On August 15th 2017, twitter "comedian" Jon Hendren called out world-renowned music and rap artist Macklemore for sporting an apparently racist haircut which Macklemore responded to by pointing out that he hadn't sported said haircut for quite some time.
Image source: http://www.vladtv.com/images/size_fs/video_image-467718.jpg
Ignoring the fact that Hendren's twitter @ accurately describes the quality of his humour on twitter, you'd reasonably think he could look at a recent picture of Macklmore and rectify his simple mistake. This moment of laxity in looking up public info implies to me that both Hendren's question and the intention behind it aren't particularly well founded. The question itself is clearly poorly-informed but on top of that, asking someone to renounce and change their haircut implies that anyone wearing that haircut is inherently racist. Macklemore's now former haircut, commonly called the 'undercut', was originally fashioned by western men in Europe and the Americas during the 1930s and 1940s. This included men who fought on both sides during the Second World War (1939-45).
Really, the hairstyle originated as a general western fashion choice rather than a political statement as these German soldiers during the 2nd world war show...
Image source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-217-0465-32A%2C_Russland%2C_Soldaten_auf_dem_Marsch.jpg
...when paired up with this picture of a French resistance fighter during the latter stages of the 2nd world war in urban France sporting the same style of hairdo.
Image source: http://weeklyworker.co.uk/assets/_versions/images/archive/wwimages/ww942/sm-WWII-resistance2_art_full.jpg
Because of this, the idea that this one style of haircut, even down to its origins, is representative of racist political beliefs and fascism is not just overly-presumptuous but also historically inaccurate. However, this hasn't stopped some overly-reactionary blowhards attacking people in recent weeks over having this particular haircut/hairstyle. People in the currently tumultuous political climate of the USA have been wearing the haircut that some fascists both past and present have worn, this must mean that anyone who is sporting the undercut deigns to at some point take up the cause of fascism. And certainly not that the hairstyle is a comfortable and easy-to-maintain fashion statement popular in both alternative and mainstream modern fashion scenes.
True, the undercut has been worn in recent times by undeniably fascistic political figures in the USA such as far-right political commentator, speaker and activist Richard Spencer. But regardless of this point, this does not mean that one can just lump all members of a certain fashion group in with one socially unpalatable or maligned individual (depending on your political views). This has not stopped people not only asking wearers of the undercut hairstyle to change their hairdo but also that members of far-left and progressive anti-fascist groups, particularly ANTIFA (Anti-fascist action) physically attacking people who wear the fashionable haircut.
The most notable case of this happening recently has of course been anarchistic anti-fascists recently mistaking some of their own group members for a neo-Nazi because they too wore undercuts.
Source: http://freebeacon.com/issues/boston-antifa-protester-attacked-fellow-activist-after-mistaken-neo-nazi/
Clearly, if this idea that the undercut being a statement of facism has become so insidious that it is affecting those on the right, left and centre of the political spectrum one must ask this: surely it is an issue of mistaken identity rather than promotion of a hateful ideology?
Subsequently, this prompted me to think about interjecting on the idea of attacking someone for their political beliefs and how irrational that seems to me. I know I may be sounding like I am blowing my own political horn to the Nth degree but hear me out on this. Attacking someone not in self-defence illegal in the USA and UK. And doing so on the basis of their political beliefs alone, especially in cases of mistaken identity, seems extremely harmful to not only people's physical safety but also the stability of reasonable political discussion and discourse in the free world.
What I mean by this is that the way that we have traditionally discussed politics and rooted out bad ideas in politics in modern free-democracies is by giving an equal platform of opportunity to all to discuss their beliefs and manifestos. Reason dictates that we should do this to people on both the left and right as well as the centre. That includes groups I and others would find unlikable such as neo-Nazis and ANTIFA, again, depending on your political views. In discussing political ideas, even offensive and unpalatable ones, on a level playing field, we are able to root out inflexible, offensive and irrational ideas by reasonably seeing the weaknesses of these ideas and beliefs for what they are. Punching someone, whether it be because you do or do not know their political ideology, is a terrible idea; because it not only promotes civil violence but invalidates the great boon that free speech and political discourse gives us.
By punching someone for their political beliefs not in self-defence, whether they be right or left-wing, only validates your political enemies cause and poisons the well of political discourse.
So I issue a plea to anyone, be they far-left or far-right; if you have an inkling that someone is a political opponent to you then talk it out like a human being and do not punch them. Because if you resort to violence as the first response to someone's opinions, then you clearly don't really care about discussion, peace or your fellow man and woman.
Editor's note: This post has been amended and edited post-publishing because I was made aware of information about the story of the alleged stabbing of Joshua Witt that compelled me to amend my article.
Editor's note: This post has been amended and edited post-publishing because I was made aware of information about the story of the alleged stabbing of Joshua Witt that compelled me to amend my article.
No comments:
Post a Comment