Comments on: 5 Ways Environmentalists Can Be Less Annoying http://www.bspcn.com/2007/10/29/5-ways-environmentalists-can-be-less-annoying/ Bspcn.Com Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:39:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Some guy http://www.bspcn.com/2007/10/29/5-ways-environmentalists-can-be-less-annoying/#comment-19325 Some guy Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:48:36 +0000 http://www.bspcn.com/2007/10/29/5-ways-environmentalists-can-be-less-annoying/#comment-19325 As someone who generally doesn't think or care much about hair, I have to say that I was really irritated when I read "Get rid of those dreads, white boy." So black people are "allowed" to have dreads because they're from the streets/Jamaica/whatever, but whites are, you know, too square for them? When a white person does drugs, it's lame (with which I would generally agree)— but not for black people, because, like, drugs are a black thing? A practicing black Rastafarian is somehow more "authentic" than a white person who happens to have a certain hairstyle? "Dreads do look cool on rastas, just not you"? That's patronizing to both whites and blacks, yo. (Anyway, since when does Rastafarianism prohibit whites?) Sorry, just had to get that out of my system. The rest are basically good points. You know, I think I will elaborate on my rant, but in a totally different direction: I agree that image does matter, maybe even for good reasons. (At least, there are good sociological reasons that a given society has a certain image of what "normal" looks like.) Maybe I would make your point even further and say that any environmentalist who wants to be taken seriously should demonstrate as "normal" a fashion as possible — so no hairstyle but short-short-short, and maybe a suit and tie whenever it makes sense. Think of it like this: Every day is a job interview, and the interviewers are the fence-sitters on environmental issues. If they get the sense that ecological thinking isn't just a fad or subculture, that can get them more used to thinking of it as "normal" and worth taking seriously. (Of course, it's maybe a little ridiculous that people's subconscious thinking works this way, but everyone's subconscious is ridiculous.) As someone who generally doesn’t think or care much about hair, I have to say that I was really irritated when I read “Get rid of those dreads, white boy.” So black people are “allowed” to have dreads because they’re from the streets/Jamaica/whatever, but whites are, you know, too square for them? When a white person does drugs, it’s lame (with which I would generally agree)— but not for black people, because, like, drugs are a black thing? A practicing black Rastafarian is somehow more “authentic” than a white person who happens to have a certain hairstyle? “Dreads do look cool on rastas, just not you”? That’s patronizing to both whites and blacks, yo. (Anyway, since when does Rastafarianism prohibit whites?)

Sorry, just had to get that out of my system. The rest are basically good points.

You know, I think I will elaborate on my rant, but in a totally different direction: I agree that image does matter, maybe even for good reasons. (At least, there are good sociological reasons that a given society has a certain image of what “normal” looks like.) Maybe I would make your point even further and say that any environmentalist who wants to be taken seriously should demonstrate as “normal” a fashion as possible — so no hairstyle but short-short-short, and maybe a suit and tie whenever it makes sense. Think of it like this: Every day is a job interview, and the interviewers are the fence-sitters on environmental issues. If they get the sense that ecological thinking isn’t just a fad or subculture, that can get them more used to thinking of it as “normal” and worth taking seriously. (Of course, it’s maybe a little ridiculous that people’s subconscious thinking works this way, but everyone’s subconscious is ridiculous.)

]]>