Jockin’ My FRO
Here we go again! We were critical of Louis Vuitton’s so-called, “ghetto fab mash up” during Spring 2010 Paris Fashion Week. Misdirected cultural references of the iconic afro continues over at Dazed & Confused. In their February issue, the magazine covers the Vuitton collection referring to the wigged models as “frizzy haired travelers.” The “hippie movement” is championed, completely ignoring the significance of this hairstyle during a little something called the Black Power movement. Misappropriations of Black cultural aesthetics is nothing new. I mean, at least give credit where it due.
Do you find these images problematic? Speak on it!
37 Comments – Add Yours
Latest Articles
Most Popular This Week
Recent Comments
-
minna k. on
Pregnancy Weight Loss and the Public’s Betrayal
Shout out to Diane Von Furstenburg and her genius wrap dress.
-
Poshmiss_com on
Meagan Good Tells Life & Style She & Her Fiancée Are Waiting For Their Wedding Night
Wait. If you are Christian you should be waiting too. Too many of us out here saying we follow Christ but are clearly against his word in...
-
Isis on
Meagan Good Tells Life & Style She & Her Fiancée Are Waiting For Their Wedding Night
Good for them. I struggle with waiting but hats off to those that dont
-
Evanby on
Honor Student Suing NYPD for Racial Profiling, False Arrest
Stories like this make me ask myself: How bad could anarchy be? No, seriously, bless the father for at least trying to make the police...
I don’t find them as problematic as ignoring a cultural reference and what it may signify for people. Fashion is going to borrow from everything under the sun, but as you said, credit should be given where it is due. Afro does not read hippie movement to me at.all.
No, this isn’t problematic. It is just another way that the fashion industry is showing black women that they want to be like us. And, that black women are their muses.
Hmmm, I feel a connection through thoughtful marketing…
OMG!!! Hair is HAIR is HAIR is HAIR. It doesn’t mean they’re trying to be like ANY RACE!
Suppose it was Asian with super-straight hair with loose curls or waves. I wonder who’s gonna be crying “They’re trying to make her look Hispanic, it’s a shame.”
It looks to me like a hairstyle chosen b/c the director of this shoot felt suited the look!! That’s all. Stop with the sensitive sh*t already. It’s annoying.
Loulou,
You simply missed the point it is not that the writer or responders are being sensitive. Instead they are merely addressing that they referred to this hairstyle choice as apart of the hippie movement when it was not inspired by hippies but was by a different movement entirely. If you were to do your research on the Afro it was an expression of black pride. It was the blacks of that era who gave way to being natural… That is not to say that there were no hippies who wore fro’s but that the Afro’s beginning was the black power movement. So it is a question of accuracy and they are inaccurate.
If the models had straight jet black chopped off bangs and headlines such as British Empire… I would be just as concerned. If they were to were a hijab and deem it as 50′s pop it would still be wrong. They’re not sensitive they’re accurate!
If they were to were a hijab and deem it as 50’s pop it would still be wrong. They’re not sensitive they’re accurate! Correction: Wear a hijab
Thanks for your point of view, I think understand what you’re getting at. But I think I’m pretty well brushed up on history.
All I’m saying is : who’s to say just b/c a fro is iconic to a movement that it’s restricted to those means?
If you ask me, the movement was more than just a hairstyle and an AA’s hair is not a trend. I mean, I wore my hair “natural” until about half-way thru college. It wasn’t a symbol of black pride; it was just my hair. nothing more, nothing less.
Iike I said, hair is hair is hair is hair.
LouLou
I feel as if you still dont get the point that Deloris is trying to make. The afro when blacks did wear and some do still ment as black pride (some now just wear it to wear it). Just because when you wore the afro does not mean that you were showing black pride, but just in that time era thats what the meaning of afro ment.
“Vuitton collection referring to the wigged models as “frizzy haired travelers.” The “hippie movement” is championed, completely ignoring the significance of this hairstyle during a little something called the Black Power movement. Misappropriations of Black cultural aesthetics is nothing new. I mean, at least give credit where it due. Do you find these images problematic?”
*******************************************************************
Nope! I do not find the images problematic.
Some people arrogantly and ignorantly think their group has sole right to, innovated or invented this or that (or claim something as a “black cultural aesthetic”) when there are occurrences that preceded the “black power movement” by decades.
Maybe “give credit where it’s due” to Circassian women who were rocking ‘fros in the 1800s and get over yourself!
http://www.sideshowworld.com/BL-History-CircassianB.html
What ridiculous comments. Sorry @Akai, women of African descent were wearing Afro’s since the beginning of time because that is the natural texture of the vast majority of our hair – the women from the slideshows you cited are wearing a fad – and most probably wigs – even if it is their real hair, it is a style that worked against their texture and likely took a lot of work and contrivance to pull off.
Black/African hair is actually *structurally* distinct from white or asian hair – the follicle it shaped differently. It is also a primary racial marker, next to skin color, hair texture is the most reliable way you can tell whether or not someone is of African descent. This was used to catch people that were passing for white directly after the abolition of slavery and into the 50s.
So no, hair is not hair is not hair! And it’s extremely naive for anyone to say so. Any black woman who grew up in a school and was made fun of for having kinky hair will tell you different.
Hell, along with dashikis, Afros were a friggin’ FAD back in the 60s and 70s when AAs were rocking ‘em. That is evident in the fact that most NO LONGER wear them.
A statement was made that the “afro’s beginning was the black power movement” and I proved that to be FALSE! Don’t like it? Oh well!
I don’t give a sh*t about hair texture, follicle, structure blah blah talk and hope Clutch NEVER becomes overrun by a bunch of self-righteous, psueudo-militant angry nappy heads.
um, no. You didn’t prove anything to be false. In fact I *proved* that the afro hairstyle is inextricably linked to blackness and a particular point in American history which an afro = BLACK POWER or “black pride/black is beautiful”, a movement distinct from hippies (not all radicalism in the 60s has to do with hippies) – and claiming that afros don’t have anything to do with a racial characteristic is crazy and totally unsubstantiated. You can’t just state something and have it instantly become a fact, dear.
Also most AAs (females actually because most AA men DO wear fros they are just cut short to their scalp) don’t wear afro’s because the majority of black women now straighten their hair or wear fake hair for a variety of reasons including the stigma of natural hair being unprofessional.
At the very least this editorial spread could have used black models to make its point since it IS connecting the hairstyle to the period of the 60s. The fact that black models are still seriously underrepresented in fashion editorials and instead certain ethnic signifiers, like full lips, kinky hair, brown skin, fuller backsides, are considered “in” yet rarely being shown on actual women of color is a problem. We aren’t quite post-racial yet folks.
“I don’t give a sh*t about hair texture, follicle, structure blah blah talk and hope Clutch NEVER becomes overrun by a bunch of self-righteous, psueudo-militant angry nappy heads.”
. . . as opposed to angry, pseudo-militants with straight hair?
yeah, it’s way past time for you to sit down.
Your slideshow is irrelevant anyway, because the article and the Louis collection aren’t referencing the Circassian women of the 1800′s. Both are alluding to the 1960′s and 1970′s afro trend. The Dazed and Confused article mislabels the 60′s/70′s afro trend as having its roots in the hippie movement, when, as Deloris said, the afro trend of that time originated in the black power movement.
“Nappy Heads!!” What the fuck?? Were you born in 1924 or some shit? You sound like a angry, bitter woman. I loathe reading what you have to say, so damn offensive and nasty all the time. I HOPE Clutch bans your useless commentary fo’ life.
Black (african) people are IT right now. (because of the upcoming soccer world cup in south africa).Tomorrow it will be Chinese people, then australian girls. It comes back again and again. That is Fashion NOT STYLE. And fashion only recycles what was meaningfull yesterday… (che guevara’s photo on t-shirts, bob Marley’s cap). This is lame. But that’s how this billion dollar industry works
Dude Akai you are the one who sounds angry…get over your self better yet get a hug. It’ll make you feel way better. It’ s funny that you took the time to search the article to refute the fact that the afro was not a black power movemnt. Um actually yea afro textured hair is a characheterist of most black people. It’s the same reason anyone mixed with black doesn’t have bone straight hair.
clearly it’s been on your mind. Indifference would have been more of a statement if you ask me. Talk to a therapist about YOUR anger issues. Hair is not just hair otherwise you wouldn’t have little girls crying about no being pretty with their natural hair texture not being like Hanna Montana.
No one is angry or militant or trying to make a statement. Because afro textrue hair IS a genetic statement when it come to black people or anyone mixed with black. Again, talk to a therapist about your issues. Peace.
<— "Nappy Head"…wow since when has it been cool to speak to other commenters in a disrespectful manner…We can speak to one another without cursing.
Anywho I find the add to be dumb but I am not offended by it because I take it people wanting to emulate us.
@Gia, then don’t read the page, just keep it moving :-) I think this was a lively discussion, not in any way “nasty or damn offensive”. There was no cursing until you dropped your two cents, check yourself before you go checking others.
I was outraged by that “nappy heads” thang 2. So just to be clear, you went out of your way to comment on that response, while completely ignoring the slur that prompted it. Ummmm, who’s in need of the check-in here?
Dead on, Lenna!
Chick didn’t like my opinion and saw fit to address me and label my comments “ridiculous” and “naïve” then foam at the mouth about hair texture, kinky hair etc. and over another person saying hair is hair.
I agree with the statement that hair is hair; I don’t view it as political or take it as a personal attack when I see or hear the phrase “loose curls.” The article was titled “Jockin’ *My* ‘Fro” when the TRUTH is VERY FEW AA females even wear afros and the designer and art director could have mimicked Circassian women from the 1800s or 60s hippies.
I didn’t find the images problematic and viewed the article on the whiney side as fashion, by nature, has always taken influences from any and everywhere, and AAs don’t have sole rights to any hair style. Also they have zero power to stop other groups from wearing whatever style they chose or arrogantly demand they give credit to the “black power movement.”
If somebody has nappy hair, what is the proper and PC way to describe it since the writer also appeared to not like the description “frizzy”?
Clutch once had an article about “natural hair nazis” but typically, conveniently and hypocritically the phase “nappy head” was twisted into a “slur” after a SPECIFIC of “I hope Clutch NEVER becomes overrun by a bunch of self-righteous, pseudo-militant angry nappy heads.” It wasn’t about hair texture, it was about attitude; only a self-righteous, pseudo-militant nappy head would take offense and if the “self righteous” and “militant” shoes fit, oh well!
I, like a lot of people, disregard and laugh at these types yet prefer they keep their pontifications and intolerance for opinions they don’t like amongst themselves on their own spots.
So, what’s the difference between this and Naomi’s long straight weave?
Of course there is absolutely no difference and just as much of a cultural appropriation as any other, but please please please take it back and don’t ask this question.
You really want more nappy head militants coming out of the woodwork to bring their issues here, excuse it or go on neverending rants about Naomi being powerless, having no choice, living up to European standards of beauty blah blah blah!
@Akai
“I, like a lot of people, disregard and laugh at these types yet prefer they keep their pontifications and intolerance for opinions they don’t like amongst themselves on their own spots.”
***********************
. . . says the person who first resorted to name calling and intolerance by referring to those who disagreed with her views as “pseudo-militant nappy heads.” Go on, have fun laughing at yourself. Of course, now that you’ve been chin checked, it’s time to shift blame, play the victim, and go on the defensive. Classic.
***********************
“The article was titled “Jockin’ *My* ‘Fro” when the TRUTH is VERY FEW AA females even wear afros and the designer and art director could have mimicked Circassian women from the 1800s or 60s hippies.”
***********************
Wrong again. Using the term “Afro” to describe the hair-style of the Circassian women of the 1860’s is incorrect and anachronistic. When PT Barnum began displaying the women as side show attractions, their hair style was referred to as “moss-hair.” The term “Afro” didn’t enter the mainstream American lexicon until a century later during the 1960’s with the civil rights and black power movements. Yeah, I know you think you’re schooling people and all, but um, no.
And feel free to stop slinging that tired Circassian women reference, because it simply does not apply. Everyone from Suzy Menkes at the NYT/International Herald Tribune
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/fashion/08iht-rlv.html
to Sarah Mower at Vogue/Style.com
http://www.style.com/fashionshows/review/S2010RTW-LVUITTON
to WWD
http://www.wwd.com/fashion-week/spring-ready-to-wear-2010/review/louis-vuitton-rtw-spring-2010-2336345?src=twitter
referred to those wigs as “afro” wigs, not “moss-hairs” vis a vis the Circassian women. So, we know from which era Jacobs was borrowing.
Seeing as that you have no power to override the expressed, written commentary of actual fashion insiders at reputable mainstream publications, or arrogantly demand that they acknowledge the Circassian women at your whiny behest, I suggest you quit while you’re behind.
Is that what you call a “chin check,” as if you did something or scared somebody? Haahahahahahahahaah!
Save the stereotypical tired bully-tactics, bossiness and demanding attitude for someone more likely to be affected but, alas, it’s wonderful that you and your ilk (rightfully) have NO POWER, let alone to make anyone sit down, stand up or even stop giving their own opinions.
Now what are you gonna do? Swirl your neck? Talk more sh*t? I STAND BY my statement of hoping Clutch is NEVER overrun by nappy head militants.
Oh, what’s wrong, Akai? Have you no more pseudo-intellectual, historical references to offer? Save the intolerant name calling, fake victimization (Oh boo hoo hoo, I’m being bullied because I can’t defend my argument), and defensive attitude for the poor souls who are forced to deal with you in person on a daily basis.
Lashing out and calling names after your argument has been shredded to pieces is so juvenile. Can’t you do any better?
You still huffing, Isolde? How ’bout this: you’re 100% correct and right. Feel better now?
Before you came in here with delusions of having the power to order “sit down,” likeyou Robyn INITIALLY put MY NAME in her comment b/c she couldn’t tolerate different opinions then proceeded with “ridiculous” and “naïve” blah blah. So, insist I’m the one who “first resorted to name calling and intolerance” all you like but others can read that for the LIE it is.
The ones playing the victim are those that twisted I “hope Clutch NEVER becomes overrun by a bunch of self-righteous, pseudo-militant angry nappy heads” to insinuate being (personally) called a name. Typical!
p.s. Since you wanna be nasty and try to get personal, it’s not me and mine fretting about our hair, dealing with a high STD prevalence rate or whose men won’t marry them and date other women, so it appears the “poor soul” is you/yours!
Uh buh bye!
*******************************************************************
Gia wrote: “I loathe reading what you have to say, so damn offensive and nasty all the time. I HOPE Clutch bans your useless commentary fo’ life.”
See? Therein lies the source of a lot of problems: folks don’t exercise their own personal power. I suppose it never occurred to you to NOT READ?
Is that concept too smart or make too much sense? Anyway, you don’t get to dictate or override those who understand and enjoy my “useless commentary.”
“it’s not me and mine fretting about our hair, dealing with a high STD prevalence rate or whose men won’t marry them and date other women, so it appears the “poor soul” is you/yours!”- Akai
The conversation went from women (of color or white) discussing whether they had issues with the display of Afro’s in this ad, to this?
You took it to issues with race? (which can be a whole other conversation discussing the attributed pains brought on by the European culture.
I’m disgusted. Everyone has a right to state their opinion but Ms. Akai, from your first post, you took it to a whole other level–like you were waiting for the opportunity to throw out this nasty comment.
Please, say what you REALLY want to say and stop hiding behind nicknames and angry comments
“swirl your neck?” “nappy head militants?
The only person in this thread behaving like a ghetto trash stereotype is you.
My comment below was meant for you
Oh, ok akai – I hope you consider taking your own advice about that. You could ignore people’s reaction to your never ending coarse, condescending side show act/pollution you aptly call useless commentary. Lively debate is one thing, but there are more ways to reach out for human contact (which you’ve proved you are frantically seeking) than to be unhinged and obnoxious. Sayonara, oh self righteous one. “One love!!”
Blah bluh blah blah how convenient that you overlooked the following statement (as well as others):
“poor souls who are forced to deal with you in person on a daily basis”
When people attempt to send personal attacks, they just might read something they don’t like.
I say exactly what I think, will continue to do so and hide behind nothing, so have a wonderful evening.
wow.
It is the SAMO© – same old shit – co-opting something with resonance for a significant material gain.
I don’t see a problem with the white woman sporting a ‘fro.
I am not going to call this article a “race-rousing” piece, but it almost comes across as one.