Michael Abrahams | How emancipated are we? The hair-raising truth

It’s Emancipendence time again when we celebrate the emancipation of our enslaved African ancestors and our country’s independence from British rule. But how emancipated are we? The abolition of slavery was a significant milestone in Jamaica’s history. The chains and shackles are no more. Unfortunately, the mental enslavement of black Jamaicans persists. Like physical bondage, mental enslavement restricts us and impedes progress. The legacy of centuries of denigration and dehumanization is ever-present in Jamaican life, primarily the rejection of our blackness, including our hair.

It is 2024, and we are still talking about ‘black’ hair. Just last month, our Court of Appeal ruled that a school in St Catherine, the Kensington Primary School, had breached the constitutional rights of a female student who was denied access to the institution in 2018 because she wore dreadlocks and her parents refused to cut her hair. In handing down the decision, Justice Patrick Brooks stated that the child’s right to freedom of expression and the right to equitable treatment by a public authority were violated. I recall growing up in the ‘70s and witnessing discrimination against Rastafarians, much of it due to their hair. Half a century later, remnants of that discriminatory mindset remain embedded in our society.

REGRESSED

In some areas, we have regressed. In high school in the ‘70s, I wore an afro, as did several of my black schoolmates. Now, I see schools with “two centimetre” and other arbitrary rules. Directives dictating the length of hair is one thing. Confining them to members of a particular ethnic group is another. Grooming is essential, and in some educational institutions, the rules regarding hair length apply to all students regardless of ethnicity. But some schools rigidly police the hair of black children, and the hair of others, such as white and Asian kids, not so much. So Jevaughn’s hair must be shorn like he is in the army, but Krishna is allowed to grow his nice “pretty hair” to a greater length. Yes. It happens.

What some of our educators fail to comprehend is that what takes place in the interior of the cranium is of far greater importance than what adorns it on the outside. There is no correlation between hair length and the ability to learn. Long hair does not somehow infiltrate the brain and interfere with neuronal function. On the other hand, discriminating against and scorning children’s Afrocentric hairstyles can affect their brain circuitry, indoctrinating them to believe the myth that their hair is inferior.

This type of lunacy is not confined to schools. Some workplaces subscribe to this nonsense, too, where some Afrocentric hairstyles are prohibited. Not too long ago, a nurse friend told me she was summoned to a meeting with the human resources manager at the hospital where she works and informed that her Nubian knots (Chiney bumps) were inappropriate for the workplace. I found this ridiculous because sitting at the nurses’ station alongside her were colleagues with processed and false hair, some styled like Snow White’s and Queen Elizabeth’s. So HR is comfortable with hairstyles resembling those worn by the people who oppressed our ancestors but not with those of our ancestors themselves.

LOGIC

The logic of banning these styles escapes me. For example, Kensington Primary defended its decision by stating that dreadlocks could harbour lice and mould. However, this is absurd as there is no scientific evidence that such a hairstyle significantly increases the risks of these trichological maladies. What is also strange is that many schools that police the length of their students’ hair are church-based Christian institutions, some of which have depictions of Jesus Christ sporting long hair. I have never seen an illustration of Jesus with a crew cut. Even if his hair was not long, it is unlikely that it was less than two centimetres.

Also, John the Baptist (who baptised Jesus Christ), Sampson and Samuel, prominent biblical figures, were all Nazirites, which meant that they all had very long hair as the Nazirite vow dictated that you must not cut your hair. In fact, Sampson’s hair was said to be the source of his strength. So, many educators compel children to attend devotion and to revere Jesus Christ and respect the aforementioned Nazirite biblical heroes, but having hair that even approaches anything looking like theirs is deemed unacceptable. What is also weird is that while some schools scorn dreadlocks, there are lawmakers in Jamaica, holding parliamentary and senatorial positions, who sport them. They are permitted to sit in Gordon House and contribute to passing bills and enacting laws in our country.

It is embarrassing how backward we are. For example, in August 2022, Anguilla’s Ministry of Education announced that Afro-Anguillan students would no longer be penalised by their schools for wearing Afrocentric hairstyles such as afros, Nubian knots, corn rows and dreadlocks. By the way, Anguilla is still a British overseas territory. Jamaica, on the other hand, gained its independence from Britain 62 years ago. More recently, in July 2024, Puerto Rico banned discrimination against children wearing Afrocentric hairstyles in its schools. Puerto Rico is still a territory of the United States, which, like Britain, has a predominantly Caucasian population and harbours white supremacist organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan, and interestingly, abolished slavery several decades after Jamaica did (1865 vs 1834).

Long hair and Afrocentric hairstyles have not been proven to increase the risk of scalp infections and infestations. Such hairstyles were reportedly worn by revered religious figures and are displayed atop the heads of some of our lawmakers and children in territories controlled by countries significantly populated by the descendants of enslavers. But here we are, an independent, predominantly black country, dictating how our people of African descent should wear their hair in schools and at their places of employment.

I would ask you to make it make sense. But doing so would be unreasonable because it does not.

Michael Abrahams is an obstetrician and gynaecologist, social commentator and human-rights advocate. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and michabe_1999@hotmail.com, or follow him on X , formerly Twitter, @mikeyabrahams.