Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
11 September 2020 | Story Nombulelo Shange | Photo Pexels
Women also grow their hair, but often wear headscarves or weave their hair into hat-like structures

Opinion article by Nombulelo Shange, Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, University of the Free State

The recent TRESemmé Clicks advert portraying black women’s natural hair as ‘dull’ and ‘damaged’, has brought up the hair politics that black women battle with every day. Our hair is still policed in the workplace, schools, and many other social spaces we find ourselves in. In 2016, young black girls protested Pretoria High School’s racist hair policies that banned natural hair. My own high school experience was no different; my school banned dreadlocks out of concern that we used mud to mould our hair and the mud would stain our white shirts and make us look untidy. No amount of convincing would make the school rethink its policies, so your options were to straighten your hair with harmful chemicals or hide it with extensions. 

Not shocked, but angry

Personally, I am not shocked by the TRESemmé advert. I expect nothing less from whiteness and an economic system built on the oppression of black people. But I am still angry that this has happened again, especially in such an overtly violent manner. I am angry over the timing – the only time we have in the year to openly and comfortably celebrate Africanness has been tainted. I am angry that whiteness does not rest, not even in Heritage Month. Reading social media comments on the matter, my anger turned to disappointment, as some black men felt confused by our outrage because our role models are women such as Khanyi Mbau, who often wears her hair straight, long, and blonde. They pit the two struggles against each other; natural hair versus wigs/relaxed hair and did not miss the opportunity to share what their preferences are. When they did this, to me they were no different than the TRESemmé advert; they just traded the Western view for a male view and further reinforced the idea that black women are ugly. They turned wigs, a harmless form of expression, into a debate as to whether women with natural hair are more beautiful than ‘fake’ women with wigs. They missed the point. The point is that we want to wear our hair the way we want, without fear of external factors such as workplaces and schools that will label us as unprofessional or messy for having natural hair. We also do not need the criticism that comes from black men who question our Africanness or genuineness when we wear wigs. 
The hair politics of black women’s is long, complex, and contradictory – on the one hand, revolutionary theorist Bantu Biko problematises black women’s positionality in societal beauty standards. He states: 
They (black women) use lightening creams, they use straightening devices for their hair and so on. They sort of believe, I think, that their natural state which is a black state is not synonymous with beauty and beauty can only be approximated by them if the skin is made as light as possible and the lips are made as red as possible, and their nails are made as pink as possible and so on.

Black women historically made to feel ugly

It cannot be denied that black women have historically been made to feel ugly, with those who are considered beautiful being those whose appearance resembles whiteness. So, for a long time, black women were forced to wear their hair straight, do their makeup in ways that bring them closer to whiteness, and perform many other Western beauty practices reinforced by popular culture and society as a whole. The contradiction is that we have a long cultural history preceding colonialism of adorning ourselves with ‘extensions’, colouring our hair, beautifying our skin. 

Even today, older, married Shembe women still practice an old beauty routine that also symbolises status and social position in society. They grow their hair long, dye it a reddish colour, stretch it so that it looks straight and can be pulled fair enough to be woven into a hat-like structure that almost resembles inkehli, a traditional Zulu hat. It was also not uncommon for African women to use shells, feathers, animal hair, etc., to add length to their hair. I would argue that modern-day wigs are an evolution of these old cultural practices. 

The way wigs were forced on us so that we fit Western standards of beauty was problematic, but black women have transformed this practice and made it their own in ways not that different from how black Americans reclaimed the ‘N’ word. Our hair only becomes a political battleground when we are forced to choose how we wear it or are made to explain why we wear it one way over another. Black women have the right to wear their hair any way they want, without having their beauty questioned by whiteness or black men and society. I hope that the next time (unfortunately, there will be a next time) whiteness questions our beauty in the way that TRESemmé did, black men will come to our defence instead of perpetuating the false narrative that one type of black women is more beautiful than the other.   

News Archive

South Africa praised for dealing with its history
2012-07-12

“I listened to an incredible conversation on how South Africans can talk about the past. We failed to do that in the US. We cannot move on because we failed to name the ghosts in our past. I am honouring what South Africa is doing.”

These are the words of a staff delegate from a university in the USA in a case study at the Global Leadership Summit led by Prof. André Keet, Director of the International Institute for Studies in Race, Reconciliation and Social Justice at the University of the Free State (UFS).

Students and academics from universities in the USA, Belgium, the Netherlands and Japan are attending a Global Leadership Summit with the theme “Transcending Boundaries in Global Change Leadership” at the UFS.

In the case study, symbols on the Bloemfontein Campus such as the MT Steyn Statue, Justitia symbol of justice at the building of the Faculty of Law, the artwork Van hier tot daar, and the Women’s Memorial were presented to the audience and the question was asked if they had to be removed or if they had to remain.

Students overwhelmingly felt that symbols of the past had to remain. Here are some of the comments:

  • “Without our past we would not be here today. Without the past, we would not know why we are here or where we are going.”
  • “It is important for students that it remains on campus, as a reminder that history must not repeat itself.”
  • “There is room for new symbols. We must look back but must also look at the future.”
  • “We must resolve the problems of the past and move on.”
  • “We must remember that we cannot go back there again. We must not take away part of other people’s history.”
  • “Symbols must be contextualised.”
  •  “Don’t look in the rear mirror, but through the windscreen where you are going. The windscreen is far bigger.”

One student said the statute of MT Steyn filled him with anger.

Prof. Keet said the act of running away from the ghosts of the past was a way to keep those ghosts alive. The past cannot be dealt with, only visited. The ghosts connect people with the past and allow the past to be present in the now.
 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept