Black women confront Chris Rock on Oprah Today

[SND411]

I don't know about Fulani people, but regarding Somalis and Ethiopians, I'll believe my eyes before I believe scientific findings. Scientist have "new findings" every day.

Everywhere else in the world, where there are no major barriers, people get together and mix. But here, we're supposed to believe the difference in appearance and why it occurred where it did is just a coincidence?

Not buying it.

So what about the Aboringines in Australia or Negritos in Asia? They have dark skin like Africans but they are more closely related to Asian populations. Sometimes what you see does not tell the whole story.

 

[AsianAfricanPrincess]

Sorry, y'all!

This is starting to be a sad thread, but it started out great. I'm disappointed (and it's so depressing) to see that we repeatedly fall back on this sense of inferiority or these stereotypical notions of what African can or can not be. (it's Arab, not African!...it's Eurocentric...not Fulani!) It's incredible.

Black women, please do not pay your money to see C. Rock's mockumentary. Women deserve to be treated with understanding and love...not finger-pointing, mocking and the like.

If you'd love to see such a film that explores our beauty and hair challenges, stigmas, and skill without mocking us, I would suggest Regina Kimbel's "My Nappy Roots". (I'm considering writing to her to encourage her to somehow sponsor viewings of this film for LHCF members...I'm not sure of how we can make this work though, so any ideas would be greatly appreciated)

We deserve better, folks...

 

[jamaraa]

First bold the caste system may predate contact with Europe, but was color associated with it before contact with Europe? It used to be that you were born into a caste, from what I understood, not that having heavily Euro features made you better and more presentable, which is more what I'm seeing today.

Second bold, I think they did more than sell it, but, true we have the choice today

Yes, colorism is apart of the ancient caste system of India. The Brahmins (upper caste) are far lighter (usually) than the Dalits (untouchables), but the Dalit class is the one that handles the Hindu funerals too (ie cremations). Of course, not all Dalits are dark nor all Brahmins fair, but color issues are definitely surrounded by labor/lesiure issues. I can't think is accidental nor is it something that came w/ Euros. This is also true in other places, notably Japan. They literally painted their faces white and still do (geisha/kabuki). The Japanese delibrately avoided contact w/ outsiders until 1853. It's in evidence of art and literature far before most Japanese ever laid eyes on White folks. The same is true for India.

Unlike w/ Black and Native Americans, most colonized people never had any or much contact w/ Whites, so while they may have dealt w/ some of the runoff of colonialism directly, most didn't experience it up close and personal like we did. Their color/beauty norms pretty much remained intact pre contact. The Japanese kept most of their beauty norms in place til the American occupation post 1945. This is a VERY recent thing for them.

 

[FluffyRed]

So what about the Aboringines in Australia or Negritos in Asia? They have dark skin like Africans but they are more closely related to Asian populations. Sometimes what you see does not tell the whole story.

I'm not discussing the origins of all dark people. I've never heard of Negritos and don't know much about the history of Aborigines. This has nothing to do with the fact that where there are no major barriers, people get together and mix.

 

[jamaraa]

Thanks so much for making this point! I find it interesting how people are quick to revel in the colorism issues of others, esp Indians. IMO, it's rather ethnocentric of us as AAs [or colonized Africans] to presuppose that all colorism stems from "the man". As you point out, in some cultures, lighter skin had little to do with a euro-centric standard of beauty and more to do with the class connotations surrounding it. Also, caste and color aren't as closely associated as people think. That darkest of the dark might tend to be dalits or lower caste and the lightest of the light might tend to be of higher caste, but that is by no means the rule - in different areas and traditions, a range of shades can occupy each caste. In the Aishwarya Rai thread, several people assumed that Indians prize her as a beauty bc she represents a euro-centric/aryan model of beauty that's not typically Indian. Funny thing is that if one is familiar with Indian religious art, even that which dates back to ancient times, Rai closely resembles typical portrayals of female deities/figures.

And what about the Fulanis and other groups in Africa? Is their look exalted bc of its proximity to a euro-centric standard of beauty or does this also predate colonialism? (Honest question, I'm not sure of the answer)

Aishwarya Rai seems quite typical of an Indian to me. They come in all different colors. If anything, she looks more like an ancient Hindu princess in the saga painting than anything Euro. Her beauty is VERY Indian.

About the Fulanis and the like, I don't know who to answer your question because I don't know who specifically exalts their beauty (other than themselves ). Exalted by whom....Blacks/Whites in America, other peoples in Africa?

I love what you said about the imperialism of this assumption. It's strange that we think other people have exactly the same experiences we do and should feel about their experiences as we do. That's a very Anglo-imperialist way of thinking.

 

[FluffyRed]

Yes, colorism is apart of the ancient caste system of India. The Brahmins (upper caste) are far lighter (usually) than the Dalits (untouchables). I can't think is accidental nor is it something that came w/ Euros.

Looking at the map when, exactly, was India free of outside influence? Eurasia was considered one continent until pretty recently. It's certainly one land mass. Just because the term colonialism refers to a specific behavior and time period, it does not mean that violent Europeans didn't exert their influence at other times and in other ways.

Japanese are naturally pale, so slightly altering oneself to an extreme of what one already is is not the same, imo, as idolizing a standard which most of your ethnicity cannot meet.

 

[jamaraa]

I don't buy any of the excuses on why we don't see the dark Indians anymore. Nor do I let Europe off the hook for adding another dimension to, if not starting, the colorism in India.

There was an article in the Washington Post by an African American with a dark complexion who got treated like ISH when travelling in India.

Dare I say that's one person's experience and you can't judge a HUGE society based on one person's experience of it? Was she treated badly because she was dark or because she was AA, or because she was an American? I don't have enough info to judge, but it's possible is was one or all of the above, esp. depending on when and where she visited.

Judging India negatively by one or even a few person's bad experiences is the definition of stereotyping. India has like 1 billion people and they only met a tiny fraction of them.

 

[jamaraa]

Looking at the map when, exactly, was India free of outside influence? Eurasia was considered one continent until pretty recently. It's certainly one land mass. Just because the term colonialism refers to a specific behavior and time period, it does not mean that violent Europeans didn't exert their influence at other times and in other ways.

Japanese are naturally pale, so slightly altering oneself to an extreme of what one already is is not the same, imo, as idolizing a standard which most of your ethnicity cannot meet.

India was never free of outside influences, but we're talking about modern colonialism and colorist issues are we not? If you wanna talk about Eurasia, what about China's influence on India, Afghan's, etc....that outside influence has never been solely one group of people.

LOL...are you putting the ancient Central Asian/Euro people in the same category as the Victorian British? Come on. There's no envidence I can see that the ancient steppes people had any concept of 'race" as we know it.

 

[FluffyRed]

Judging India negatively by one or even a few person's bad experiences is the definition of stereotyping. India has like 1 billion people and they only met a tiny fraction of them.

One's person's bad experiences (and he said he was told they were based on his complexion) in addition to the whole industry of Bollywood? I think it's safe to say there are major colorism issues in India.

Aishwarya Rai seems quite typical of an Indian to me. They come in all different colors. If anything, she looks more like an ancient Hindu princess in the saga painting than anything Euro. Her beauty is VERY Indian.

When's the last time we saw a chocolate Indian female, for comparison?

I love what you said about the imperialism of this assumption. It's strange that we think other people have exactly the same experiences we do and should feel about their experiences as we do. That's a very Anglo-imperialist way of thinking.

It's not as much an assumption on my part as it is a hypothesis. Based on x causes of y behavior in other situations, it's a good bet that y behavior might have been caused by the same x. Still needs to be supported or not. I'm no historian, but I would lean toward Euros as a likely cause of colorism in dark people.

LOL...are you putting the ancient Central Asian/Euro people in the same category as the Victorian British? Come on. There's no envidence I can see that the ancient steppes people had any concept of 'race" as we know it.

Not putting anyone in any category, and dominance of one group over another, and the resultant association of one group with power and dominance can occur independent of the concept of "race" as we know it.

 

[anon123]

Sorry, y'all!

The last time I looked at this thread we were talking about the movie. Today I just go to the last page to read the most recent comments and I'm like what? We're debating which Indians are mixed? Someone PM me when all of this has been decided and stood up to some rigorous debate and I'll be back!

I think we're all going to need a lesson on the migration path of humans out of Africa and the times humans have come into contact with each other, and a clear cut definition of which race is what (well, that's going to be problematic right there).

 

[jamaraa]

While I know that this is not the intention, I think statements like these reinforce the notion that there is only ONE way to look African - usually the stereotypical depiction of Africans (e.g. the Pygmies). Africa is a diverse continent and there is an amazing variety of features. Fulanis look African and whether or not their features are considered more in line with our ideals in the West - that is another story. However, they are African and they look African.

Honestly, these two statements sparked a great discourse between me and my SO. Why do we not state the Arabs look African?? Why are Eritraen features considered Arab? Why are Arab features not considered to look African??

Why are we constantly handing over what is ours, to yet another group of people? I don't understand this. It's almost as if we somehow feel that we cannot "own" anything...as if we are not capable of setting the standard for something. Everything that is ours must be appropriated by others, and "others" eventually claim ownership to it...with us handing it over without protest.

We're constantly handing over ownership of what is ours. I don't get it.

EDIT: My SO just said it best: If something is considered "good" or "beautiful" we cannot attribute it to ourselves. We first think, "what are the references of beauty?..." and then immediately attribute it to being Eurocentric, Arab, and so on...

Why?! Well because some stupid Victorian White colonialists decided to divide Africa up between sub Saharan and above the Sahara (like people don't actually live IN the Saraha too), Hametic/Semitic vs Negro types. Yes because the line in the sand (literally) is that absolute. There are Black types in and above the Sahara and Arab types below it....they are all Africans therefore "look" African by default.

This is where the colonialist thinking comes in. Blacks are v\by definition people who look like Zulus or Ibos, while Arabs must look another way and come from X places. Oy vey. LOL...The Koi-San people (ie the Bushmen) always defied South Africa's attempt to classify them...they couldn't decide if they were Coloured or Blacks. They're still Africans, right? See how stupid this all is? The colonalism is trying to use these insane stadards to classify these folks according to the way these Victorians did. Need I remind that there was a time at anyone from Africa was referred to as an Ethiop, a Moor, etc....?

 

[andromeda]

Aishwarya Rai seems quite typical of an Indian to me. They come in all different colors. If anything, she looks more like an ancient Hindu princess in the saga painting than anything Euro. Her beauty is VERY Indian.

Thanks is not enough, Jamaraa. This resemblance is exactly what I was referring to.

About the Fulanis and the like, I don't know who to answer your question because I don't know who specifically exalts their beauty (other than themselves ). Exalted by whom....Blacks/Whites in America, other peoples in Africa?

The questions that you raise do answer my question in a way. Biases, experiences, and hearsay can heavily influence how an outsider (such as myself) views "foreign" beauty and interprets the indigenous attitudes surrounding it.

I love what you said about the imperialism of this assumption. It's strange that we think other people have exactly the same experiences we do and should feel about their experiences as we do. That's a very Anglo-imperialist way of thinking.

 

[jamaraa]

Actually, I completely agree with you and have had the very same discussion with myself (no, I'm not crazy) and with others. That was exact my point in asking the question - that their looks/beauty might be just as much genuinenly African as Aishwarya's is genuinely Indian and that all too often we see things through an ethnocentric lens that projects our Western view onto things and muddles "stereotypical" with "typical".

But apparently, perception is circuitous, bc just as my perception (which happens to agree with yours) framed my question, your perception framed how you interpreted it and what you inferred from it. Yet another case of projection. (I'm not saying this snidely, it's just interesting how that happens.)

This is one drop rule thinking....very American. (Not even the Brits did the one dropist thing) People who have X looks and features are "pure" (regardless of whatever genetics) and people who have Y looks are mixed (regardless of whatever genetics). This is the essence of one dropist thinking. To apply this to another society simply fails to take many things into account. Shoot, it doesn't even work for American society.

 

[jamaraa]

I've known several people from Pakistan w/ her features, including green eyes and slightly lighter than black hair. I believe they were Punjabis. Then there are the Afghans where her features are incredibly common. These features are quite associated w/ the Pashtun peoples. Pakistan used to be India until 1947, so the example works. Let's not forget tribes and regions. People look different in different areas in very old societies UNLIKE America.

She's absolutely beautiful, but I would have to say that 99% of the Indian woman I know don't look like her. I don't know any Indian women with greenish/blue eyes http://www.topnews.in/files/Aishwarya-Rai_2.jpg Not to say they don't exist, I just don't know any

Most of my Indian co-workers and neighbors have dark skin, long black beautiful hair

 

[andromeda]

This is starting to be a sad thread, but it started out great. I'm disappointed (and it's so depressing) to see that we repeatedly fall back on this sense of inferiority or these stereotypical notions of what African can or can not be. (it's Arab, not African!...it's Eurocentric...not Fulani!) It's incredible.

Black women, please do not pay your money to see C. Rock's mockumentary. Women deserve to be treated with understanding and love...not finger-pointing, mocking and the like.

If you'd love to see such a film that explores our beauty and hair challenges, stigmas, and skill without mocking us, I would suggest Regina Kimbel's "Good Hair". (I'm considering writing to her to encourage her to somehow sponsor viewings of this film for LHCF members...I'm not sure of how we can make this work though, so any ideas would be greatly appreciated)

We deserve better, folks...

I won't be paying money to see his movie in the theatre (nor will I be bootlegging it); I might get it on Netflix. Judging from the clips and reaction I've seen thus far, there's already a backlash against CR's movie. If Kimbel [or her pr people] are on point, she should see this as an opportunity to build interest through the black beauty/hair/womanist blogosphere and the black hair care community.

As far as viewings go, perhaps we could craft a letter/petition and have members volunteer as regional liaisons to coordinate viewings. Just a suggestion, I don't know about a specific plan of action. I had the pleasure of attending Heads Up: A Soulful Celebration on Our Hairatage in the spring and think that a comprehensive, genuine look at black hair is an enriching experience and more deserving of my time and money than a documentary rife with exploitation and mockery.

 

[Kurlee]

While I know that this is not the intention, I think statements like these reinforce the notion that there is only ONE way to look African - usually the stereotypical depiction of Africans (e.g. the Pygmies). Africa is a diverse continent and there is an amazing variety of features. Fulanis look African and whether or not their features are considered more in line with our ideals in the West - that is another story. However, they are African and they look African.

Honestly, these two statements sparked a great discourse between me and my SO. Why do we not state the Arabs look African?? Why are Eritraen features considered Arab? Why are Arab features not considered to look African??

Why are we constantly handing over what is ours, to yet another group of people? I don't understand this. It's almost as if we somehow feel that we cannot "own" anything...as if we are not capable of setting the standard for something. Everything that is ours must be appropriated by others, and "others" eventually claim ownership to it...with us handing it over without protest.

We're constantly handing over ownership of what is ours. I don't get it.

EDIT: My SO just said it best: If something is considered "good" or "beautiful" we cannot attribute it to ourselves. We first think, "what are the references of beauty?..." and then immediately attribute it to being Eurocentric, Arab, and so on...

Girl, I just want to hug you for this post!!! People need to stop looking at Africans as a monolithic group. How can a huge continent like Africa only have ONE type of people in every country, region, etc? That is not logical. Europeans can be fair (nordic) or tanned (southern italians, portuguese, spanish) can have any eye colour or hair colour and yet, Africans are all dark skinned, 4b, with big noses, full lips and huge butts?erplexed Oh and don't forget the loin cloth too. I'm so tired of this narrow, stereotypical view of Africa. Africans are a diverse group of people and range in shades, hair type, body type, eye colour, etc. We as blacks need to acknowledge this. We have been so indoctrinated with these negative ideas, we have become totally unable to rationalize and understand who we are and define ourselves. Many in here say we have a choice and choose to reject the assertions of what blackness is. I disagree. Many of us are not armed with the knowledge to even realize that our natural perceptions and assumptions are very wrong.

I also can't stand the whole "mixed" thing. When people say that to help "explain" hair or skin, it is an unconscious way of saying, blackness is not good enough to have "x" hair or skin colour or features, so who else (white, chinese, spanish, indian) "gave" that to you. It speaks VOLUMES about how that person defines "blackness". It's like wearing your self-hatred on your sleeve. The whole thing is so sad and most are too defensive to fix it.

 

[jamaraa]

Traditional Aremenia is in Western Turkey (ie Asia)...given the recent hisotyr (ie 1918) Aremenia has been "moved" to a Soviet area (ie Central Europe). Aremenian people are technically Asians however.

Nah, Spanish and Greeks DO NOT look like "Middle Easterners" to me, unless you're talking about some Levantine people's (Syria, Lebanese, Jordanians Palestinians)....even then, not really. I don't think you'd get a Greek or Spaniard mixed up w/ soemone from Saudia Arabia or the Gulf States!

OK, so who do the Roma (ie Gypsies) favor? Just asking for fun.

And here's a breakout of Europe.

Following this logic, you would expect the parts that touch Africa to be associated with darker people. Turkish, Spanish, Italians, Greeks, all look like that which we call "middle easterners," imo. Armenia is somewhere in there, for Kim K. nem.

 

[FluffyRed]

Personally, I'm interested in more diversity.

If I'm told someone is the "most beautiful" Indian, they should not be confuseable with Greeks, Middle Easterners, North Africans... They should have an Indian phenotype (not from the highly mixed part of india) and be very pretty, like this girl below. Aish ain't got nothing on her.

 

[jamaraa]

Yes, but what are your eyes influenced by? This is clearly Anglo American one drop-ism applied to a culture that has a very different history to our own. Sitting up and deciding what race, nationality, etc a person belongs to based on physical traits. Only DNA can really tell the story, not the eyeball test.

BTW, it's said in terms of science that Ethiopians and the like are NOT mixed w/ Arabs (however you definie it. In Arabic, being an Arab simply means you speak the language) but that Arabs are descended from Ethiopians. If Ethiopians are one of the most ancient civilizations, this makes sense.

Therefore, Ethiopians and the like don't look like Arabs...Arabs look like THEM! Look up Prince Bandar and you'll see what I mean. He's not an atypical Arab in terms of looks either.

I don't know about Fulani people, but regarding Somalis and Ethiopians, I'll believe my eyes before I believe scientific findings. Scientist have "new findings" every day.

Everywhere else in the world, where there are no major barriers, people get together and mix. But here, we're supposed to believe the difference in appearance and why it occurred where it did is just a coincidence?

Not buying it.

 

[balancegoals2009]

Hello Ladies

This is a sad post we are allowing this man Chris Rock to degrade women of color , please don't play into him. The sad part about this he going to make money from us by us going to his movie , they are asking him to be on talk show, magazine etcc, talking about him on hair board , you tube , black America etc etc. everyone talking about this movie AA hair. This is a hot mess , and some are comparing our hair texture , skin color looks etc, please don't play into this mess, we have come a long way from bad hair to good hair. I from the old school and I know how it felt to be judge by your hair when I was young , I not going to allow any one to degrade me are entertain this man by going to his movies are even participate in any discussion about this movie , he only wants to make money and his way to make money is to degrade black women, as usual this black male fell us again when are we going to learn to come together a race. Have a blessed day

 

[jamaraa]

So what about the Aboringines in Australia or Negritos in Asia? They have dark skin like Africans but they are more closely related to Asian populations. Sometimes what you see does not tell the whole story.

Yup. What of the Melenisians, Micronesians, and Polynesians? The Melenisians tend to look like the stereotype of Africans (LOL...cuz we know they all look alike ), Micronesians can look anywhere from basic Black American/Caribbean to like the steretotype of Hawaiians, Polynesians are the stereotype of what most think of as "Pacific Islanders"? hey are the Tahitians, Hawaiians, Easter Islanders....now I ask, what RACE are all these peoples? These folks, the Aboriginals, and the Koi San stumped our dear White folks, so we should take a crack at categorizing them.

Tho they may look different across the Pacific, they share many of the founding cultural makers and we know contact w/ Europe was very recent (18th century).

 

[FluffyRed]

Therefore, Ethiopians and the like don't look like Arabs...Arabs look like THEM! Look up Prince Bandar and you'll see what I mean. He's not an atypical Arab in terms of looks either.

Doesn't matter who looks like whom. Dem people, over dere, look alike. The homo sapiens on the coast of Africa clearly mixed with the humanoids just off the coast.

Call them martians. Matters not to me.

ETA - Morrocco is in Africa

 

[LadyRaider]

Here is a nice website on the concept of race. Race is not genetic. There are no genetic markers for any race. Two Koreans are as likely to be as genetically different as a Korean and an Iraqi. There are no characteristics that are tied wholly to once race. Also, genes for hair, skin color, eye color etc, are separate entities and not tied together. The concept of race was socially constructed because economically people wanted to enslave other people.

The concept of race is socially constructed based on physical attributes.
The concept of ethnicity is socially constructed based on culture.

The white "race" can have many "ethnic groups" - Iraqi, Swedish, Georgian, Morrocan, etc.
The ethnic group "Cuban" can have many "races" - black Cubans, white Cubans, Mestizo Cubans.


http://www.pbs.org/race

 

[jamaraa]

This is starting to be a sad thread, but it started out great. I'm disappointed (and it's so depressing) to see that we repeatedly fall back on this sense of inferiority or these stereotypical notions of what African can or can not be. (it's Arab, not African!...it's Eurocentric...not Fulani!) It's incredible.

Black women, please do not pay your money to see C. Rock's mockumentary. Women deserve to be treated with understanding and love...not finger-pointing, mocking and the like.

If you'd love to see such a film that explores our beauty and hair challenges, stigmas, and skill without mocking us, I would suggest Regina Kimbel's "Good Hair". (I'm considering writing to her to encourage her to somehow sponsor viewings of this film for LHCF members...I'm not sure of how we can make this work though, so any ideas would be greatly appreciated)

We deserve better, folks

Well, I'm not too depressed by this thread (yet). I think it's good to look these assumptions right in the eye. They are Eurocentric and it shows how we're also guilty of trying to enforce them on other people's. Liberia, anyone?

The Chris Rock film reviews are coming in on the hair sites and so far, I've seen nobody who liked it. Even tho we have fabulous stuff on YouTube, some Black woman or women need to take a shot at this. LOL...on the LHC (the White version of us here) someone said (a WW) that they were tired of seeing women's grooming choices always being held as a sign of an inferority complex or something wrong w/ us as women.. She said, nobody implies that a man is trying to be female when he shaves, so why must women always be protrayed as trying to be something else? I think a good film about women's grooming and the whys...across racial lines...would be great too. I'm tired of men telling us why we do things.

If the film comes on cable or ends up at the library, I *MIGHT* see it or maybe not.

 

[Kurlee]

Here is a nice website on the concept of race. Race is not genetic. There are no genetic markers for any race. Two Koreans are as likely to be as genetically different as a Korean and an Iraqi. There are no characteristics that are tied wholly to once race. Also, genes for hair, skin color, eye color etc, are separate entities and not tied together. The concept of race was socially constructed because economically people wanted to enslave other people.

The concept of race is socially constructed based on physical attributes.
The concept of ethnicity is socially constructed based on culture .

The white "race" can have many "ethnic groups" - Iraqi, Swedish, Georgian, Morrocan, etc.
The ethnic group "Cuban" can have many "races" - black Cubans, white Cubans, Mestizo Cubans.


http://www.pbs.org/race

Just had to make that larger

 

[Celestial]

Black women suppose to be so strong yet 'we' can't handle the slightest criticism and 'we' fear being exposed.

 

[jamaraa]

Black women suppose to be so strong yet 'we' can't handle the slightest criticism and 'we' fear being exposed.

Hey you're still around. Nice to see you again.

Nah, only those Black women who care too much about what others think. Not all of us do. He didn't "expose" anything because this isn't hidden....he just made a movie about it.

 

[Celestial]

Hey you're still around. Nice to see you again.

Nah, only those Black women who care too much about what others think. Not all of us do. He didn't "expose" anything because this isn't hidden....he just made a movie about it.

Well hey, I'm going to get my $6.50 worth (I forgot how much I paid for subscription). I was just wondering why people are so angry especially if they didn't see the movie. If 'we' as black women want to believe we are so strong and like to convince others of that then I think 'we' should stop acting so weak and vulnerable.

 

[jamaraa]

Check back further in the thread. I did a nice debunk of the "strong Black woman" nonsense. We ARE vulnerable...we're women and human beings. Pretending to NOT be vulnerable is denying some of your humanity, IMHO.

I think some of the anger on the boards has nothing to do w/ that tho. Chris, it turns out, didn't even talk to his own wife about her hair practices, so what's the dealio? He lives w/ a BW, but he ONLY talks about women he doesn't live w/? He sent his kid to a all White school and seems surprised that she feels "different"? Well Chris, what did you expect?

 

[Celestial]

Check back further in the thread. I did a nice debunk of the "strong Black woman" nonsense. We ARE vulnerable...we're women and human beings. Pretending to NOT be vulnerable is denying some of your humanity, IMHO.

I think some of the anger on the boards has nothing to do w/ that tho. Chris, it turns out, didn't even talk to his own wife about her hair practices, so what's the dealio? He lives w/ a BW, but he ONLY talks about women he doesn't live w/? He sent his kid to a all White school and seems surprised that she feels "different"? Well Chris, what did you expect?

Is it in this thread? I saw a re-run of the Wendy Williams show and Chris told Wendy that he didn't know if his wife was wearing a weave or wig, but he did say he just accept her as she is or as she come. So I guess he doesn't put emphasis on it. He then told Wendy that Sade was his ideal woman when he was younger and went on about the long sleek ponytail and the red lips. Yeah, Chris Rock is causing some confusion, but I still think his movie is pure comedy and it may get black women who fret over false hair to start questioning themselves.