#NNPA BlackPress

The Afro represents cultural change within Black Diaspora

NNPA NEWSWIRE — “There was some early blow-back resulting from the Afro. Beside the fact that many Black parents then frowned on the new expression of Black pride—and often prohibiting younger children from donning this haircut—White society was uncertain what to make of this outward and unapologetic show of African American pride and independence.”

Published

6 years ago

September 29, 2019

Oakland Post

A once ‘defiant’ hairstyle remains mired on controversy

By Merdies Hayes, Editor, Our Weekly News

“How ya doin’? Good to see ya. Have a seat.”

O.D. Threatt makes way for the barber chair. You feel at home as he affixes the bib over your chest. He takes your glasses. He asks the usual question: “Cut it short?” He hasn’t needed to boost the chair upward for at least 50 years.

Between the chit-chat about the Dodgers or Lakers—there’s very little political talk—the subject of the Afro (or “natural”) comes up, of which he is a font of knowledge. O.D., by his estimate, has probably given 50,000 haircuts over the past 60 years. Of those, there’s a good chance that half have been Afros since his days at the legendary Upright Barber Shop at 58th Street and Central Avenue in South Los Angeles. Back then, in the late 1960s, it was the place to go to wear that distinctive style that marked a new era of Black social consciousness.

Wanting to make a statement

“I was thinking about that just the other day,” he said. “You know, before the natural, Black teenagers generally kept their hair relatively short. Much more conservative, often with a “Kennedy part” on the left side. That all changed with the natural. The kids wanted to make a statement. They wanted a separate identity from White America.”

There was some early blow-back resulting from the Afro. Beside the fact that many Black parents then frowned on the new expression of Black pride—and often prohibiting younger children from donning this haircut—White society was uncertain what to make of this outward and unapologetic show of African American pride and independence.

“No, a good many parents would not let their little kids have a natural,” O.D. explained. “That was a little too daring—a little too ‘militant’—for the generation who moved from the South after World War II. It was different for the teenagers. They saw people like James Brown, Angela Davis or the Black Panthers wearing a natural, and this expression was part of new generation of kids who were exposed more to their history going back to slavery and further back to Africa.”

Turning tables on ‘nappy,’ ‘woolly’ hair

In the 1960s, Black people said, essentially, “to hell with that” and turned the tables on the familiar and unflattering tropes of “nappy,” “woolly” and “unruly” hair in liberating themselves from any and everything originally associated with White “acceptance.” After generations of subjecting themselves to European beauty standards, African Americans decided to take back their hair. This newfound acceptance was widely known as the “Black Is Beautiful” movement, which sprang from the Black Power movement.

With political activists such as Davis, Huey P. Newton and Jesse Jackson proudly rocking Afros while fighting oppression, the hairstyle quickly emerged as a symbol of Black beauty, liberation and pride.

Black activists were agitated by White supremacy and Jim Crow laws. As well, they wanted to show an outward sign of their frustration toward Dr. Martin Luther’s King Jr.’s philosophy of nonviolence. The Afro would become Black beauty personified—and done without White validation. The Afro did not care about critics. It did not care about
disapproving looks. For many Black men, it was about “cool pose” and, to a degree, about hyper-masculinity in the face of police brutality and constant oppression.

What may be most interesting about the Afro is its cultural trajectory. In the 1970s, for instance, the Afro was perceived as a major political statement that, beforehand, would have never appeared in the pages of a mainstream publication, or graced the motion picture or television screens. The Afro originated in both a political and emotional climate. The style would fit with a broader generational rejection of artifice but, more importantly, it expressed defiance of racist beauty norms, rejection of middle-class conventions (much like the hippie movement of the mid-60s) and demonstrated pride in Black beauty. The unstraightened hair of the Afro was simultaneously a way to celebrate the cultural and physical distinctiveness of the Black race, and to fully reject practices associated with any emulation of Whites.

An ‘in-your-face’ style for Black youth

“You didn’t see Black celebrities or athletes wearing the natural. Willie Mays didn’t have one. Neither did Jim Brown or Muhammad Ali in their early days,” O.D. said. He explained that the Martin Luther King generation would have said the Afro was a little too “in-your-face” and that it would do more to instigate White America rather than attracting them to the subject of Black equality.

“The young people saw it differently,” O.D. noted. “This was their time to speak. It was their time of self-expression. The Black teenagers wore the Afro with pride and distinction because it was theirs…and no White person could take it away from them.”

Black hair has been an integral feature of Black history, from African tribal styles to Caribbean dreadlocks. In early African civilizations, for instance, hairstyles could indicate a person’s family background, tribe and social status. As an example, when men from the Wolof tribe (in modern Senegal and Gambia) went to war, they wore a braided style, while women in mourning—in other words a widow—would either not “do” her hair or adopt a subdued style.

During the slave trade, these captives took many of their African customs with them to the New World, including their specially-designed combs—not terribly different from the ever-present Afro combs of the 1970s. During the 19th Century, when slavery was abolished throughout much of the world, many Black people felt pressure to “fit in” with mainstream White society and adjusted their hair accordingly.

Emancipation the ‘great oppressor’?

“Black people felt compelled to smooth their hair and [texture it] to fit in easier, and to move in society better (and in camouflage) almost,” said Aaryn Lynch who produced a London exhibition on the history of the Afro comb. “I’ve nicknamed the post-emancipation era ‘the great oppression’ because that’s when Black people had to go through really intensive methods to smooth their hair. Men and women would put their hair in a hot chemical mixture—that would almost burn their scalp—to make it look more European and silky.”

In the 1930s, Rastafari theology developed in Jamaica from the ideas of Marcus Garvey, the legendary political activist who worked to improve the status of Black people. Believers then and today are forbidden to cut their hair and instead twist it into dreadlocks.

While it is not clear when and where the style originated, there are references in the Old Testament. The Hindu deity Shiva is sometimes depicted wearing dreadlocks. Along with the Afro, dreadlocks remain the most distinctive Black hairstyle.

A tumultuous timeline

Black hair—specifically the Afro—can trace a centuries-old timeline:

1444: Europeans trading along the West African coast observe people wearing elaborate hairstyles, including Afros, locks, plaits and twists
1619: The first slaves are brought to Jamestown, VA, many of which have an Afro and/or plaits and twists
1700s: Calling Black hair “wool,” many Whites dehumanized slaves. The more elaborate African hairstyles could not be retained
1800s: Without the traditional combs and herbal treatments, slaves rely on bacon grease, butter and kerosene as hair conditioners and cleaners. Lighter-skinned, straight-haired Blacks would command a higher price than the more “kinky-haired” slaves
1865: Slavery ends, but Whites look upon Black women who adopt a Western coiffure as “well-adjusted” meaning that “good’ hair is a specific White attribute
1880: Metal hot combs, invented by the French in 1845, are used by Blacks to temporarily straighten kinky hair
1900s: Madame C.J. Walker develops a range of hair-care products for Black hair
1954: George E. Johnson launches the Johnson Products Co. with Ultra Wave Hair Culture to be used as a “permanent” hair straightener for both Black men and women
1963: Actress Cicely Tyson wears cornrows on the television drama “East Side/West Side”
1970: Angela Davis becomes an icon of the Black Power movement with her large Afro
1971: Melba Tolliver is fired from the ABC News affiliate in New York for wearing an Afro while covering the marriage of Tricia Nixon
1988: Director Spike Lee exposes the schism between “good-hair/bad-hair” among African Americans in the film “School Daze”
2006: Black hair care becomes a billion-dollar industry
2009: The movie “Good Hair” grosses $4 million

Celebrating Black beauty

At the peak of its popularity in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Afro epitomized the “Black is Beautiful” movement. In those years, the style represented a celebration of Black beauty and repudiation of Eurocentric beauty standards. The Afro also created a sense of commonality among African Americans who saw the style as a mark of a
person who was willing to take a different stand against racial injustice.

Even today, the natural state of Black hair causes debate in the workforce. Because certain African hairstyles may leave White employers baffled and confused, many workplaces still do not tolerate locks or natural hair and require that Black men and women adhere to a style more suited with White fashion norms.

This debate has led to an historic bill introduced by California State Sen. Holly J. Mitchell (30th District) making California the first state in the country to ban racial discrimination based on natural hair. Known as the CROWN (“Creating a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair”), the bill was signed in early July by Gov. Gavin Newsom to amend the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the state Education Code to prohibit employers and schools from enforcing purportedly “race neutral” grooming policies that disproportionately impact people of color.

Sen. Holly J. Mitchell’s CROWN Act

“This law protects the right of Black Californians to choose to wear their hair in its natural form, without pressure to conform to Eurocentric norms,” Mitchell said. “I am so excited to see the culture change that will ensue from the law.” Similar legislation has been proposed in New York and in New Jersey, with New York in February banning any form of hair discrimination at school and in the workplace.

History, to an extent, is defined by a simple haircut not simply for one person, but for a generation who came of age during the Black Power Movement.

You see yourself in the hand mirror, just to check if your look remains normal for the times. Everything checks out.

“Everything okay?” O.D. asks. “Looks good O.D. Each time I stop in you seem to trim more gray hair.” “That’s father time for ya,” he replied.

And with that, the bib is removed, and any remaining hair is neatly brushed away until next time.

“Thanks O.D.” “Thank you,” he responds. “See ya next time.”

Posts by

Up Next

Dickerson library hosts family game nights

Don't Miss

The Trump Effect — Is this administration a present danger to the Black psyche?

Oakland Post

Click to comment

#NNPA BlackPress

UPDATE: PepsiCo Meets with Sharpton Over DEI Rollbacks, Future Action Pending

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The more than hour-long meeting included PepsiCo Chairman Ramon Laguarta and Steven Williams, CEO of PepsiCo North America, and was held within the 21-day window Sharpton had given the company to respond.

Published

5 days ago

April 16, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown
BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent

Rev. Al Sharpton met Tuesday morning with PepsiCo leadership at the company’s global headquarters in Purchase, New York, following sharp criticism of the food and beverage giant’s decision to scale back nearly $500 million in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The more than hour-long meeting included PepsiCo Chairman Ramon Laguarta and Steven Williams, CEO of PepsiCo North America, and was held within the 21-day window Sharpton had given the company to respond. Sharpton was joined by members of the National Action Network (NAN), the civil rights organization he founded and leads. “It was a constructive conversation,” Sharpton said after the meeting. “We agreed to follow up meetings within the next few days. After that continued dialogue, NAN Chairman Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson and I, both former members of the company’s African American Advisory Board, will make a final determination and recommendation to the organization on what we will do around PepsiCo moving forward, as we continue to deal with a broader swath of corporations with whom we will either boycott or buy-cott.”

Sharpton initially raised concerns in an April 4 letter to Laguarta, accusing the company of abandoning its equity commitments and threatening a boycott if PepsiCo did not meet within three weeks. PepsiCo announced in February that it would no longer maintain specific goals for minority representation in its management or among its suppliers — a move that drew criticism from civil rights advocates. “You have walked away from equity,” Sharpton wrote at the time, pointing to the dismantling of hiring goals and community partnerships as clear signs that “political pressure has outweighed principle.” PepsiCo did not issue a statement following Tuesday’s meeting. The company joins a growing list of major corporations — including Walmart and Target — that have scaled back internal DEI efforts since President Donald Trump returned to office. Trump has eliminated DEI programs from the federal government and warned public schools to do the same or risk losing federal funding. Sharpton has vowed to hold companies accountable. In January, he led a “buy-cott” at Costco to applaud the retailer’s ongoing DEI efforts and announced that NAN would identify two corporations to boycott within 90 days if they failed to uphold equity commitments. “That is the only viable tool that I see at this time, which is why we’ve rewarded those that stood with us,” Sharpton said.

Stacy M. Brown

Posts by Stacy M. Brown

#NNPA BlackPress

Target Reels from Boycotts, Employee Revolt, and Massive Losses as Activists Plot Next Moves

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Target is spiraling as consumer boycotts intensify, workers push to unionize, and the company faces mounting financial losses following its rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

Published

5 days ago

April 16, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown
BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent

Target is spiraling as consumer boycotts intensify, workers push to unionize, and the company faces mounting financial losses following its rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. With foot traffic plummeting, stock prices at a five-year low, and employee discontent boiling over, national civil rights leaders and grassroots organizers are vowing to escalate pressure in the weeks ahead. Led by Georgia pastor Rev. Jamal Bryant, a 40-day “Targetfast” aligned with the Lenten season continues to gain traction. “This is about holding companies accountable for abandoning progress,” Bryant said, as the campaign encourages consumers to shop elsewhere. Groups like the NAACP, the National Newspaper Publishers Association, and The People’s Union USA are amplifying the effort, organizing mass boycotts and strategic buying initiatives to target what they call corporate surrender to bigotry.

Meanwhile, Target’s workforce is in an open revolt. On Reddit, self-identified employees described mass resignations, frustration with meager pay raises, and growing calls to unionize. “We’ve had six people give their two-week notices,” one worker wrote. “A rogue team member gathered us in the back room and started talking about forming a union.” Others echoed the sentiment, with users posting messages like, “We’ve been talking about forming a union at my store too,” and “Good on them for trying to organize—it needs to happen.” Target’s problems aren’t just anecdotal. The numbers reflect a company in crisis. The retail giant has logged 10 straight weeks of falling in-store traffic. In February, foot traffic dropped 9% year-over-year, including a 9.5% plunge on February 28 during the 24-hour “economic blackout” boycott organized by The People’s Union USA. March saw a 6.5% decline compared to the previous year. Operating income fell 21% in the most recent quarter, and the company’s stock (TGT) opened at just $94 on April 14, down from $142 in January before the DEI cuts and subsequent backlash. The economic backlash is growing louder online, too.

“We are still boycotting Target due to them bending to bigotry by eroding their DEI programs,” posted the activist group We Are Somebody on April 14. “Target stock has gone down, and their projections remain flat. DEI was good for business. Do the right thing.” Former congresswoman Nina Turner, a senior fellow at The New School’s Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy, wrote, “Boycotts are effective. Boycotts must have a demand. We will continue to boycott until our demands are met.” More action is on the horizon. Another Target boycott is scheduled for June 3–9, part of a broader campaign targeting corporations that have abandoned DEI initiatives under pressure from right-wing politics and recent executive orders by President Donald Trump. The People’s Union USA, which led the February 28 boycott, has already launched similar weeklong actions against Walmart and announced upcoming boycotts of Amazon (May 6–12), Walmart again (May 20–26), and McDonald’s (June 24–30). The organization’s founder, John Schwarz, said the goal is nothing short of shifting the economic power balance.

“We are going to remind them who has the power,” Schwarz said. “For one day, we turn it off. For one day, we shut it down. For one day, we remind them that this country does not belong to the elite, it belongs to the people.” As for Target, its top executives continue to downplay the damage. During a recent earnings call, Chief Financial Officer Jim Lee described the outlook for 2025 as uncertain, citing the “ripple” effects of tariffs and a wide range of possible outcomes. “We’re going to be focusing on controlling what we can control,” Lee said. But discontent is spreading internally. A Reddit post from a worker claimed, “The HR rep is doing his best to stop the bleeding, but all he did was put a Bluey band-aid on what is essentially a severed limb.”

Several employees criticized the company’s internal rewards system, “Bullseye Bucks,” for offering what amounts to play money. “Can’t pay rent or buy food with Bullseye Bucks,” one wrote. Others urged their colleagues to join unionizing efforts. “Imagine how much Target would lose their mind if they were under a union contract,” one team leader wrote. “It needs to happen at this point.” One former manager said they left the company after an insulting raise. “Quit last year when they gave me a 28-cent raise. Best decision I’ve ever made.” From store floors to boardrooms, the pressure is growing on Target. And as calls for justice, equity, and worker rights get louder, one worker put it plainly: “We’re all screwed—unless we fight back.”

Stacy M. Brown

Posts by Stacy M. Brown

#NNPA BlackPress

Confederates Whistle Dixie Tunes and Black MAGA Applauds

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — They include Black MAGA supporters who’ve chosen silence—even solidarity—as racism escalates from campaign rhetoric to federal policy.

Published

6 days ago

April 15, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown
BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent

In Donald Trump’s second term, the faces of compliance are no longer just white. They include Black MAGA supporters who’ve chosen silence—even solidarity—as racism escalates from campaign rhetoric to federal policy. When Trump returned to the White House, he did so with a platform not just soaked in bigotry but engineered to roll back civil rights and diversity efforts on every front. And while his white base cheered, many of his Black allies—those donning MAGA hats and taking up seats on the frontlines of his rallies—chose loyalty over principle, muting themselves as a wave of white nationalist policymaking targets their communities.

Their silence began long before Inauguration Day. During the 2024 campaign, Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally drew fire after a comedian on the lineup referred to Puerto Rico as “garbage.” But that wasn’t the only racist moment. As Florida Rep. Byron Donalds, one of Trump’s most visible Black surrogates, walked onto the stage, the campaign blasted “Dixie”—a song revered by the Confederacy and white nationalists. Donalds said nothing. And neither did the rest of Black MAGA. That same silence echoed in Springfield, Ohio, when Trump and his running mate, J.D. Vance, spread a false and racist claim that Haitian immigrants were “eating cats and dogs.” The fabrication was met with horror from civil rights advocates and journalists. But Trump’s Black supporters? Not a word.

Black MAGA loyalists, many of whom cite values, religion, and personal ambition as their rationale, have essentially normalized the very racism that their grandparents fought to dismantle. Pew Research shows that while only 4% of Black Americans identify as Republicans, those who do often express a belief that the GOP better represents their values—even as those values are trampled by the very administration they support. One study published in Sociological Inquiry found that Black Republicans often “reframe racism in a way that makes their alignment with white conservatives more palatable,” even when it involves rationalizing policies that harm Black communities. And harm is precisely what Trump’s policies are doing. Since taking office, Trump has issued a barrage of executive orders aimed at eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across the federal government. Agencies that serve minority communities have faced massive defunding, DEI offices have been shuttered, and civil rights enforcement has all but disappeared. As noted in The Hill, the goal is not just the destruction of policy—it’s the erasure of progress itself.

“Every act of Trump’s second term has been a white-nationalist signal,” wrote one analyst in The American Prospect, calling MAGA an “identity movement” that champions white grievance over democratic principle. There is little space for Blackness, except as a prop. And yet, some Black Trump supporters defend the administration with defiance. One such supporter, who canvassed for Trump in 2024, told The Independent he was called the N-word by fellow conservatives. Rather than walking away, he doubled down on his allegiance. The consequences of this allegiance are becoming deadly clear. As TIME reported, nearly 20% of Trump supporters said freeing the slaves was a mistake. According to The Washington Post, support for Trump has long been fueled more by racial resentment than economic concerns, and that resentment has now translated into policy.

A report from Press Watch concluded that Trump’s base continues to be driven by a desire to protect white dominance and suppress nonwhite progress, particularly through culture war battles over schools, immigration, and federal hiring. Even academic journals have noted that wearing a MAGA hat has become “a proxy for racialized identity”—an affirmation of white supremacy, no matter who’s wearing it. Meanwhile, The Conversation documented how MAGA’s rise has coincided with increased armed intimidation at polling places, violent rhetoric against journalists, and calls to monitor so-called “urban” neighborhoods—all with Trump’s encouragement. The Black MAGA base has not only failed to object—they’ve offered Trump moral cover. Whether out of personal ambition, political opportunity, or delusion, they’ve made peace with racists, while the administration they uphold works tirelessly to erase the freedoms won through generations of Black struggle. As The American Prospect put it: “Trump’s MAGA identity is a movement rooted in white identity politics. That some Black Americans have chosen to stand inside of it doesn’t make it less racist—it makes it more dangerous”