Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Thu 29 May 2008 17:22 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
It's sort of like the good hair/bad hair talk. I'm questioning what is really meant because a colloquial phrase isn't precise and is a matter of perspective.
I disagree with the use of the terms "good/bad" hair as well... but that doesn't mean that I'm going to pretend that I don't know what someone is talking about when they use those terms.
It's sort of like the good hair/bad hair talk. I'm questioning what is really meant because a colloquial phrase isn't precise and is a matter of perspective.
I disagree with the use of the terms "good/bad" hair as well... but that doesn't mean that I'm going to pretend that I don't know what someone is talking about when they use those terms.
I'm not pretending. I sincerely do not know what you mean by the term, the main reason being that it is a term I wouldn't use. One fact that I know you are aware of is that "mulattos" are diverse. Does a mulatto with bone straight hair have "mulatto hair?" Does a mulatto with corkscrew coils have "mulatto hair?" Or does "mulatto hair" refer to a person who has either wavy or curly hair that is somewhere along the coiled to straight spectrum? I can go on about other hair properties...dry vs. oily, fine vs. coarse but you get my point.
I'll ask again: What is "mulatto hair" as you define it?
And what is "mulatto hair" anyway? Is it any hair texture that people who call themselves mulattos have or is it something specific? Hair has basic properties that are shared across populations so I really don't understand what that means.
Playing stupid and engaging in semantics games when hearing a politically incorrect term is something that I expect from some people here, but not you, saga!
The question is valid Richard.
All biracials don't have curly hair. Is biracial hair, hair that really isn't kinky but not really curly? or is it kinky(black) + straight(white) = curly thus biracial
Mario Van Peeples has that almost kinky could be curly hair
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Thu 29 May 2008 17:37 Post subject:
Look,
I can tell that this is an attempt at entrapment - i.e., if I attempt to define "mulatto hair" or "good hair," you're going to have even more probing questions that are designed to villify me.... all this when the both of you know fully well what the terms refer to.
I can tell that this is an attempt at entrapment - i.e., if I attempt to define "mulatto hair" or "good hair," you're going to have even more probing questions that are designed to villify me.... all this when the both of you know fully well what the terms refer to.
Put the baggage down! I am asking a simple question. I'm quite sure neither one of us is trying to "entrap" you but it is unfortunate that you think so. You're breaking a few rules right now as well and that is no one's fault but your own really. It's not my forum but this approach to a civil discussion is uncalled for.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Thu 29 May 2008 17:48 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
Put the baggage down! I am asking a simple question. I'm quite sure neither one of us is trying to "entrap" you but it is unfortunate that you think so. You're breaking a few rules right now as well and that is no one's fault but your own really. It's not my forum but this approach to a civil discussion is uncalled for.
You know, it might help when you tell me that I'm breaking a few rules to specify them - and I don't mean to "retaliate," but it's something that I'd like to know at the time.
As well, I never used the term "mulatto hair" myself - whoever split this topic did when they named it (it wasn't me, some mod did it). That said, the burden of defining the term doesn't fall on me in the first place - but whoever split the thread.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 29 May 2008 17:58 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
sagascend wrote:
Put the baggage down! I am asking a simple question. I'm quite sure neither one of us is trying to "entrap" you but it is unfortunate that you think so. You're breaking a few rules right now as well and that is no one's fault but your own really. It's not my forum but this approach to a civil discussion is uncalled for.
You know, it might help when you tell me that I'm breaking a few rules to specify them - and I don't mean to "retaliate," but it's something that I'd like to know at the time.
As well, I never used the term "mulatto hair" myself - whoever split this topic did when they named it (it wasn't me, some mod did it). That said, the burden of defining the term doesn't fall on me in the first place - but whoever split the thread.
Richard, all Maya did was to ask a simple, valid question, and Ty agreed (so do I, incidentally). There is no need to attempt to turn this into a heated debate.
Put the baggage down! I am asking a simple question. I'm quite sure neither one of us is trying to "entrap" you but it is unfortunate that you think so. You're breaking a few rules right now as well and that is no one's fault but your own really. It's not my forum but this approach to a civil discussion is uncalled for.
You know, it might help when you tell me that I'm breaking a few rules to specify them - and I don't mean to "retaliate," but it's something that I'd like to know at the time.
As well, I never used the term "mulatto hair" myself - whoever split this topic did when they named it (it wasn't me, some mod did it). That said, the burden of defining the term doesn't fall on me in the first place - but whoever split the thread.
Excusing the rule requiring posters not to use first-person pronouns (2.4) I could see citing your posts for any one of these:
Quote:
1.4 Do Not Get Offended. — Many topics here might offend you. History forums tell how Europeans conquered, colonized, enslaved, and exploited everyone else. Anthropology forums discuss prehistoric ancestry. Ethnicity forums examine the Black/White test-score gap. Latin America forums cover lack of Latino assimilation. Each of these topics can offend some readers. But if the data presented are substantiated with sources (see 1.2.1) then you must not complain. If you are offended, leave the site. Do not complain that you are offended by substantiated data.
2.2 Do not engage in ad hominem. — If you disagree with someone, focus your comments on the content of their message, not their person. Do not attribute motives. Do not ridicule them. Do not engage in any form of ad hominem.
3.3 Avoid Ambiguous Word Usage. — This site demands precise terminology within its field of interest (U.S. racialism). The following are site-standard definitions. If you follow these standards in your writing, you need not explain your word usage. You may assume that readers are familiar with the following definitions. But if you use nonstandard words for the following phenomena or if you use one of the following standard words but with a different meaning, then you must explain precisely what you mean. Familiarize yourself with the following standard definitions. You are expected to know them before your first post.
4.5 Do Not Antagonize Other Members. — Be nice. The moderators have the discretionary authority to suspend your posting privilege if you habitually antagonize or insult other members, even if you stay within the letter of these rules. For example, if you often get into flame wars, or habitually express yourself in ways that others find objectionable, or deliberately goad others into overreacting, the forum moderator can suspend your posting privilege even if you have broken no specific rule. This rule (be nice) is enforced at the moderator’s discretion because overly sensitive people often complain for trivial reasons that they were antagonized, insulted, or goaded.
I also don't understand why you'd feel so implicated by a thread title you didn't create. So, if the burden wasn't yours initially it was one that you took up without hesitation.
Answering what appears to you to be a silly or stupid question is what enables members to learn more - about one another and/or topics we discuss. As such, it also seems to be me that your last few posts break this rule as well:
Quote:
1.2 Either Teach or Learn. — Learners ask questions, challenge assumptions, request sources, and compare different interpretations to arrive at new knowledge about U.S. racialism. Teachers answer questions, defend or clarify assumptions, provide sources, and offer different interpretations about U.S. racialism. Most members perform both roles. Your every message should seek either to inform or to become informed
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Thu 29 May 2008 18:01 Post subject:
William wrote:
Richard, all Maya did was to ask a simple, valid question, and Ty agreed (so do I, incidentally). There is no need to attempt to turn this into a heated debate.
Caramba!
All I'm saying is that my refusal to answer this question does not violate Rule 3.3, because I didn't use the term. If someone is going to suspend me over this, fine, I'll give in - but either way, I didn't use the term, and whoever split this thread and gave it its title is the one who is ultimately responsible for answering that question.
I can tell that this is an attempt at entrapment - i.e., if I attempt to define "mulatto hair" or "good hair," you're going to have even more probing questions that are designed to villify me.... all this when the both of you know fully well what the terms refer to.
Richard, please, you sound paranoid. Lower the cockiness. We are having a discussion. I thought it was a good discussion with 2 other people I enjoy conversing with. Your blowing this way out of proportion.
I knew what is meant by good and bad hair since the 70's
Biracial hair is something I've only heard in the last 4-5 years has always stumped me. I've never gotten an honest answer from those I've questioned. Because whatever the answer it always opens another door/question: Biracial people don't have kinky hair?
Last edited by gemini072 on Thu 29 May 2008 18:49; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Thu 29 May 2008 18:20 Post subject:
Saga - I'm not offended - I just hate semantics games with a passion, and I feel like I'm being coerced into playing them - which would violate Rule 3.7.
Again, I didn't use ambiguous term. The mod who split the post did, not me. I'm just choosing not to argue with it - there is no rule stating that I have to define a term that someone else used, that I didn't question.
As far as the last... I might feel that I'm being antagonized by being coerced to define a term I didn't use... again, all someone has to do is threaten me with suspension, and I'll give my definition - though, keep in mind, whoever split this thread might have a different answer.
Last edited by Richard Miller on Thu 29 May 2008 18:21; edited 1 time in total
Richard, all Maya did was to ask a simple, valid question, and Ty agreed (so do I, incidentally). There is no need to attempt to turn this into a heated debate.
Caramba!
All I'm saying is that my refusal to answer this question does not violate Rule 3.3, because I didn't use the term. If someone is going to suspend me over this, fine, I'll give in - but either way, I didn't use the term, and whoever split this thread and gave it its title is the one who is ultimately responsible for answering that question.
2. Courtesy
2.1 Do not retaliate. — No excuse for violating the following rules of courtesy will be accepted. If you retaliate against someone by violating a rule your posting privilege will be suspended. If you then say that you could not help yourself because you were acting in self-defense or defending your ethnic group, it will just make things worse and risk your permanent expulsion from the site. Do not retaliate. Ever.
2.2 Do not engage in ad hominem. — If you disagree with someone, focus your comments on the content of their message, not their person. Do not attribute motives. Do not ridicule them. Do not engage in any form of ad hominem.
Richard Miller wrote: Playing stupid and engaging in semantics games when hearing a politically incorrect term is something that I expect from some people here, but not you, saga!
Last edited by gemini072 on Thu 29 May 2008 18:31; edited 2 times in total
Let's get to the bottom line here. What do I have to do to not be in violation?
Can you, through the rules, justify the request for me for me to define "mulatto hair" if I didn't use it?
Either way, in my next post, I'll do what you tell me.
Sag was originally responding to something I was saying. I saw no reason for you go where you went. You didn't even have to say anything. Since she replied to me, I could have opened the discussion further. You didn't have to take it as we were talking about you. I have mulatto hair too. I was enjoying this discourse now you went and put all these sensitive emotions in it ahhhhrrrr Richard
You then accused her of Playing stupid and engaging in semantics games
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Ty wrote: Most can, it depends on the oiliness of the hair, not the texture.
SAG wroteThat's true, although I think curliness also factors in. It is much easier to braid or cornrow hair that isn't straight.
And what is "mulatto hair" anyway? Is it any hair texture that people who call themselves mulattos have or is it something specific? Hair has basic properties that are shared across populations so I really don't understand what that means.
Many parents do not cut toddler boys hair. My cousin has a son with wavy hair and she didn't cut it until he was 4. I doubt wanting to "show off" his texture had anything to do with it. Perhaps his hyperactivity and fear of the barber did.
But what's still unsettling is the fact that, from what I see, monoracially black boys of the same age tend to actually have their hair cut.
Something I've been watching too is mixed & biracial women(no matter what they identify as) with various degrees of curly "good" hair who never get it cut or styled to keep that biracial-mulatto look: I could run a list off
This is wrong, but I have such a huge preference against this, that every time I see a woman or girl on television with her hair "out" in that curly style that just looks unkempt, I change the channel.
For instance, I don't like this type of style too much:
But I'm cool with this style:
The length isn't what bothers me. Amy Holmes (the first girl, who has a black dad and white mom) looks like she just woke up, lol.
Many parents do not cut toddler boys hair. My cousin has a son with wavy hair and she didn't cut it until he was 4. I doubt wanting to "show off" his texture had anything to do with it. Perhaps his hyperactivity and fear of the barber did.
But what's still unsettling is the fact that, from what I see, monoracially black boys of the same age tend to actually have their hair cut.
Something I've been watching too is mixed & biracial women(no matter what they identify as) with various degrees of curly "good" hair who never get it cut or styled to keep that biracial-mulatto look: I could run a list off
This is wrong, but I have such a huge preference against this, that every time I see a woman or girl on television with her hair "out" in that curly style that just looks unkempt, I change the channel.
For instance, I don't like this type of style too much:
But I'm cool with this style:
The length isn't what bothers me. Amy Holmes (the first girl, who has a black dad and white mom) looks like she just woke up, lol.
Did know about Amy Holmes, I see another profile coming.
I like the natural look though, Rachel True usually wears her hair like that too she is hippie girl. [quote]
This is wrong, but I have such a huge preference against this, that every time I see a woman or girl on television with her hair "out" in that curly style that just looks unkempt, I change the channel.
Boooo! I think Amy's hair is cute. That's how my hair usually looks if it is not in a ponytail, except longer.
gemini02 wrote:
Did know about Amy Holmes, I see another profile coming
She is a Republican political commentator and used to be a speechwriter for Bill Frist. Very sharp and fairminded.
This is wrong, but I have such a huge preference against this, that every time I see a woman or girl on television with her hair "out" in that curly style that just looks unkempt, I change the channel.
Boooo! I think Amy's hair is cute. That's how my hair usually looks if it is not in a ponytail, except longer.
gemini02 wrote:
Did know about Amy Holmes, I see another profile coming
She is a Republican political commentator and used to be a speechwriter for Bill Frist. Very sharp and fairminded.
I think she's smart but sometimes she can get a bit hysterical.
And my hair is like Amy Holmes, too, lol. Maybe because I'm sick of my hair I displaced it on her, haha.
I think she's smart but sometimes she can get a bit hysterical.
And my hair is like Amy Holmes, too, lol. Maybe because I'm sick of my hair I displaced it on her, haha.
LOL that's not right!
Yeah she can get shrill at times but I like that she doesn't back down to all of those stuffed shirts. I'll listen to her even if I vehemently disagree with her POV.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
I think Amy's hair is cute. That's how my hair usually looks if it is not in a ponytail, except longer.
