it, we are showing shame about our race?
I personally don't think it is fair. I think it's a militant way to be. I think its a dogmatic way to look at ourselves as a race, as a people.
I understand how powerful our hair can be. It obviously evokes strong emotions in us. It evokes a sense of power and courage when we cut years of relaxed growth off and leave only a few inches of natural hair on our heads. It evokes a sense of accomplishment when we see the resulting length and strength of hair we have taken care of for months or years. It evokes a sense of pride and strength to know we withstood the crazy stares, the negative comments, even the ridicule.
I get that.
But I feel like at the end of the day, we should not forget that its just hair. Its not a movement. Our hair that is so malleable and elastic and free-spirited should never become a catalyst or reason for militance or dogma or intolerance. And oh the arrogance that we should look down from our new place of fluffy- and coily-haired glory to the very place we came from and show intolerance to those who may not yet have arrived at the enlightenment that is natural hair.
Isn't the decision to go back natural just another stage in the series of epiphanic self-discoveries we find ourselves faced with time and again in life?
If we liken going natural to seeing the light and anything-but to darkness, then should we be so harsh in our criticism of non-naturals? Think about it - if you are in the dark, you can be accused of no more than ignorance and maybe fear (and maybe not even fear if you do not hesitate to leap as soon as you know better).
I just think we do not do the beauty of natural hair any justice by turning it into some kind of platform from which to preach to the rest of the world. We show grace and tolerance and let shine the natural example of our very individual beautiful naturals. I think left on its own our natural hair are as the flowers in the field: So bright, so damn gorgeous, its beauty draws in even from far and everyone wants to comes closer just to be apart. I mean that's partly what drew me to natural hair!
I do believe relaxed and weaved heads with disdain for natural hair are in the dark, and those with disdain for their own natural hair are even sadder to me. But let's remember that for most of us, relaxing began not as an activity of self-hate or to smuff out/tone down our blackness but as children sitting at our mothers' knees inhaling the heady camphor of the noxious cream and believing with childish naivete, the flowy-haired promise we saw on tv.
We were 5 or10 or, in my case, 11. Our immature brains did not have the forethought to assess the damaging implications, much less to entertain the statement it would make to those who remained or returned to natural.
And most of us stayed relaxed not out of self-hatred but out of ignorance of how to change all we knew and care for a new kind of hair with its own demands and trials.
Let us, natural sisters, be patient and tolerant and have faith that our hair has its own way of speaking its beauty that don't need a microphone or a platform; that don't need to convince anyone - especially those who aren't ready to hear it.
Whew! Now that that's out of the way - I'm going to bed.
G'nite Curlies! ....Yes and, of course, your two cents on this topic are welcome. :)
Warning: This Post is NOT About Hair! But You May Still Learn Something *giggles*
Hi Y'all
So I just read a pretty thought-provoking post from bglhonline one of my fav natural hair sites and what better place to expound on my thoughts in response, than on here. For the few of you who read this, I humbly appreciate it and definitely welcome your thoughts on the matter.
The post was a response to Jill Scott's article in Essence magazine Jill Scott Talks Interracial where Jill Scott comments on the feeling or 'wince' she gets when she hears her Black male friend is married to a White woman and her idea as to why she gets this feeling with some details about the effect of the history of the relationship between Black men and Women and some references to the African diaspora in general.
Well I felt compelled (and did) leave a painfully long comment in response (bglh if you happen upon this post, please accept my apologies for clouding your post space with such a long post - its just that I had alot to say).
Anyway, in case its not posted there, which I wouldn't fault her for due to its length, here was my response:
I don't know why but I have yet to feel this 'wince' when I hear a Black man is with a White woman. Maybe its because I'm Jamaican but I lived there only the first 10 years of my life and then I moved to the States. I think one feels the 'wince' when someone in the only pool your are looking to, chooses outside your pool.
For example, let's imagine a room where there are clusters of people rounded up into groups and each are on a quest to find a partner. You are in group A and somehow have convinced yourself (or been told) that the only pool from which you can, will, or want to find your partner is group B (although there are groups C-Z in the room). You also understand that for whatever reason (maybe because group B shares some history with you) group B should be most inclined to choose a partner from your group, group A.
Then you look and suddenly see members of group B moving away from the group to select their partners from groups C-Z. You see that group dwindling as the members find their partners but your group A is still fairly large (though some may have managed to find their partners in group B and a few have also gone off to find partners in groups C-Z).
I would feel the pinch, the 'wince', the sting if not panic all together.
I mean does this mean I will not have much to select from? And it would hurt even more if the members of group B I see straggling off to find their partners in groups C-Z were what I thought of as compatible matches for me. I would have several options:
1. Resolve to go it alone.
Or
2. Crumple up and disgard my belief that my partner can or will only come from group B and start looking at the other groups.
If I definitely don't want anyone in the other groups then I will just have to take the risk I may never find what I want, or settle my expectations of what I want so someone still in group B who I may not have been willing to consider before, becomes a viable option for me.
Basically, I will have to think outside the box. This is what I would do.....but then again, I have never been an 'inside the box' thinker in general.
I love Black men, especially ones from the Caribbean who share my love for ackee and saltfish and can play dominos and do the latest Jamaican dance and understand when I speak patois. I dreamed of marrying a man like that. But then I met someone who loves me to no end. I did my big chop and he was telling me how beautiful my kinky hair is, showing me the curls here and there and you guessed it - he's not in group B.
Damn he even helps me mix my homemade concoctions for my hair. And never fails to bring me an avocado when we run out without my asking just because he knows I use it in my hair.
I'm not married yet so who knows who I'll end up with but for now, I'm happy. I think we have to abandon whatever has made us think we can only find love - we should, or will, only find love in group B and look around us...all 360 degrees.
So that was my comment.
I know the dating thing is way more complicated than this. And I see where Jill Scott is coming from because the complex and emotionally charged history of the relationship between the Black man and the Black woman does have alot to do with how some Blacks may feel about interracial relationships - And I didn't even touch on how much more of a sting it is if the relationship between the members of 'group A and B' with 'groups C-Z' was historically plagued with negativity, hostility and other bad '...ity's :)
In any case, what are your thoughts on this topic?
So I just read a pretty thought-provoking post from bglhonline one of my fav natural hair sites and what better place to expound on my thoughts in response, than on here. For the few of you who read this, I humbly appreciate it and definitely welcome your thoughts on the matter.
The post was a response to Jill Scott's article in Essence magazine Jill Scott Talks Interracial where Jill Scott comments on the feeling or 'wince' she gets when she hears her Black male friend is married to a White woman and her idea as to why she gets this feeling with some details about the effect of the history of the relationship between Black men and Women and some references to the African diaspora in general.
Well I felt compelled (and did) leave a painfully long comment in response (bglh if you happen upon this post, please accept my apologies for clouding your post space with such a long post - its just that I had alot to say).
Anyway, in case its not posted there, which I wouldn't fault her for due to its length, here was my response:
I don't know why but I have yet to feel this 'wince' when I hear a Black man is with a White woman. Maybe its because I'm Jamaican but I lived there only the first 10 years of my life and then I moved to the States. I think one feels the 'wince' when someone in the only pool your are looking to, chooses outside your pool.
For example, let's imagine a room where there are clusters of people rounded up into groups and each are on a quest to find a partner. You are in group A and somehow have convinced yourself (or been told) that the only pool from which you can, will, or want to find your partner is group B (although there are groups C-Z in the room). You also understand that for whatever reason (maybe because group B shares some history with you) group B should be most inclined to choose a partner from your group, group A.
Then you look and suddenly see members of group B moving away from the group to select their partners from groups C-Z. You see that group dwindling as the members find their partners but your group A is still fairly large (though some may have managed to find their partners in group B and a few have also gone off to find partners in groups C-Z).
I would feel the pinch, the 'wince', the sting if not panic all together.
I mean does this mean I will not have much to select from? And it would hurt even more if the members of group B I see straggling off to find their partners in groups C-Z were what I thought of as compatible matches for me. I would have several options:
1. Resolve to go it alone.
Or
2. Crumple up and disgard my belief that my partner can or will only come from group B and start looking at the other groups.
If I definitely don't want anyone in the other groups then I will just have to take the risk I may never find what I want, or settle my expectations of what I want so someone still in group B who I may not have been willing to consider before, becomes a viable option for me.
Basically, I will have to think outside the box. This is what I would do.....but then again, I have never been an 'inside the box' thinker in general.
I love Black men, especially ones from the Caribbean who share my love for ackee and saltfish and can play dominos and do the latest Jamaican dance and understand when I speak patois. I dreamed of marrying a man like that. But then I met someone who loves me to no end. I did my big chop and he was telling me how beautiful my kinky hair is, showing me the curls here and there and you guessed it - he's not in group B.
Damn he even helps me mix my homemade concoctions for my hair. And never fails to bring me an avocado when we run out without my asking just because he knows I use it in my hair.
I'm not married yet so who knows who I'll end up with but for now, I'm happy. I think we have to abandon whatever has made us think we can only find love - we should, or will, only find love in group B and look around us...all 360 degrees.
So that was my comment.
I know the dating thing is way more complicated than this. And I see where Jill Scott is coming from because the complex and emotionally charged history of the relationship between the Black man and the Black woman does have alot to do with how some Blacks may feel about interracial relationships - And I didn't even touch on how much more of a sting it is if the relationship between the members of 'group A and B' with 'groups C-Z' was historically plagued with negativity, hostility and other bad '...ity's :)
In any case, what are your thoughts on this topic?
Soaps, 'Gentle Cleansers' and the Claim that 'Natural is Always Better'
Posted by
Bee
on
4/07/2010
|
Labels:
Alternative Hair Cleansers,
Hair Debates,
Healthy Hair,
Natural Hair
I have been busy procrastinating on writing a 12-page paper on the most boring subject ever invented - software testing. I know. I know. I will bore you no further. I have decided (because I am dedicated to educating you guys as I learn myself) to take very important time out of my procrastinating to share some new insights with you....in addition to other ramblings of course, I mean God forbid this should be a short post. I can't have that. :) But, seriously, I will try to keep it short this time - besides I have to return to gazing at the blank Microsoft Word page on the computer screen in the hopes that the words to fill 12-pages will magically appear before me).
Question: Is natural always better?
This is by the way a rhetorical question because the point of my post is that I've found out the answer already but please share your thoughts as well.
When I first started this journey of growing out my natural hair.....or I should back up even further because my proclivity for all things naturally-derived and organic goes back as far as junior year of college when I began pursuing a Pre-Med degree by way of a Nutrition and Health Science major.
Alot of my classes were - obviously about nutrition, the makeup of food, the makeup of us as biological beings and the effect of foods on our bodies. I became more conscious about what I was putting in my body in terms of meat for example when I took a class where we learned the USDA grading system for meat, what it means and the type of worm that lives in pork and the degree of heat needed to ensure it is killed during cooking.
Also, I have always suffered from acne-prone skin and had begun to look for new, more natural ways to improve it as the harsh medications were taking a toll on my already highly sensitive skin.
I collected and used all-natural skin treatment recipes (it did not occur to me then this should extend to my hair) BUT....as I grew to appreciate the goodness of extra virgin olive oil it became my staple pre-shampoo hair treatment.
I also knew (and still know very well) what foods will improve certain aspects of the body based on their chemical makeup. I can tell you for example that if you have high cholesterol, you need lots of unsaturated (preferably monounsaturated) fats to replace all other fats in your diet and that this will help your cholesterol levels over time (I am not a doctor....I chose another route) but the knowledge stayed with me as I incorporated it in my own life.
Anyway, despite all this knowledge about food and how it affects the body, I was tempted to believe natural is better when it came to my natural hair. Blame it on an igonorance about the make-up of hair and how hair responds to products applied to it externally.
My biggest wonder was about shampoos.
I read that traditional shampoos were very harsh on curly hair and that because curly hair needs to be moist at all times, gentler alternatives were needed. What gentler alternatives? My initial scouring of youtube for example, found new and veteran Naturals raving about the wonders of Dr. Bronner's Castille soap for cleansing hair and also about African Black soap.
Typical me, I went into research mode to find out, what is Black Soap and why is it better than other soaps for hair? It's not! It is gentler than detergents like all soaps are but the claim about the benefits of saponified oils versus gentler cleansers like those found in shampoos like Organix and DevaCurl No Poo and Low Poo are questionable at best, if not completely unfounded.
The tricky thing is it sounds so great. I mean I only want the best for my hair and yesterday I was this close *thumb and index finger almost touching* to buying the Dr. Bronner's Castille soap that some naturals have been swearing by for their hair. I mean it said beautiful things on the first line of the ingredients list: 'Saponified coconut oil' - Whaaaat?! My hair loves it some coconut oil - but wait, does the fact that it's 'saponified' change the awesomeness of the coconut oil in it? Answer: Hell yes!
Saponification is the process of applying a highly basic substance usually sodium hydroxide (think lye) or potassium hydroxide to the oil.
-I know you are thinking of relaxers but don't be confused, the sodium hydroxide performs its reaction on the oils to produce soap, no further reaction is performed on your hair like relaxers-
Anyway, the result of this reaction (saponification process) is a molecular structure that has a hydrophillic (water-attracting) end, binding to water and a fatty end, bindable to oils. This is what makes soap. Now the only virtue of Dr. Bronner's soap over another soap (and I am not including detergents which are harsher over all than soaps and other cleansers) may be the type of fat or oil used in this saponification process and since different oils and fats have different molecular structures, mainly length and type of bonds of the fatty acid tails, it very well may be that some soaps are better than others.
What does this mean for our hair?
Soaps in general have a higher pH than the pH of our hair. And great differences in pH contribute to the breakdown of the hair's own molecular structure to varying degrees. On the other hand, gentler cleansers specifically formulated for curly hair and free of harsh chemicals like SLS and ALS are likely to have a pH closer to the hair's own (I encourage you to investigate the pH for yourself), meaning less harmful to the structure of the hair. If you don't know much about the structure of hair, look it up. Trust me its worth reading and you may see why I came to the conclusion that natural is not always the best for all that beautiful curly, kinky, prone to dryness and delicate mass on top of our heads.
Keep loving your hair and I'll keep using my Organix Coconut Milk shampoo until I can get my hands on that Deva Curl No or Low Poo cleanser to give it a try. Of course a review of it will follow so look out for that.
Question: Is natural always better?
This is by the way a rhetorical question because the point of my post is that I've found out the answer already but please share your thoughts as well.
When I first started this journey of growing out my natural hair.....or I should back up even further because my proclivity for all things naturally-derived and organic goes back as far as junior year of college when I began pursuing a Pre-Med degree by way of a Nutrition and Health Science major.
Alot of my classes were - obviously about nutrition, the makeup of food, the makeup of us as biological beings and the effect of foods on our bodies. I became more conscious about what I was putting in my body in terms of meat for example when I took a class where we learned the USDA grading system for meat, what it means and the type of worm that lives in pork and the degree of heat needed to ensure it is killed during cooking.
Also, I have always suffered from acne-prone skin and had begun to look for new, more natural ways to improve it as the harsh medications were taking a toll on my already highly sensitive skin.
I collected and used all-natural skin treatment recipes (it did not occur to me then this should extend to my hair) BUT....as I grew to appreciate the goodness of extra virgin olive oil it became my staple pre-shampoo hair treatment.
I also knew (and still know very well) what foods will improve certain aspects of the body based on their chemical makeup. I can tell you for example that if you have high cholesterol, you need lots of unsaturated (preferably monounsaturated) fats to replace all other fats in your diet and that this will help your cholesterol levels over time (I am not a doctor....I chose another route) but the knowledge stayed with me as I incorporated it in my own life.
Anyway, despite all this knowledge about food and how it affects the body, I was tempted to believe natural is better when it came to my natural hair. Blame it on an igonorance about the make-up of hair and how hair responds to products applied to it externally.
My biggest wonder was about shampoos.
I read that traditional shampoos were very harsh on curly hair and that because curly hair needs to be moist at all times, gentler alternatives were needed. What gentler alternatives? My initial scouring of youtube for example, found new and veteran Naturals raving about the wonders of Dr. Bronner's Castille soap for cleansing hair and also about African Black soap.
Typical me, I went into research mode to find out, what is Black Soap and why is it better than other soaps for hair? It's not! It is gentler than detergents like all soaps are but the claim about the benefits of saponified oils versus gentler cleansers like those found in shampoos like Organix and DevaCurl No Poo and Low Poo are questionable at best, if not completely unfounded.
The tricky thing is it sounds so great. I mean I only want the best for my hair and yesterday I was this close *thumb and index finger almost touching* to buying the Dr. Bronner's Castille soap that some naturals have been swearing by for their hair. I mean it said beautiful things on the first line of the ingredients list: 'Saponified coconut oil' - Whaaaat?! My hair loves it some coconut oil - but wait, does the fact that it's 'saponified' change the awesomeness of the coconut oil in it? Answer: Hell yes!
Saponification is the process of applying a highly basic substance usually sodium hydroxide (think lye) or potassium hydroxide to the oil.
-I know you are thinking of relaxers but don't be confused, the sodium hydroxide performs its reaction on the oils to produce soap, no further reaction is performed on your hair like relaxers-
Anyway, the result of this reaction (saponification process) is a molecular structure that has a hydrophillic (water-attracting) end, binding to water and a fatty end, bindable to oils. This is what makes soap. Now the only virtue of Dr. Bronner's soap over another soap (and I am not including detergents which are harsher over all than soaps and other cleansers) may be the type of fat or oil used in this saponification process and since different oils and fats have different molecular structures, mainly length and type of bonds of the fatty acid tails, it very well may be that some soaps are better than others.
What does this mean for our hair?
Soaps in general have a higher pH than the pH of our hair. And great differences in pH contribute to the breakdown of the hair's own molecular structure to varying degrees. On the other hand, gentler cleansers specifically formulated for curly hair and free of harsh chemicals like SLS and ALS are likely to have a pH closer to the hair's own (I encourage you to investigate the pH for yourself), meaning less harmful to the structure of the hair. If you don't know much about the structure of hair, look it up. Trust me its worth reading and you may see why I came to the conclusion that natural is not always the best for all that beautiful curly, kinky, prone to dryness and delicate mass on top of our heads.
Keep loving your hair and I'll keep using my Organix Coconut Milk shampoo until I can get my hands on that Deva Curl No or Low Poo cleanser to give it a try. Of course a review of it will follow so look out for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)