Talk:Cornrows

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cornrows article.
Article policies
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] Picture?

could someone find a non-copyrighted picture to put in?

Swinger222 14:48, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Added picture

Added picture of emperor Yohannes IV of Ethiopia, to examplify the African tradition of braided hair Dizzee ignorant 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unisex?

"Cornrows are a traditional, unisex, West African style of hair grooming . . . " Unisex? In Cameroon, they were strictly for women and girls except in the urbanized areas where there's some influence from American and European television and music. One of my fellow volunteers had them in, and the police mistakenly marked him as a female on his identification card, this in the capital. Does anyone have any evidence for them being unisex in West Africa, or should the lead be reworded? BrianSmithson 12:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The lead sentences says that it's unisex and West African in origin, not that it's unisex in West Africa. --FuriousFreddy 17:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Maybe that's what it's supposed to mean, but that's not what it says. I'll try to reword it a bit; see what you think. BrianSmithson 18:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
That's a lot better. --FuriousFreddy 19:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm just now noticing this. Back in the day (mid to late 1960s), when cornrows were becoming popular among blacks here in the U.S., they were strictly for women. Even in the South, where the cornrowing tradition persisted through the centuries, the style was worn by pretty much women only. Once in a while, you'd come across a brother with them -- but rarely. Not until much later did the style catch on in the U.S. among black men. It was an offshoot of people braiding their afros at night, so they'd be voluminous/stay manageable. Brothers starting asking sisters to braid their for them, and the sisters started cornrowing the brothers' hair, too. Still, not until probably the 1980s did brothers really start wearing cornrows -- and then certainly not with beads. In the '60s and '70s that would have been considered extremely effeminate. 21:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)deeceevoice

This may have some parallels with the acceptance of longer hairstyles on men in general—which is a topic I'm going to get around to writing one of these days. Very shortly cropped hair wouldn't be be long enough to cornrow, while, as you suggest, longer styles (whether they grow upwards in an afro or downwards to the shoulders) are more amenable to this sort of management. — Phil Welch 22:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That depends on what you call "short." Someone can have a relatively short afro (say, of less than an inch), but tightly curled/nappy hair can uncoil fairly easily (particularly if wet) to surprising length -- and certainly long enough to be styled into cornrows. deeceevoice 09:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed—I'm referring to the length the hair reaches if uncoiled and pulled straight. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 19:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hygeine and Traction alopecia

Two issues which should be a little more thoroughly highlighted. Many teens following the afro-american media pop-culture see this hairstyle as trendy, although in my country and through extensive travel in Europe I've yet to encounter anyone with it, but realistically it would be worthwhile cautioning that such hairstyles have a dramatic link to Traction alopecia, ie: they make you go bald faster if you're male and if you're female, can instigate a very high brow / receding browline.

Hygeine is another issue worth raising, as many wearers of such 'tribal' hairstyles are told not to wash their hair as it will rot (which does happen, especially in the case of dreadlocks), but likewise not washing it in many instances can encourage lice, flea and parasite infestations (or in the case of dreadlocks, small mamals have even been found). I do not have the full facts and figures, so I will leave it up to one of the competant editors of this page to make the update if willing. Jachin 03:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"Tribal" hairstyles? lol FYI, black people generally don't have trouble with lice. That's a white thing. And cornrowed hairstyles are washed regularly -- carefully, usually with a stocking cap in place to preserve the style. So, just as with any hairstyle, hygiene is not a problem. Nasty, ill-kempt people who don't wash their hair wear all kinds of hairstyles. That has absolutely nothing to do with cornrows. And I've never, ever heard of cornrows "rotting." That's rubbish -- or, if you will, "rot". deeceevoice 16:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
But with regard to traction alopecia, you have a point. It can be a real problem if braids are too tight or if heavy extensions are worn over a prolonged period of time. deeceevoice 21:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Traction alopecia is totally preventable if the braider knows what they are doing. The problem is that many people don't have proper hair care education and pull too hard, leave the styles in too long, and don't let the hair 'rest' between styles. Ibtisam

[edit] picture

This article could really do with a picture. And it shouldn't be that hard to obtain. Anyone with cornrows and a camera who want their face/hair in wikipedia? Shanes 04:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is a white guy being pictured here?

It doesn't make any sense to use a white person as an example for cornrows. Cornrows are a Black hairstyle and should be pictured as such. Is there a way to delete this picture, or at least change it to be more appropriate?


The article says that it's not just one race that has this hair. This is the photo that I found already uploaded on wikipedia that had the hair like this. There seems no need to eliminate it because of race. And also if there is no photo the article is weaker. It's better with this photo than without. Lyo 18:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A white guy rockin' the 'rows as the MAIN picture? Talk about an insult. This style is almost exclusively a style for African-Americans, and females at that. Some black males wear them, and even less Caucasians. But overall, it's a style for black women. I don't see a problem w/the white guy, but not as the main picture. Changed. MagentaThompson 04:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We could definitely do better than a picture of Bo Derek!

I deleted her picture. It's ridiculous to have an article about cornrows and have the main picture be a white woman; it's a traditionally black hairstyle. Someone, obviously added it as a slap in the face to the black community because someone mentioned that they added an Ethiopian woman as a pic, but that was clearly deleted and replaced with a white woman.

I agree that maybe we could find a better photo than one of Bo Derek. But since nobody has taken it upon themselves to find a photo of a black person with cornrows, why remove the only photo that this article has? Don't delete the Bo Derek photo unless you can find a better one. At least, the Bo Derek photo will show someone who doesn't know what a cornrow looks like. And to the person above who says that the black photo was replaced by one of Bo Derek that's not true. The Bo Derek photo was first added when this article had no photo at all. Don't you think it's better to have a photo to show people what a cornrow is than to have no photo at all? Isn't the point of Wikipedia supposed to be to educate people? --Mezaco 20:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That picture of Bo Derek has got to go. I agree that having this picture on Wikipedia as the main picture is insulting to peoples of African descent and needs to be changed as soon as possible. Further, I disagree with Mezaco when he says that having a picture of Bo Derek is better than no picture at all. As the old saying goes, "A picture is worth a thousand words" and this picture is both inaccurate and insulting to members of the black community.
I realise that Wikipedia is edited mostly by white people who are unlikely to see what the problem is, and who are likely in fact to cry foul with claims of anti-caucasian racism (a common lament on-line, it seems). But it's important to try to counter systemic bias by putting yourself in the shoes of black people, especially African Americans. The slave trade destroyed any true, organic cultural connection to Africa for African Americans. Most don't even know which part of West Africa their ancestors hailed from, and as anyone who has ever been to West Africa knows, there are serious cultural and linguistic differences between villages, not to mention countries. Throughout their history, they have been socially pressured to emulate white people -- unlike Indians, East Asians, Middle Easterners, or any other non-white ethnic group, they have not had a sense of origin with which to anchor themselves. Hair has always been a particularly sensitive issue for them. Getting a perm (which in black terms means a straightening of the hair) or a weave or wearing a wig or any other number of relatively drastic measures have been taken by black people over the years to "whitify" their hair.
Then, in the 1960s and 70s, something special happened: there was rebellion against this definition of beauty, the "Black is Beautiful" movement started, and men and women began to explore hairstyles derived from African sources. This was an important and empowering transition for black people, and remains so.
What we are doing by picturing a white person and only a white person is, in effect, robbing the black community of their pride. We are suggesting, with the picture, that this is a white hairstyle. I know the article says otherwise, but believe me, the picture speaks volumes. It leaves the reader wondering, "If this is a black hairstyle, why is a white person pictured?"
It needs to go, even if we have nothing to replace it with.70.231.253.59 21:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No question. I agree. It's gotta go -- and stay gone. Find someone black. deeceevoice 21:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is about a hairstyle. A picture of the hairstyle would be an improvement, regardless of who's wearing it. Heck, the article even mentions Bo Derek so why is a picture of her a problem? Turning this into a racial issue is ridiculous. Friday (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nasty picture

the current closeup is pretty gross. do we need to see each unkempt strand? the bo derek photo is a lot nicer, who cares if she's white?

This is a joke right? Nasty? I think the new image looks beautiful. The woman has thick full hair and it shows the process of creating cornrows. We can keep the image of bo, I guess it shows the influence of African hair styles on the broader global culture. Please sign your post in the fulture. Thanks. futurebird 21:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing unkempt or nasty about the closeup. It's an accurate representation of professionally done cornrows. It's an idea image.Res05e (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)