Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gowrestle

Hair Cut

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, rpbobcat said:

That may be ,but that doesn't mean the response is correct. 

As a result of this incident  I've done some reading about dreadlocks,but didn't see anything really definitive when it comes to their current "cultural significance".

Does anyone here know what their "cultural significance"  actually is.

 

 

That's the thing with culture though, you cant tell someone what is or isn't culture, let alone theirs. Its whatever you want it to be. You can only tell them what YOUR OWN culture is. You can think they're wrong, you can think you're right, but that doesn't mean you are!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigTenFanboy said:

121618BCathXCaliburP.jpg

 

How do you justify to the Johnson's that this person's hair SHOULD have been cut, but wasnt, yet Andrew's was?

Thanks for the image. While violations as to the length of the hair are a little hard to be certain from this photo, I do think that there likely was a violation of the rules - the kid needed a trim or should have been required to use the appropriate equipment. Some ref/s would seem to be screwing up by not properly applying the rule (assuming he isn't using required netting/headgear)...much like the 20 previous refs that took care of Johnson's matches (who supposedly let Johnson go without requiring the proper equipment or a trim) leading up to the match in question.

So, anything else on this "white privilege" thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, npope said:

Thanks for the image. While violations as to the length of the hair are a little hard to be certain from this photo, I do think that there likely was a violation of the rules - the kid needed a trim or should have been required to use the appropriate equipment. Some ref/s would seem to be screwing up by not properly applying the rule (assuming he isn't using required netting/headgear)...much like the 20 previous refs that took care of Johnson's matches (who supposedly let Johnson go without requiring the proper equipment or a trim) leading up to the match in question.

So, anything else on this "white privilege" thing?

 

You don't need to justify your answer or this situation to me. Im offering commentary on basically what the twitterverse is/would say.

No one cares about the previous times that Johnson was allowed to wrestle with this illegal haircover. They only care about the fact that he wasnt this time and was made to cut this hair by a white man who used a racial slur. No one cares that other kids in the past have also been forced to cut their hair. We even have an Olympic Medalist he claims hes never seen or heard of it ever happening! Nothing you can say or no evidence that you or anyone else brings forward will change the twitterverse's mind.

According to the twitterverse, basically this ref should have allowed Johnson to wrestle with his illegal hair cover and should not have had his hair cut. It could have been 30 feet long. It doesn't matter. The twitterverse and mass media will not allow you the isolate this event from his previous use of a racial slur. The fact he used a racial slur in the past has everything to do with this and if you ignore or marginalize the fact he used a racial slur in the past, you yourself are also in fact racist.

According to the Twitterverse and mass media the fact that the above pictured wrestler was not forced to publicly cut his hair and Johnson was, is an example of white privileged, and institutionalized, systemic racism. You can site all the rules you want about the above pcitured wrestler's hair being within the rules and Johnson's not, it doesnt matter. The twitterverse doesnt care.

Whether you like it or not that is how the modern world works and I have news for you. Its only going to get worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how BTFB is going back to “if you’re opinion is this, or your opinion is not this, then you are a racist.” Its like dejaGilman all over again. 

 

I believe the ref mad an ill advised joke to a friend a couple years ago. I also believe Gilman used a term to describe nationality and not race with no racial intent at all, although maybe he could have thought it out a little better, like he did in his most recent interview. 

Since I don’t believe those individuals are racist, but rather made a poor decision in words, but with no ill intent...does that in your mind mean I’m racist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lurker said:

I like how BTFB is going back to “if you’re opinion is this, or your opinion is not this, then you are a racist.” Its like dejaGilman all over again. 

 

I believe the ref mad an ill advised joke to a friend a couple years ago. I also believe Gilman used a term to describe nationality and not race with no racial intent at all, although maybe he could have thought it out a little better, like he did in his most recent interview. 

Since I don’t believe those individuals are racist, but rather made a poor decision in words, but with no ill intent...does that in your mind mean I’m racist?

Not in my eyes,

In the eyes of the twitterverse, yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BigTenFanboy said:

Not in my eyes,

In the eyes of the twitterverse, yes. 

But I’ve seen you call people racist for that exact reason. During the Gilman situation you told many people they were racist because they didn’t feel his comment was an act of racism. Have you changed since then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ironmonkey said:

On a more relevant note considering the forum, I assumed based on my personal experience these hair rules were applied more to white wrestlers than other races.   I admit having wrestled in the 90s though, haven't been to a high school match in nearly a decade, and attend duals for two specific colleges which both are located in the same area.   Is the charge that the rule is affecting some races more than others accurate?  

 

In the beginning, somewhere in the hippie days of the early 70s, long hair started becoming vogue. It was the "white guys." Rules committees took notice and the debate began regarding wrestlers whose hair (or beard) was "too long." This was a shock to war-time conservatives who for the past 40 years saw nothing but military crew cuts, and were trying anything they could to tiptoe around and sound reasonable to curtail hair length. They didn't want the clean-cut soldier/wrestler image to disappear. But evolution prevailed and here we are, long hair and all.

As I've already stated, the only way I can think of to defuse this situation is to take it out of the refs hands on the mat; handle it off the mat prior to the meet or not at all. Waiting to deal with it at the last minute is too little way too late and an unnecessary spectacle. A stitch in time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lurker said:

But I’ve seen you call people racist for that exact reason. During the Gilman situation you told many people they were racist because they didn’t feel his comment was an act of racism. Have you changed since then?

I have not changed my view at all and that is not what I said.

I said he should apologize for using a racial slur. To which people replied he has nothing to apologize for because he didn't know it was a racial slur.

I then replied If you don't think he should apologize for accidentally using a racial slur, now that you and he knows that its a racial slur, you are racist.

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BigTenFanboy said:

I have not changed my view at all and that is not what I said.

I said he should apologize for using a racial slur. To which people replied he has nothing to apologize for because he didn't know it was a racial slur.

I then replied If you don't think he should apologize for using a racial slur, now that you and he knows that its a racial slur accidental or not, you are racist.

Ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its just like this...

If you accidentally bump into someone and knock them over,

Did you knock them over? Yes?

Did you intend to? No?

Would you still apologize?

If you say No you wouldn't because you didn't intend to knock them over, them you're a pretty crappy person.

Intent is irrelevant in whether you apologize or not. if you did something wrong intentionally or accidentally you still apologize for it.

If you use a racial slur, later learn that its a racial slur yet still refuse to apologize for using said racial slur. That's racist.

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BigTenFanboy said:

Its just like this...

If you accidentally bump into someone and knock them over, did you knock them over? Yes?

Did you intend to? No? Would you still apologize?

If you say no you wouldn't because you didn't intend to knock them over, them you're a pretty crappy person.

Intent is irrelevant in whether you apologize or not. if you did something wrong intentionally or accidentally you still apologize for it.

Not an apples to apples comparison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BigTenFanboy said:

It absolutely is.

You did something wrong without knowing it was wrong. You should apologize for it.

There’s a whole lot of levels of doing something wrong. Accidentally bumping into someone is not doing something wrong. Intentionally bumping into someone is doing something wrong. 

 

I think Gilman did the right thing by apologizing, but I know he didn’t have any ill intent nor was he making a racist commnent. Likewise, I feel you are wrong calling people racist for having the opinion that he doesn’t NEED to apologize, but doing so is a good thing to do. Just as I feel anyone calling someone a racist because they don’t feel this official had racist intentions when making a joke to a friend is also wrong. 

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lurker said:

There’s a whole lot of levels of doing something wrong. Accidentally bumping into someone is not doing something wrong. Intentionally bumping into someone is doing something wrong. 

 

I think Gilman did the right thing by apologizing, but I know he didn’t have any ill intent nor was he making a racist commnent. Likewise, I feel you are wrong calling people racist for having the opinion that he doesn’t NEED to apologize, but doing so is a good thing to do. 

Theres nothing wrong with accidentally bumping into someone. There is something wrong with accidentally bumping into someone and NOT APOLOGIZING. Like I said, if someone bumped into you and knocked you over and REFUSED to apologize are they be in the wrong? It accident after all?

 

Thats fine. You can think I am wrong. I disagree. That's the beauty of this country.

I believe if you think someone who unintentionally uses a racial - who later learns that its a racial slur - should not have to apologize. Thats racist. Once you learn that a word is a racial slur, A) Not use it again and B) you should apologize for its misuse.

Now what we see is Gilman pause, smirk, look at the camera and say "The Folks from Japan." with a sly grin on his face.

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigTenFanboy said:

That's the thing with culture though, you cant tell someone what is or isn't culture, let alone theirs. Its whatever you want it to be. You can only tell them what YOUR OWN culture is. You can think they're wrong, you can think you're right, but that doesn't mean you are!

This just reinforces my original comment about whether the wrestler's dreadlocks were of "cultural significance " or a fashion trend.

If someone feels that their dreadlocks, or something  else , are an integral part of their "culture",whatever they consider that to be,how could they even consider doing something,in this case cutting their hair,that undermines that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rpbobcat said:

This just reinforces my original comment about whether the wrestler's dreadlocks were of "cultural significance " or a fashion trend.

If someone feels that their dreadlocks, or something  else , are an integral part of their "culture",whatever they consider that to be,how could they even consider doing something,in this case cutting their hair,that undermines that.

 

Yes and the argument is that he was forced to cut them because he was put under duress. 

You're saying if his dreads truly were of cultural significance he would have chosen to forfeit the match and not cut his hair.

The Twitterverse and media are saying 2 things. Number 1, he was under duress which is WHY he chose to cut his hair. Number 2, He shouldn't have been forced to make that decision in the first place.

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BigTenFanboy said:

Theres nothing wrong with accidentally bumping into someone. There is something wrong with accidentally bumping into someone and NOT APOLOGIZING. Like I said, if someone bumped into you and knocked you over and REFUSED to apologize are they be in the wrong? It accident after all?

 

Thats fine. You can think I am wrong. I disagree. That's the beauty of this country.

I believe if you think someone who unintentionally uses a racial - who later learns that its a racial slur - should not have to apologize. Thats racist. Once you learn that a word is a racial slur, A) Not use it again and B) you should apologize for its misuse.

Now what we see is Gilman pause, smirk, look at the camera and say "The Folks from Japan." with a sly grin on his face.

You said, and I quote, “It absolutely is, you did something wrong without knowing it was wrong”.  And stated that intent has nothing to do with it. Now you’re saying it wasn’t wrong. Only a lack of apology would be wrong  so which is it  

As far as YOUR OPINION on what is racist and what is not, yes we will continue to disagree. And there was absolutely nothing wrong with Gilman saying Folks from Japan, grin or no. 

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lurker said:

You said, and I quote, “It absolutely is, you did something wrong without knowing it was wrong”.  

As far as YOUR OPINION on what is racist and what is not, yes we will continue to disagree. And there was absolutely nothing wrong with Gilman saying Folks from Japan, grin or no. 

"You did something wrong without knowing it was wrong and later learn that it was wrong.. You should apologize for it."

 

Did I say there was something wrong with it? I said that's what he does now instead of using the word he now knows not to use since its well documented historically backed racial slur. That's a good thing! He learned not to unintentionally use racial slurs.  Its something most people would expect of a person is a self proclaimed American War History Buff and someone who has their undergraduate degree in History would know all about.

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BigTenFanboy said:

Did I say there was something wrong with it? I said that's what he does now instead of using the word he now knows not to use since its well documented historically backed racial slur. That's a good thing! He learned not to unintentionally use racial slurs.  Its something most people would expect of a person is a self proclaimed American War History Buff and someone who has their undergraduate degree in History would know all about.

No you didn’t say something was wrong with it. I just simply said there wasn’t. (By the way, it’s regarded as a slur to some, not so much to others.  The word was used comfortably for centuries).  

 

But you skipped the part about where you said something was wrong, then said it wasn’t wrong, and so on. For some reason you didn’t respond to that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lurker said:

No you didn’t say something was wrong with it. I just simply said there wasn’t. (By the way, it’s regarded as a slur to some, not so much to others.  The word was used comfortably for centuries).  

 

But you skipped the part about where you said something was wrong, then said it wasn’t wrong, and so on. For some reason you didn’t respond to that. 

In the USA its been a racial slur for decades.. You know since World War 2. American Historians who are knowledgeable in American War history will tell you that.

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BigTenFanboy said:

In the USA its been a racial slur for decades. American Historians who are knowledgeable in American War history will tell you that.

In the USA it’s been acknowledged as a racial slur by some, not by all, for decades. The large percentage of the some are of Asian or Japanese descent. 

And Yet again you decided to not address your flip flopping. I’m seeing a trend so I’ll close you out with my main point in all this. Just because you think someone’s actions or words are racist, doesn’t make it so. Some things yes are a no brainer. Some things are not. Racism is about intent to harm or damage. And you should be real careful with that, because labeling someone a racist in public can be just as, or more damaging, than someone using what may be conceived by some as a racial slur. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lurker said:

In the USA it’s been acknowledged as a racial slur by some, not by all, for decades. The large percentage of the some are of Asian or Japanese descent. 

And Yet again you decided to not address your flip flopping. I’m seeing a trend so I’ll close you out with my main point in all this. Just because you think someone’s actions or words are racist, doesn’t make it so. Some things yes are a no brainer. Some things are not. Racism is about intent to harm or damage. And you should be real careful with that, because labeling someone a racist in public can be just as, or more damaging, than someone using what may be conceived by some as a racial slur. 

Defined in the USA as a racial slur. Those that dont consider it a racial slur simply DONT KNOW.

If you use the word not knowing its a racial slur but are later told and learn that it is, you apologize.

If you are unwilling to apologize AFTER learning the words meaning, that means you are ok with using the racial slur. 

Being ok with using a racial slur is racist.

 

You even said it was a good think Gilman apologized.

Why exactly was it a good thing?

Would it have been a bad thing if he refused to apologize AFTER LEARNING the word was a racial slur?

 

AND FYI I didn't want to go down this road again again, you're the one who brought it up, trying to JUSTIFY the use of a well documented racial slur.

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BigTenFanboy said:

 

Me personally?

No, but I do believe some people believe this. I believe the twitterverse absolutely believes this, but will never outwardly admit it. You do realize what you described is a loose definition of white privileged. As well as how cops are often perceived as being racist when they're "just doing their jobs."

Taking one white kid who didn't get his hair cut when he should have as evidence for white privilege when there are so many examples where it does happen to white kids is taking advantage of an extremely small sample size to make a point on race at best. It is race baiting at worst. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×