Army Accused of Targeting Black Hair With New Grooming Standards 

A White House petition calls the policy “racially biased.”

Posted: March 31 2014 12:06 PM86536037

Generic image

 

THINKSTOCK

Anew U.S. Army grooming policy is drumming up cries of racial bias, with some saying it discriminates against black women who have natural hair, Al-Jazeera America reports.

According to the news site, the Army Regulation 670-1—which has not been published or made official—includes tightened rules for grooming, particularly regarding how women in service can wear their hair.

The rules now ban twists, dreadlocks, Afros and braids more than a quarter-inch thick, calling them "unauthorized." If and when the regulation is made official, the female soldiers who sport these styles will have to cover them or remove them, or face administrative discipline, Al Jazeera notes.

"It's very targeted because we all know who they're talking about even though they never explicitly say the world 'black' or 'African-American.' We all know who typically wears these types of hairstyles and then they went as far as to include pictures of black women in the PowerPoint," a vet who only went by "Tonya"—a false name used to protect her identity—told the news site.

The uproar has been huge, launching a White House petition, which has garnered more than 4,000 signatures as of Monday at 11:30 a.m.

"More than 30% of females serving in the military are of a race other than white. As of 2011, 36% of females in the U.S. stated that they are natural, or refrain from chemically processing their hair. Females with natural hair take strides to style their natural hair in a professional manner when necessary; however, changes to AR 670-1 offer little to no options for females with natural hair," the petition reads.

"These new changes are racially biased and the lack of regard for ethnic hair is apparent. This policy needs to be reviewed prior to publishing to allow for neat and maintained natural hairstyles."

Read more at Al-Jazeera America.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I'm just trying to make a way out of no way, for my people" -Modejeska Monteith Simpkins

 

AFRICAN AMERICA IS AT WAR

THERE IS A RACE WAR ON AFRICAN AMERICA

THERE IS A RACE WAR ON AFRICAN AMERICANS

THERE IS A RACE WAR ON BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA

AMERICA'S RACISTS HAVE INFILTRATED AMERICAN POLICE FORCES TO WAGE A RACE WAR AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA

THE BLACK RACE IS AT WAR

FIRST WORLD WAR:  THE APPROXIMATELY 6,000 YEAR WORLD WAR ON AFRICA AND THE BLACK RACE

Original Post

These whites despise us so much, why are fighting their wars when we've been at war with these European Settlers for 500 years?  Truman desegregated the services in 1948.  They didn't want us then; yet we've fought in every one of their wars since the Civil War, cleaning the bodies off the killing fields and burying them and god knows whatever else.  If the shoe was on the other foot, and we hated them in the manner they've hated us, if we were going to war every five seconds, do you think they'd participate?  I think NOT!!  They'd either kill us all or send on us the first thing smoking back to Africa. Boy-oh-boy,it's not about hair, it's about being Jacked Up flunkies!!

  Who is doing all this authorizing?  Isn't there BLACK PEOPLE on the panel?  Or is it just white folks making this decision?  That's why we start first.  Find out who in fact are making these decisions on black hair. That would be one of my initial requests.  But!

When people are dodging bullets, hair is NOT EVEN on their minds. Caucasions:  Everyone does not have the hair of the dog coming out of their follicles.  Some of us were born with the wool of the gentle lamb growing from ours.  No apologies necessary to your crazy behinds.  Can't deal with it?  What else is new??

twists, dreadlocks, Afros and braids more than a quarter-inch thick

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

 

 

What is commonly called an "Afro" is not a hair "style" to begin with;  to ban a so-called "afro" is equivalent to banning dark skin, or "slant" eyes, or straight hair.  

 

There are racists in every facet of society in America who have never ceased the fight against Black people in America and take advantage of every opportunity to use every ounce of supposed "authority" to hurt and interfere with the progress of Black people in America.

 

Of course any violations to these "rules" will be met with 'dishonorable' discharges, demotions and court marshals, yet another backdoor attempt at removing and blocking Black people from progress [and acceptance].

 

But, of course, there are probably not many Black people in the military that will actually stand up for their Constitutionally protected Rights, and even less that will support any that actually will.  

Originally Posted by ocatchings:

If they can not wear headgear, mask or any other equipment, then its too much.

 

Then maybe the Army needs to change their masks, headgear and other equipment to that which acknowledges that White people are not the only people that exist on this planet and that White people are not the only people in America's military.

 

However, I doubt that there's any "equipment", etc., that Black people can wear because of their natural hair.  

 

This is just a deliberately racist policy.  

Originally Posted by sunnubian:
Originally Posted by ocatchings:

If they can not wear headgear, mask or any other equipment, then its too much.

 

Then maybe the Army needs to change their masks, headgear and other equipment to that which acknowledges that White people are not the only people that exist on this planet and that White people are not the only people in America's military.

 

However, I doubt that there's any "equipment", etc., that Black people can wear because of their natural hair.  

 

This is just a deliberately racist policy.  


I had natural hair (it's disappearing now) and I had no problem. I'm sure these will be the same ones crying that no one took them in consideration if something bad happens. The equipment only works when worn correctly. And the he last time I checked, a headful of weave wasn't natural by any means.

The policy is not racist, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Norland:

During WWII, I had a relative where the fella next to him in a foxhole was decapitated.  Hair was not one ounce of an issue when that happened.

I got a case of immersion foot in the 80's and hair had nothing to do with that either.

 

 

Originally Posted by ocatchings:

 


I had natural hair (it's disappearing now) and I had no problem. I'm sure these will be the same ones crying that no one took them in consideration if something bad happens. The equipment only works when worn correctly. And the he last time I checked, a headful of weave wasn't natural by any means.

The policy is not racist, plain and simple.

 

I'm sorry Ocatchings, while I do have much respect for your input on AA.org over the years, I have to disagree with you on this one because I know that braids, Black people's natural hair and even hair weave does not interfere with 'headgear' any more than it does with hats and baseball caps.  Of course if the women are wearing their hair in some outrageous "Style" that may be the case, but I'm thinking of your basic braids and Black people's natural hair in general.  

 

The reason I say the policy is racist is because it appears to not give Black people, particularly Black women any choice but to put toxic chemical relaxers in their hair or to cut it off.  Another reason I say the policy is racist is because of the fact that any military headgear is designed Only around the hair of people with straight hair, i.e., any non-Black people to begin with.  A policy like this tells ONLY Black people that they must alter their natural-born physical features to be in the military.  Should women be told to have their breast removed or flatten in order for the uniform shirts to fit them the same way that they fit men?  

 

This policy was concocted out of racism and ignorance of Black people natural hair, period, where you have people [White people] that know absolutely nothing about Black people's natural hair making policy around their mythological beliefs about Black people's natural hair, not unlike when during a check-up many years ago, a White nurse actually measured my height from the top of my "afro", and I had to actually tell her to just push the bar down until she reached my actual head.   

Black Lawmakers Ask Army To Reconsider New Hairstyle Rule

Filed under: Headlines | 
Army Hairstyle Rule photo

New army hairstyle rules

AFRICANGLOBE – The U.S. Army’s new ban on many types of ethnic hairstyles has African-American women who wear their coifs in dreadlocks, braids and cornrows in a twist.

The Army’s regulations stipulate such guidance as hair “must be of uniform dimension, small in diameter (approximately ¼ inch), show no more than 1/8 (inch) of the scalp between the braids.”

Dreadlocks “against the scalp or free-hanging” are banned. “Unkempt” or “matted” braids and cornrows are also considered dreadlocks and “are not authorized,” according to the regulations that were updated this month.

It’s that type of language, words like “unkempt” and “matted,” that read to some African Americans, as code for racial bias.

“These new changes are racially biased and the lack of regard for ethnic hair is apparent,” Sgt. Jasmine Jacobs of the Georgia National Guard wrote in a White House petition she started in late March asking the Obama administration to reconsider the policy.

Currently, the petition has more than 13,000 signatures.

“We feel let down,” Jacobs told the Army Times. “I think, at the end of the day, a lot of people don’t understand the complexities of natural hair. A lot of people, instead of educating themselves, they think dreadlocks and they think Bob Marley, or they see women with really big Afros and they think that’s the only thing we can do with our hair.”

The updates in appearance standards were crafted, in part, with the help of African-American female soldiers and are intended to clarify the professional look of soldiers, said Troy Rolan, an Army spokesman.

Previous regulations did not specifically address things such as braid widths or numbers, or the definition of twist styles.

“Many hairstyles are acceptable, as long as they are neat and conservative,” Rolan said, noting the Army has banned dreadlocks since 2005.

If soldiers aren’t happy, they can go through a formal process to request changes to the hairstyle regulations, the Army said.

“We encourage soldiers to make use of this process by sending recommendations and examples of hairstyles which could present professional appearances and conform to the regulation,” Rolan said.

The rules’ conciseness isn’t the problem, say some African-American women and Black studies scholars.

The problem, they say, is a perception that ethnic hair that is “natural” or not straightened with heat or chemicals is somehow unruly, unkempt and must be carefully regulated to fit within White cultural norms.

“In a broad sense, it’s just another example of U.S. institutions policing Black style,” said Mark Anthony Neal, an African-American studies professor at Duke University. “And it’s not that there aren’t other examples of such policing among other racial and ethnic groups. But, given the fraught relationship between Black identity and culture and what some Americans might perceive as ‘normal,’ it strikes a particularly dissonant chord among some Blacks.”

Mandating what should be done with Black hair is a particularly sensitive matter.

During slavery and for generations after, hair texture, along with skin complexion, was used to classify which enslaved Blacks were more valuable, given jobs in the master’s house rather than the field, and — by default — deemed beautiful.

Straighter hair, lighter skin and features that looked White were considered preferred traits, African-American scholars noted.

Those values were internalized and perpetuated within the Black community for years in a way that was particularly damaging to the self-esteem of Black women, African American scholars said.

“The gender dynamic here is also important; hair is so tied to the idea of Black womanhood and self-esteem,” Neal said. “There have been many stories, for example, of the extra scrutiny Black women with locs or dreads face going through airport security. The Army’s ban is just another knock from the dominant society that somehow Black women are out of step with the so-called status quo.”

Black pride and natural hair movements have emphasized that all hair types and the rainbow of skin hues are all beautiful.

However, the Army’s regulations, some natural hair advocates and African American scholars fear, might suggest to black soldiers that their tresses must be straightened or closely cropped in order to fit in and be valued.

That type of pressure is “both unfair and racially biased,” said Imani Perry, an African-American studies professor at Princeton University.

“While it is reasonable for the military to expect some degree of conformity and neatness in hairstyles, those expectations ought to take into account the variety of natural hair textures people have,” Perry said. “For many African-American women who have tightly curled, coily or curly hair, cornrows braids and locs are styles that allow for ease of close to the head grooming. Hence, banning those hairstyles puts Black female soldiers in a difficult bind with respect to the requirement.”

That type of pressure is “both unfair and racially biased,” Perry said adding that the Army conformity isn’t absolute because female soldiers are allowed to wear their hair long.

“Likewise, consideration ought to be made for different textures of hair,” Perry said. “Otherwise, a burden is placed disproportionately upon some soldiers due to an immutable characteristic, natural hair texture that is tied to race.”

However, African-American female lawmakers are taking the Army to task for a new ban on a number of ethnic hairstyles, guidelines which some are calling racially discriminatory.

The group from the Congressional Black Caucus wrote Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Thursday urging the military to reconsider the rule.

 

By: Halimah Abdullah

After reading these threads, it seems to me that if African women DIDN'T join the Army, it would be A-OK with them.  If our hair freaks them out, probably our whole being freaks them out too.  We don't fill their beauty requirements to kill people.  Why join where you're not wanted and most certainly not appreciated??

Segregation's no longer appropriate; now it's our hair; next it'll be our huge butts and boobs; the thickness of our lips; can't see us in the dark.  Believe me, they'll come up with something.  Question:  Why wasn't the so-called Slave Trade" ever diagnosed as a "Crime Against Humanity (or whatever slang terminology's appropriate at the moment they call Africans (Chimps/Minoritie/'Niggas-ers/Thugs/Darkies/3/5ths/Refugees, etc.))"?  500 years of this "racism" b.s. is getting tired as all hell and white men are losing their minds more each and every day!!!!!  No matter how many of our males go insane, there's no COMPARISON along side the Caucasian.

"Of course if the women are wearing their hair in some outrageous "Style" that may be the case, but I'm thinking of your basic braids and Black people's natural hair in general."

 

Bro Sunnubian, I think that point is the crux of the matter; fear of what may be.

The military has been fighting gays in the military for years and I honestly believe they were/are worried that if gays are allowed then we will have battalions full of guys like Cpl Klinger. As far from the truth as it maybe that is the reality.

Regarding the hair (I've been out for 9 years now) but if I took a pulse from some I know that are still in or a random survey, those that would admit it would say they would not want something like you see in the "hair battles".

 

"sorry for the late response"

MAY 4, 2014 8:09 AM • LOG IN • REGISTER

Update: Army to Review Controversial New Hair Policy that “targeted” Black Women

Army ordered to review controversial new hair grooming policy

Army Hair Guidelines Black WomenAfrican American women in the United States Militarymay soon be able to resume wearing their hair in twists, large corn rows and dreadlocks.

This after the Army recently issued new grooming regulations that included controversial changes in how military women can wear their hair. The new rules include bans on variations of the hairstyles mentioned above, many of which are popular with women of color.

Not long after the new grooming regulations were announced the complaints began piling up. With many people saying that they were “racially biased.”

Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered the U.S Military to review their new policy.

The Washington Post got to the root of the matter saying several black females feel there is “a lack of understanding about black hair, coupled with a norm that uses the hair of white women as its baseline. While black hair comes in all textures, much of it is deeply curly, making it difficult, unless chemically straightened, to pull back into a bun or to hang loose off the face in a neat, uniform way.”

Hagel says he is taking concerns that the new military mandates on how hair should be worn unfairly targets black women, “very seriously.”

He was responding to complaints submitted by all 16 women of the Congressional Black Caucus who asked the Defense Secretary to overturn the regulation on behalf of more than 25,000 African American women on active duty in the Army.

RELATED: U.S Army and Black Women at odds over hairstyles

The New York Times reports Hagel says he has given military leaders within the Marines, Air Force, Navy, and Armythree months to review comprehensive military regulations as they pertain to black women “to ensure standards are fair and respectful of our diverse force.”

According to the Washington Post, the regulations are among new grooming standards that critics say are meant to further weed people out of an Army reducing its size from post-9/11 numbers in the years to come.

Rep. Marcia L. Fudge, the Ohio Democrat who is chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said she had been struck in recent visits to military bases by how many soldiers — black and white — said they felt they were being pushed out of the military. Fudge also told the Washington Post, “One of the things they should not do is insult the people who’ve given up their time and put their lives at risk by saying their hair is unkempt.”

Hagel also addressed this issue, ordering the military to review the definitions of authorized or prohibited hairstyles and scrub those definitions of “offensive language,” from the Army’s new regulations including the words “unkempt” and “matted” in reference to braids, cornrows and dreadlocks.

Army officials insisted the updates on grooming were cleared by a focus group that included black women in the Army, but they have declined to give their names or make them available for comment.

Rep. Barbara Lee, a Democrat from California who, according to the New York Times first brought the issue before the CBC says “I’m pleased that the secretary responded in such a forthright manner, we have to be vigilant until we have a final conclusion.”

"While black hair comes in all textures, much of it is deeply curly, making it difficult, unless chemically straightened, to pull back into a bun or to hang loose off the face in a neat, uniform way.”

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

 

So, Black people's natural hair not "neat" or "uniform" even to Black people . . . 

 

Black people themselves can't even see Black people, and in this case Black people's natural hair, outside the prism of White people's perspective.  

Originally Posted by Norland:

If caught in a situation where bullets are flying, I don't think there's a nary person of whatever color or hair texture worrying about color or hair texture.  I believe surviving with head and hair in tact takes precedence.  

+ true, I think they are using this as a tactic so that they wont promote a sista that deserves it, but didn't conform to the 'hair rules'.

 

 

Military Revises 'Racially Biased' Hairstyle Rules.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced Tuesday that the military will allow female service members to have a wider range of hairstyles after the services came under fire for using derogatory language and banning many styles that are popular with African-American women.

 

The controversy started in March, when the Army released new rules regarding tattoos, hairstyles, grooming and uniforms for soldiers. One of the new regulations banned women from having twists, dreadlocks and multiple braids/cornrows that are bigger than a quarter of an inch.

 

Black service members quickly spoke out about the rules, arguing that they were racially insensitive and objected to language that called such styles "matted" and "unkempt." Sgt. Jasmine Jacobs of the Georgia National Guard started a petition about the matter on the White House website, writing,

 

"These new changes are racially biased and the lack of regard for ethnic hair is apparent."

 

Hagel's review of the hairstyle rules came after the female members of the Congressional Black Caucus wrote to the defense secretary, saying the guidelines seemed to be "discriminatory" and targeted "soldiers who are women of color with little regard to what is needed to maintain their natural hair."

 

"At my direction, over the last three months, each Military Service reviewed its definitions of authorized and prohibited hairstyles, and eliminated offensive language, including the terms 'matted and unkempt' from both the Army and the Air Force grooming regulations," Hagel said in his letter to CBC Chairwoman Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) Tuesday. "Additionally, each Service reviewed its hairstyle policies to ensure standards are fair and respectful while also meeting our military requirements."

 

CBC member Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) praised Hagel's announcement, saying that while, as the daughter of a veteran, she understands the need for uniformity in the military, it is important for the services to recognize that "natural hairstyles do not reflect or create a lack of professionalism or respect for the Armed Forces' high standards."

 

"The Army's use of words like 'unkempt' and ‘matted’ to describe the hairstyles of African-American women is an offensive stereotype," she said. "I am pleased that these terms will be removed from the regulation and urge the department to move swiftly and thoroughly in implementing and communicating the updates across all divisions."

 

According to the Army Times, the hairstyle rules were getting in the way of a promotion for at least one black service member. Navy Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class Jessica Sims, 32, told the paper that she wears her long hair in tightly twisted locks pulled into a bun when she's in uniform.

 

Last year, when assigned as a teacher at the Navy's boot camp, she was "told to cut her hair or wear a wig, and when she refused, her commanders processed her for separation for 'serious misconduct.'"

 

A PowerPoint presentation from mid-March, before the regulations officially came out, shows the unauthorized hairstyles:

The changes made by the military to its grooming guidelines, as outlined in Hagel's letter Tuesday:

Army

  • Determined the terms "matted and unkempt" are offensive and will eliminate them
  • Authorized temporary two-strand twists
  • Increased size of authorized braids, cornrows and twists; removed spacing requirement
  • Authorized a ponytail during physical training

Air Force

  • Determined the terms "matted and unkempt" are offensive and will eliminate them
  • Changed the name "dreadlocks" to "locs"
  • Authorized two-strand twists, French Twists and Dutch braids

Navy

  • Determined no offensive language in the current policy governing hairstyles
  • Removed some dated terms and descriptions on the Navy's "Frequently Asked Questions" website, including "'Twist' hairstyles are not authorized because they fall within the guidelines of being faddish."
  • Authorized a two-strand twist and multiple braids may hang freely if above the collar and must encompass the whole head

Marine Corps

  • Determined no derogatory or discriminatory language in current uniform regulations
  • Convening a special uniform board this summer to consider the expansion of authorized hairstyles

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...mp;ir=Black%20Voices

We won't have to worry about hair.  They're taking our babies "boots off the ground" over here permanently,so they won't have to have their "boots on the ground" anywhere else.  Hair won't be an issue.  Our boys are steadily going to their coffins right here; won't be any alive for military or overseas war.  Won't have to worry about them dying!!!!

Whites don't do anything wrong; their hair's just fine.  Straight, blond, brunette, red all kinds of rainbow colors. Looks like the angel hair we used to put on our Christmas Trees years ago. Their hair's beautiful.  Remember the Collie Lassie? Looks like her hair too.  (I believe Lassie was a girl). Whites are sugar, spice and everything nice.  Doesn't matter if they're crazier than a mofo.  THEY RULE!!!!!!!!!

They are the BEST at everything.  They kill BLACK BROTHERS better than the BLACK BROTHERS, got that down to a SCIENCE!!!!!!

"Whites don't do anything wrong; their hair's just fine.  Straight, blond, brunette, red all kimds of rainbow colors. Looks like the angel hair we used to put on our Christmas Trees years ago. Their hair's beautiful.  Remember the Collie Lassie? Looks like her hair too.  (I believe Lassie was a girl). Whites are sugar, spice and everything nice.  Doesn't matter if they're crazier than a mofo.  THEY RULE!!!!!!!!!"

 

And there ya have it! If that is what you truly believe.....Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Xeon, you're one laughing asshole!!!! I believe that!!!!    They're calling you at Godlike Productions!!! I don't much like arguing with white boys; you're not my favorite peeps.  A couple of ya jacked up my family throughout the years, so I can't completely hate ya. Leave me alone and go see your retarded/hateful/killing brethren and your beautiful women.

Originally Posted by Xeon:

"Whites don't do anything wrong; their hair's just fine.  Straight, blond, brunette, red all kimds of rainbow colors. Looks like the angel hair we used to put on our Christmas Trees years ago. Their hair's beautiful.  Remember the Collie Lassie? Looks like her hair too.  (I believe Lassie was a girl). Whites are sugar, spice and everything nice.  Doesn't matter if they're crazier than a mofo.  THEY RULE!!!!!!!!!"

 

And there ya have it! If that is what you truly believe.....Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Mascot, you did it again! Is your mommy proud of your talent? Show some respect to Norland even if you don’t get what she’s saying and how she's saying it.  Your appropriation of James Baldwin as your icon in an insult to his memory.

MASCOT

 

 

Hi DennisKalita and thanks!  I grew up with Xeons; went to school with them; worked with them; many of them royally pissed me the pluck off; did that damn square dancing with them in high school (they were scared to touch my hand thinking some of the black might rub off; it wasn't cute do-ci-do-ing the damn partner),  he doesn't phase me in the least.  Everyone doesn't have to respect or even read what I say.  MBM allows me to spew and that's what I do. I've been living for awhile, and don't see things the way others might. Having been an only child, not having siblings, makes one think on their own without having anyone to emulate.  Might be twisted to others, everything's not wrong; sounds good to me sometimes; sometimes it's a lark.

Navy Discharges Black Woman Who Refused to Cut Natural Hair.

Jessica Sims had been a sailor for 12 years, and for years had worn her hair in tight, twisted dreadlocks that she could pull back into a bun. Recently, Navy officials demanded that she cut her hair or wear a wig; she refused, so the Navy let her go.

 

After months of discussion about how styling and protocol relating to black women's hair in the armed forces, Think Progress reports that the Navy discharged Jessica Sims, a sailor for 12 years, for "failing to obey an order to cut off her natural hairstyle."

 

Sims, "who wears her hair in tightly twisted locks pulled back in a bun," claims that her record was unblemished and that she had no complaints about her natural hair until she was given orders to teach at a Navy Illinois boot camp.

 

There, the 32-year-old sailor told the Army Times, she was ordered in April to either cut her hair or wear a wig. Sims refused and she was written up for "serious misconduct."

 

Since March, the military has been under scrutiny for its attempts to impose new hairstyle restrictions that would no longer allow twists, headbands, dreadlocks or multiple braids longer than a quarter-inch, according to Think Progress.

 

According to the news site, after much discussion, Sims was ultimately discharged for a hairstyle she had been wearing since 2005.

 

"For the past couple weeks, not knowing what the Navy was going to do, if they were going to move forward with the discharge or keep me in, had me in a little limbo," Sims said in a phone interview Wednesday with USA Today. "In the back of my head, I knew that they weren't going to change, so it was more of just waiting for the date."

 

Earlier this month, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel ordered that the hair restrictions be loosened to allow for a mix of hairstyles, but the chief of naval personnel spokesman, Lt. Cmdr. Chris Servello, told USA Today that Sims was discharged for "disobeying a lawful order," noting that her bun was too bulky to fit under a gas mask.

 

Sims claims that her hairstyle didn't violate regulations requiring her hair not to protrude more than 2 inches and didn't believe that she should have to "be told that I have to straighten my hair in order to be within what they think the regulations are, and I don't think I should have to cover it up with a wig," Think Progress reports.

 

Sims also notes that she never had trouble wearing a gas mask or safety helmets before, and that she has no regrets about her decision, telling Think Progress: "I still stand by it. I would do it again if I had to."

 

http://www.theroot.com/article..._hair.html?wpisrc=topstories

It's called "slavery".  Lt. Cmdr. Chris Servello sees her [and Black people in the Navy] as his slaves.  This is also done to destroy her [a Black person's] self-esteem and to destroy any self-identity anyone Black in the Navy has; you know the same way Slaves were done on cotton plantations that brainwashed and socially condition Africans/Black people into an "Is we sick, boss?" mentality.  

 

It's a microcosm equivalent to burning down "Black Wall Street", i.e., hate and destroy anything "Black".

 

He's saying "you won't be Black, and be in the Navy"; that the only way a Black person will be allowed to be in the Navy is if that Black person is willing to surrender their natural identity to the whims and destruction of those who hate their very existence.  

 

It's equivalent to requiring that women have their breasts removed, surrender their gender identity, in order to even be tolerated in their male-dominated organization.

 

Lt. Cmdr. Chris Servello is using his "authority"/position to engage in a Slave/Master relationship with Black people in the Navy.  His actions puts Black people in no less of a Master/Slave position than if he were to actually put chains around the necks of Black people in the Navy, demand that they get down on all fours and bark like a dog, and discharge them for "disobeying a lawful order" when they refuse.    

 

Damn racist prick.  

 

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×