Good Hair: The Individual and the Lifestyle

This is the third and last installment of the "Good Hair" series. If you've missed it, the first two parts are found here and here. Go back, read, comment, then come back here. I'll wait.


Okay now that we've got that out the way....

Good Hair: The Individual and the Lifestyle

In today's age, our hair is a representation of both our individuality as well as our lifestyle in the present. The style changes, the treatments, the methods of care chosen, be those methods self-care all the way to weekly visits and personal stylists are all a matter of choice....but also partially (and in some cases, wholly) influenced by our rather complex psyche over the years, as stated in the last installment.

While the history and the psyche play such large roles on our personal choices for hairdress, the surface of such is depicted upon by the individual and their comfort and suitability with a certain style, method of hairdress or frequency and type of hair care (ie: style = braids, method of hairdress = relaxed, frequency and type of hair care = sole care, biweekly treatments)

As stated in the last installment, in our culture, there's a subliminal message engraved for Black women (and men alike) when it comes to our hair and the consenses over the years has always been "straight is great" and "nappy is unhappy". Depending on the person, those beliefs tend to vary in the true context.

But the Reality of the Situation is.......

Nappy doesn't always equal 'Unhappy'. To some, the "nappy" context is a representation of the black struggles and should be glorified proudly as a reminder of how far we as a collective has come, no matter the texture. However, to others, the "nappy" context is but a thorn in their side to show just how different we are, how many MORE struggles we have to get through, going all the way down to our hair, and thus, the attempt to assimilate to be better contestants in the game of Life against our White counterparts is a part of our system that is so engrained we (collectively) don't realize it.

Either way...as I said in the first installment, our hair is bigger than......our hair.

And either way, it all boils down to choice (when dealing with the surface of it all).
And speaking of our "competitors"...

I've talked with several White/European coworkers and friends with respect to this topic and just like Chris Rock briefly said on Oprah (no, I still have not seen the movie), in the eyes of Whites, for them, "straight isnt ALWAYS great". Like us, Whites also have a "secret life" when it comes to hair care and just like us, their methodology and reasoning behind their choices of hairdress rests within the aspects of: vanity, individuality, and lifestyle.

I've talked with White women who have complained about the state of their hair and how and why they use the artificial methods of bleaching, coloring and even relaxers (to make their hair curly in opposed to when we use relaxers to make our hair straight--an averse effect, indeed) and while their reasons rests LARGELY in vanity and lifestyle preferences where ours is LARGELY based on history and subliminal psychological complexes and contexts, as one White person said to me, "we all want to change something in ourselves that we don't have; we are always happy, but never satisfied". I agreed.

Lifestyle shapes an individual, not the other way around...

In this day and age, women are busy, with many holding full time jobs, homes to upkeep and children to keep in line at all times. The least of many women's worries is our hair as the stress and strains of every day Life tend to take the reins leaving our hair to be of extreme importance but also something that is moreso waning to the side of "what's more convenient for me" rather than, "what do I REALLY want to do with my hair".

On the flip side of it all though, hair, especially Black hair is also very diverse. With so many advancements and means of "looking right at the right [usually expensive] price", many women would opt to go for what's more suitable (and convenient) to their lifestyle rather than the dynamics of "what's more 'Black'" and whathaveyou. And while everyone does what is at a better convenience to them as to allieviate whatever unnecessary stress and strain that they can, the true dynamics of what is "convenient" just so happens to be in direct opposition to what is "socially accepted/liked" in the first place.

So what's MY story?
I am currently going Natural. As I've mentioned several times throughout this series, my Natural state is wavy and not coarse and even when I was getting relaxers, I did not get them but 3 times a year. My reason for the "change" though? Merely preference. For me, it's mainly about versatality than anything else. As a general rule, it takes a lot to keep me stimulated with a lot of the "same" things (and I just can not wait to wrap up this series so I can talk about something else lol), so in regards to my hair, I tend to switch up a lot. In the same vein, I also have complexes with weaves and artificial anything...so I don't engage and have opted to change my actual hair in opposed to wearing wigs or weaves for changes. Because of that, I've worn my hair long (my hair has been characteristically "long" my entire life up until 2008) to a bob to really short (as you see in the right hand corner pic here) to how it is now--growing back and just touching my shoulders (I was going to post pics of myself but got lazy, smh)

Though I have changed my hair over the years and have complexes with wigs and weaves and certainly don't bash anyone that uses them, I am also VERY finicky about what I use and do to my hair. I use NO "new" products--all age-old remedies and even create my own conditioners and treatments. I also do my own hair 98% of the time with trips to the salon only for when I need a trim.

(Most recent photo)

So how am I going Natural?

I went short in 2008 and loved it. After 6 months, though, I got bored and have allowed it to grow back ever since. Long hair is truly what I am accustomed to and I don't see myself cutting my hair really short again, so how am I going Natural?

As stated in the last installment, there are many methods to use other than simply cutting all of your hair off if you decide to go Natural. For me, while I am not relaxing my hair (its been about 6 months already), I am letting whatever relaxer I have left in my hair to grow out and after a stretch of time, I'll cut it off, but by then the relaxer will only be on the ends, so my hair would not be "bald short" when I cut it. Wish me luck.

That's just my story. And it fits my lifestyle which influences me as an individual.

Good Hair: The Psyche

(Note: This is Part 2 of a 3 part series. If you haven't caught the first installment, click here.)

Good Hair: The Psyche

The psyche is maybe the strongest factor in human decision making and perception. It's so strong that it has the tendency/ability to control a person's actions, thoughts and personal theories without notice. Unfortunately, society has the strong ability to do this as well.

As stated in the first part of this series, the psyche behind black hair in conjunction with "Good Hair" is something that has been a big factor and "issue" for MANY years. Before Chris Rock's movie, before the hippie/black power days of the 60s-70s, before the days of the "cunk", later termed the relaxer, before the start of the 1900s even. The history is what has given birth to the definition, which has definitely influened the theory and the theory is, for all intents and purpose, the product of the psyche.

Enter, the Psyche behind Good Hair.

The Psyche that stands amongs many African-Americans in regards to "good hair" and "natural hair" is that "straight is great" and "nappy is unhappy". Before writing this post today, I spoke on this issue with two fellow bloggers, one that has been natural for as long as I've known her (I've known her for three years) and another who is a faithful member of the Relaxed Club. Both shared with me their views on both natural hair as well as relaxed hair, while at the same time not discriminating against the opposing "side" for their choice of hair dress.

"Natural will never be an option for me. Not everyone is meant to be natural" - the relaxed sister stated.

I profusely disagreed. We are all born natural and whether that natural state is wavy like mine or coarse as a brillo pad, everyone is essentially "meant" to be natural. Natural is...well...natural.

However.................just like with relaxed hair and any hair style a person chosen, there is upkeep to be enforced. The very idea that "not everyone is meant to be natural" , in my opinion, is the product of that psyche that has been produced by society throughout the ages that say "you must have straight or relaxed hair, otherwise, you just don't look professional/pulled together/like you belong"

As my relaxed friend continued, however, she expressed her concerns with going natural to be moreso along the lines of the process in itself, rather than the finished look therein. When a person who has had a relaxer for a while opts to go Natural, it is customary that they cut their hair off to very short (cut all the relaxer out as a perm is.....well....permanent) and allow it to grow in that way. I can agree that not everyone has the head for a "near bald" look. At the same time though, there are a TON of options in regards to going Natural. One does not HAVE to cut all the hair off outright. They can allow their hair to grow in and not get a relaxer for a substantial period of time and then after a while and the hair has grown to the point where the relaxed portion of hair is but on the tips or ends, then they can cut it off and TRULY be a Natural. Another option is cutting all the hair off and opting for wigs, weaves, braids, etc while the hair grows underneath. That way the person isn't "outright bald" while trying to rock the Natural.

It's all understood that there is a vanity that comes with hair, especially Black hair in general. However, what is further missed or overlooked is the understanding that that vanity is nine times out of ten based on the views of society and what is generally accepted as "good hair" has done to the individual's psyche in the first place. It all plays a role.

"I try not to judge either way. I just know that relaxed isn't for me anymore" - the natural sister stated.

This opinion is of the "least-accepted" in our country and is also a prime example of how society can affect a person's thoughts and perceptions when it comes to self-worth and self-acceptance. In the directly above quote, she tries not to judge. She isn't condemning anyone that decides to continue with relaxed hair. On the flip, she knows it "isnt for HER". It is by her sole decision that she finds being Natural a better fit for HER. Who cares what society thinks, right? Not everyone carries this belief though and I wish they did.

If society were better accepting to the natural state of African or African-American hair, there wouldn't be any issues of what 'good hair' is, a description to "bad hair" or even weaves, chemical treatments. I'm quite sure that with our technological advancements, these things will still reign our society, BUT they wouldnt be such a means of discussion and there wouldn't be such a "hidden depth" behind such either. They also wouldn't be so important that women would find spending a thousand dollars on "the right kinda hair" something they just "had to do to keep their hair looking right" (aka: keeping up with the standards of society under the unknown guise of "just needing her hair done"). And why? Because if society were more accepting and if society didn't paint such a foul picture of African and African American hair and if "nappy wasnt unhappy" and "straight wasnt the only thing great", then she wouldnt HAVE to go through such lengths to "look good", she'd find that her natural hair is good enough and she'd embrace it and rock on with her bad self and smile while doing it.


But alas, this isn't a perfect society and our society is instead primarily driven on the "visual" versus any other aspects of humanity and our society has provided the invisible "okay" on the Theory of Good Hair for SO long that SO many people can't tell the differene anymore.

And thus, our Psyche is collectively transformed.




The last installment: "Good Hair: The Individual and the Lifestyle" next. Stay tuned.

Good Hair: An Examination and first part--Good Hair: The History, the Definition, and the Theory

(Note: I originally wrote this blog before the movie came out last Friday)

For anyone who's in tune with what's going on in theaters soon, Chris Rock has a "comedic documentary" coming out which he titled, "Good Hair". This documentary is supposed to be an "inside look" on what goes on behind the scenes with Black women when it comes to our hair.....with a comedic flair. (rhyming non-intended).

Last week, Chris Rock was featured on Oprah and spoke about his documentary. Throughout the show, he spoke about weaves, relaxers, hair length, theories and "rules" amongst Black women when it comes to our hair and our relationships with our men, and most importantly.......the texture of Black hair in conjunction with our European and Indian counterparts. Personally, I thought the Oprah special was pretty good, yet disheartening on a few levels (which I plan to get into as this series continues). However, I couldn't help but notice how he, Chris Rock, didn't really DELVE into the psyche behind why so many black women opt for weaves, relaxers and the like to begin with. He only discussed the surface (at least that's all he touched on the show; who knows what the actual documentary will discuss or how far it will go into the topic).

In case you missed it on Oprah though, here is a clip of Chris Rock's appearance on Oprah last week.




This discussion is a lot broader than people may come to realize. In picking apart the entire dynamic of Black Women and "Good Hair", I've decided to create a "Good Hair": An Examination series broken into the following:

1. The History, the Definition, and the Theory

2. The Psyche

3. The Individual and the Lifestyle

Let's start with the first point.........

*********************************************************************************************

Good Hair: The History, the Definition, and the Theory:


The History:

Black people have the coarsest and most difficult texture of hair of any other race of people. Historically speaking, our hair is also the least likely to grow to magnificent and glorious lengths. However, over the span of time, our hair has been a defining factor into our culture as a Black people. The braids, the afros, the locs, and other "natural" styles are signature and "representative" styles that separate us from other races and bound us as a culture. In short, our hair is bigger than.....our hair (I hope that made sense).

Most Blacks here in America are not completely African. Stemming from slavery, our black blood has been mixed with other races which would and could have a direct effect on our black hair, making it seemingly "less" black and otherwise "good hair".

Since the beginning of time, African-Americans have been defined by the characteristics of their (our) hair. Rewinding back into the days of even slavery where there were "house slaves" and "field slaves" determined by skin pigmentation, hair texture also played a role in this as well. Because many "house slaves" (lighter toned blacks), were of mixed race, their hair was less coarse, less "nappy" and better accepted overall. However, at the end of the day, they were black nonetheless, which didn't exempt them from being a slave in the least. However, it did restrict them from having to work the long and excruciating hours on plantations. Instead, they worked in house, tended to the needs inside and were better treated. Their hair, like their skin pigmentation, played a very real role in the deciding factor of "who does what".

Over many many years and countless renovations within society--from socioeconomic issues between the races to perceptions carried from African-American to African-American, the strength our hair has had has always been a huge determinant in anything we have done as a collective race from job placements to even who we will date and through the ages, one thing has remained a very real and exceedingly strong constant--the talk of what "good hair" is. And even through all of this, the definition has always been about texture and length versus health and strand strength as it should be. It's always been "Straight is Great/Nappy is Unhappy". Always. There's always been a real psychology behind our hair when it comes to social standards and acceptance. And what's worse? Many blacks are so inept to this realization that they either don't bother to realize it or hear of the realization and get up in arms. Well this is truth. There's a psychology behind our hair. Period. (and that will be discussed in part 2).


The Definition:

The term, "good hair" has been made very common "slang-speak" amongst Black males and females across the board location-wise. The description of "good hair" is usually long, usually not the stereotypical "coarse" or "nappy" hair and is by many standards "better" hair. In short, it's everything the "standard" "Black hair" is not. In my opinion, it's actually a backhanded compliment when someone clamors over my hair and say, "you've got that GOOD HAIR" based on the texture of my hair (my hair is not coarse but rather wavy and I have no real need for relaxers. Until the Big Snip of '08, my hair used to be "long"). In my opinion, "good hair" is that which is healthy, regardless of its texture and visible length, but rather in its density and strand strength. However, this definition is not what "good hair" is defined as, only the former has carried.


The Theory:


The theory of "good hair" is that "good hair" is better, preferred by most, easier to manage and better accepted throughout society. Since that is the "theory" (and in many cases, truth), many black women have opted to conform to this theory and have taken it as a means of "being accepted in White America" without really knowing it. Enter the weaves, the different types of sew-ins and wigs, the costly transformations from "Black girl" to "oh she must be mixed with..........." phenom.......


Next blog: Good Hair: The Psyche. Stay tuned!

Madea (Needs To) Go To Jail.....For Life!

I have a major problem with film director Tyler Perry. I'll say that Tyler Perry is like Lil Wayne in the movie game. He's well-liked, gives the (mass) people what they want to see, and makes a lot of money while doing it. It should be hard to find a fault on the powerful Black man in the name of Cinema, right? Wrong. In the same vein of what makes him 'so popular', he is also an integral part to the support of Blacks continuing to make excuses for their shortcomings and take responsibility for their actions, inaction, and future. He is a sore in our culture, opting to entertain by exploiting the stereotypes of our race for comedic relief, subliminally bringing to light what is wrong with our culture but providing little to no viable alternatives to such a problem, and on top of everything else...he just plain sucks.

Last weekend, I went to see Tyler Perry's Madea Goes to Jail. I've never liked any of the Madea plays and most of his movies were just doing too much for my tastes, namely because of his penchant for broadcasting the stereotypes of Blacks and blanketing them, making them much bigger and 'general' than they really are. I have a problem with that. A big problem. However, I went to see it anyway because my homies wanted to see it and I didn't want to be the odd one out. Plus the tickets were only six bucks so I figured, "why not?"*

I knew this film would be full of fuckery to the tenth power when not only was it the usual run-of-the-mill stereotypical "from Down South" Blacks speaking in broken English, partying with the "big red cup", and ultimately making a mockery of our culture by talking loud for no reason and being uncooperative. Sure enough, these stereotypes exist. But the whole film? I shook my head when everyone laughed at the stereotypes. I just didnt find it funny.


It's important to embrace our culture and 'be real', of course. My problem lies mainly with his character development in all of the works he's done with the exception of "Why Did I Get Married" and "A Family That Preys" because in those films, his characters were variant, diverse, and painted a more wholistic picture of our culture, marking our general social struggles but still not losing sight of the battle we as a culture face and also took note that...there ARE successful Black people in the world that work legally, aren't ignorant and uneducated, have families, and take responsiblity for their actions.

It's like Perry is doing this on purpose though. It's one thing to have that one film or two exploiting your race for comedic relief...and an entirely different animal altogether to have a portfolio of buffoonery as your main source of income. I can't knock him because he's made it work for him and he's now a millionaire...but damn all that! I can knock him for disrespecting our race time and time again!

I do wonder though: Do Whites see us like this? Do they 'blanket' us and think we're all this ridiculous? That we're all jokers with no goals and just getting by with Life? The theatre I was in was packed with Whites taking up about 85% of the seating. I understand that the movie is a comedy but I saw so much deeper than all that and I was heartbroken by what I saw....generally. We aren't all like that. See the Black attorneys in the film? We can be like that too (though I felt like he should have developed more into the story of those successful Blacks) and it isnt an anomaly. We're successful, driven, educated, and happy. Damn you, Tyler Perry!!!


Take all of these issues I had with the character development out and let's focus on how the film was completely underdeveloped. On one hand we had Madea on the brink of going to jail and profusely refusing help, by which case she ultimately loses her cool in a very extravagant (read: EXTRA!) way and is eventually jailed (no shocker there; we knew she was going to jail by the title alone). On the other hand, we have Candy, played by Keysha Knight-Pulliam (aka: Rudy from the Cosby Show) who is a prostitute that is sentenced to jail for an unreasonable amount of time because she is friends with an attorney who is engaged to a very jealous and outright ridiculously unfair and selfish woman to whom he works with. The fiance intentionally dallies with Candy's legal papers and makes her go to jail so that her and her husband-to-be can live their lives without Candy's interrupting. Basically, the movie was two stories in one film. It was obvious.

And even though it's titled, "Madea Goes to Jail", I personally favored the latter story.

I felt like the connection between the two scenarios should have been much more clear and well...developed. Instead, Perry waited until near the end of the film to bring the two (Madea and Candy) together and when he did, it was still clear that this was two movies in one.

Bad character development + Grossly underdeveloped plot + A few laughs here and there =

Ms_ Slim rolling her eyes and sitting at the film laughing sparingly instead of in a rukus like everyone else. I just saw so many errors and couldn't get past it for the sake of mere comedic relief.

(Gotta admit: The Madea and Dr. Phil scene was the funniest scene in the whole film)

Boo, TP, BOOOO!!!

Ms_Slim

*- I was nowhere near Chicago last weekend. Movie tickets in Chicago are anywhere from 9 bucks a ticket to 11 bucks downtown, with matinee being 7.50. Where I was, tickets for adults were only 6 bucks. If I was in Chicago and had to pay for my own ticket (or even if I didnt pay for it), I wouldnt have wasted any time, energy, or money seeing the film for 9 to 11 bucks. It isnt worth it AT ALL...in my opinion, of course :)

The Spike Lee Hater, Part 2 (final)

Background: This is the relevant IM thread from yesterday. We got on the subject of Spike Lee because we were discussing the outing I was to go on later on that night (last night) and I mentioned to him how I was going to go see The International with Clive Owen. For me, Clive Owen is most memorable for Inside Man, a Spike Lee movie. From there went this:

Ms_Slim: Have u seen Inside Man?

Spike Lee Hater: yup

Ms_Slim: Thats easily one of my fav films. I love Spike Lee. And I love him more that he isn’t Tyler Perry.

Spike Lee Hater: That might be the only Spike movie I can sit thru

Ms_Slim: (shocked face) …and why's that?!?!

SLH: I think other than Crooklyn, I never enjoyed the stories.

Ms_Slim: Those are fighting words, son. I mean not even Malcolm X!

…or even....even....EVEN Do the Right Thing?! …or Jungle Fever? I don’t know, man...I’m too blown away by that statement.

SLH: Documentaries are different, nothing to script as far as plots go. I enjoyed X

Do the Right Thing, School Daze--I just don't think if I had kids I'd want them watching them. There's nothing positive about them in my eye

Ms_Slim: Maaaaaaaaaaaan. I swear I never ever expected you to say that. You’re a predictable guy. No surprise about you at all. But that right there? That shocked me and I had to get up for a sec.

SLH: I'm not gonna lie, a big part of me is not a fan of black folks and Spike's one of the reasons

Ms_Slim: Not even Bamboozled though? Come ON man!!! I grew up on Spike Lee movies and Hip Hop so I couldn’t see any part of my childhood without those elements really.

SLH: Bamboozled... one of the worst pieces of cinema I've ever sat thru. It took about 5 years to stomach thru actually watching it.

Ms_Slim: OMG! I’m having a hard time with that statement. Why don’t u like Spike? I mean he isn’t like Tyler perry, who brings forth stereotypes to a comical screen much like Bojangles. Spike Lee educates. I’m totally outdone.

SLH: Tyler Perry itches my soul somethin’ awful also, but they're two different itches

Ms_Slim: There are a lot of things people didn’t/don’t know about that he brings to screen and opens eyes to them. See: Do the Right Thing…or Jungle Fever…and especially Bamboozled. Wow.

SLH: I suppose I just choose to get my education elsewhere. I won't knock anyone who follows any of the movies. They just didn't speak to me

Ms_Slim: I mean i can understand them not speakin to you (I’m basically telling him to respect the craft and acknowledge the greatness regardless), but you said you’re not a fan of black folk, which I knew, but then u said that Spike is one reason why…and I don’t get that, considering he's an educator.

SLH: As for being an educator, everyone is an educator to someone. Spike just happens to not be an educator to me

Ms_Slim: okay…..(a bit confused)…fair enough....I guess

SLH: I feel he pushes an empty point--stand up and say something--fight it--don't take it sitting down!

...Someone asks 'what are we fighting?' Nobody knows. Same with certain music of that era

“Fight the power!”

What power?

Why are we fighting?

Ms_Slim: WOW

SLH: Same with poetry. If it's not telling me anything substantial, I’d rather not bother with it

Ms_Slim: Ahhhhhh….

SLH: Same with reading books

Ms_Slim: Stop! Stop! Stop!

SLH: If I'm not gaining anything...I have to put it down

Ms_Slim: I’m gonna jump through the computer and wring a certain 18 inch neck for all this blasphemy! Now you’re on POETRY?!

SLH: I'll easily say I learned more from the Lion King than any Spike Lee movie

Ms_Slim: Are u aware of who you’re typing to? lol

SLH: I learned more from Forrest Gump than any Spike Lee movie. There's ways to tell a story so you instill lessons in it... and there's way to put out a film that you feel is deep. Spike Lee puts out what he feels is deep (I saw that point. One point for the SLH!) Unfortunately, he and I share a different level of depth apparently (meh)

Ms_Slim: I’m sorry. I had to leave the screen for a second because you were talking from the crevice on the side of your neck. ah well :) (Our insults are said jokingly)

SLH: Understandable.

Ms_Slim: I feel so violated right now

SLH: Male coworkers staring at you too hard?

Ms_Slim: I’m guessing you have a problem with Maya Angelou too (He said ‘same with poetry’, so…)

SLH: She's never done anything to move me, but I did hear her speak

Ms_Slim: (referencing the ‘male coworkers’ statement).....considering there isnt a drop of testosterone on board, I'm gonna have to go with no

SLH: She's a very moving speaker

Ms_Slim: So she HAS done something to move you!

SLH: I was seated at the time

Ms_Slim: LMAO. Congrats, [SLH]. You prompted a blog from me! :)

** Now I'll admit that after his explanation, I saw his side of things. He made a lot of sense. The conversation continued and we expanded into the dynamics of music of the 90s (namely: Public Enemy, McLyte, Sister Soldja, and KRS-1). We even discussed the influence that music had on the Black race in the 90s (his argument saying that it stemmed from the 80s--which I agree with). We discussed Forrest Gump and its lessons as well as the Black mentality and how (as a race--collectively) our race has slacked on the part of taking responsibility for our own destiny, downfalls, and life in general and have resorted to blaming "The Man" for the bulk of our shortcomings. We also discussed psychology, the church, and the importance of parents in a child's life. All of this...spawned from the Spike Lee discussion...and he doesn't see Spike's depth. HA!

Someone Tell Me This Isnt Real...

I'm having a real hard time with this.






Someone please tell me that this is a photoshopped pic.

PS; I am in no way a "fan" of Chris Brown's music like that at all. I am having a hard time with this because if this pic is the real pic, the abuse is solidified. And my heart will have just broken a little.

Is ALL Art Up For Interpretation?

Here we go again...smh

Here's the cartoon that was published in the New York Post the other day that's been going around the intrawebs and blogosphere ever since it hit the newsstands.

And as soon as Al Sharpton sees this and interprets what many folk see as a pick at President Obama, folk seem to have gotten up in arms arguing that Sharpton is an opportunist and defending this foolishness saying that its a pick at Congress. Though I can understand both sides, this doesnt excuse the cartoon in the least. Surely enough, the cartoonist knew what he was doing to construct something that could swing "both ways".

Is it real art because it's 'so vague' in what it's really saying? Or is the artist really ignorant to what the age-old monkey/black person stereotype is and the fact that racism is still alive and well to begin with? Is all art up for interpretatioiin? With this, I think not...but that's just my opinion, of course.