My Google-inspired imaginarium

Google Reader, whenever it suddenly goes offline, generates the error message: Sorry an unexpected condition has occurred (which is preventing Google Reader from fulfilling the request). The font of the message is larger than the text on the rest of the page, and is sometimes against a pink background. And each time I see the message, I get startled and take it personally. It's such a severe message: "an unexpected condition", and so non-specific. How did it just occur, the condition? Was there no pathway to this destruction? I start to think ohmygod did I just spontaneously fall pregnant while I was sitting here dreaming up names I would give my pet elephant? Did something fall out? Or off? What fell off?! Was it something I need? And then the second part - the part in brackets that I don't really pay attention to at first - further anthropomorphises the whole scenario. It's as if they're saying 'god, woman, get your nose. We don't mind continuing but we'd rather not do it with your nose all rolling around on the floor and sh!t.'

Or I think maybe it's environmental: some hi-tech tsunami warning that Google and its futuristic, marginally scary braininess have managed to generate via Google Maps or Google Earth or Google We Might As Well Stop Branding And Go By A Symbol Like Prince.

Or supernatural. Like The Rapture is occurring and all ambient energy is required to suck the chosen up into the stratosphere.

But mostly, it's just a lost internet connection. Obviously.

Life is so much better in my head.

Blasphemy is still a thing

Secular campaigners in the Irish Republic defied a strict new blasphemy law which came into force today by publishing a series of anti-religious quotations online and promising to fight the legislation in court.

The new law, which was passed in July, means that blasphemy in Ireland is now a crime punishable with a fine of up to €25,000 (£22,000).

It defines blasphemy as "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted".

Well. This is...medieval.

The law was passed back in July, so I'm late, but it's attracting attention again because Atheist Ireland has just responded to the new law by publishing 25 anti-religious quotations made by or attributed to famous figures, including Jesus Christ himself.

The justice minister, Dermot Ahern, said that the law was necessary because while immigration had brought a growing diversity of religious faiths, the 1936 constitution extended the protection of belief only to Christians.

Except this law doesn't protect religious belief as much as it simultaneously protects the right of some to be outraged and restricts the freedom of others to express thoughts and ideas. My saying, as Christoper Hitchens does, that god is not Great, does not prevent those who believe their god is great from continuing to do so. It does not prevent them from worshipping in their churches or confine their employment opportunities based on their religion. And how completely turned around is it to correct the fact that blasphemy considerations once extended only to the Christian faith by now extending it to all faiths, rather than - perhaps - completely removing from the constitution the outdated notion of blasphemy that obtained when the Church was still head of the State?

I'm sorry but "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion" is a bit too vague for me. I'm going to need more guidance than that. And therein lies the problem with the legislation. It is wholly subjective and difficult to define and prove. Who determines whether the outrage was caused intentionally? How substantial is a 'substantial number of adherents'? Why is your protection from feeling outraged more important than my freedom to engage in reasoned (or not so reasoned, perhaps) discussion of religion and spirituality? Why must I, as a private citizen, be subject to the laws of a religion of which I am not a part? That is to say, what if it is outrageous among the Rastafari to say that Haile Selassie was not divine, he was just a man? Lots of Christians would be having boot sales in the church car park to raise that £22,000. What if scientologists got outraged by a claim that Xenu smelled funny and had bad hair? And this isn't even the old 'slippery slope' argument: the fact is, it is a dangerous thing to subject a population to scores of religious observations to which they are not privy. It is not like hate speech legislation, which aims to protect real, live people and their freedoms, rather than nebulous ideas of deity and religious tenets.

There is a way to protect religious practice and belief, and as Ahern notes, with the growing diversity of these, they should be protected. But these blasphemy laws are not it. There is a difference between feeling threatened in the practice of your faith, and taking offence because another's ideas are not aligned with yours. Hell, I offend my sisters all the time. Not on purpose, because I respect their right to exercise their religious freedom, but as a non-Christian who takes serious umbrage with some of the tenets of their religion, I'm bound to make that known in regular conversation. And that kind of exchange is healthy and necessary, among family but especially in public discourse.

You know, right-wing Christian fundamentalists in the US are probably all packing their bags to move to Ireland as we speak. Because this is the kind of thinking behind their claims that legalizing marriage among gays and lesbians threatens their religion, although no one has been able to articulate to me the process by which this happens. This is the kind of thinking that prioritizes religion over rights and freedoms, and it's a fairly ugly step backwards.

Voices in favour of marital rape

Marital rape is still legal in the Bahamas, and now there is legislation being proposed that would make marital rape a crime, overturning the current system in which consent to sexual intercourse is presumed in a legal marriage. "Under current Bahamian law, a man can be charged with raping his wife only if the two are in divorce proceedings or living apart."

Most news articles on the story begin thus:

Lawmakers are debating a bill that would make marital rape a crime in the Bahamas...

And even though I'm aware that each piece of legislation has its process, I'm forced to wonder what the opponents of this bill could possibly have to say. But I don't have to look far:

The bill already has caused debate on radio talk shows, with some islanders saying women could file false rape charges as leverage for alimony, child support or custody. Others have said the bill contradicts traditional Christian values.

Once again, women are cast as self-serving Jezebels who abuse the legal system in order to manipulate men. Are we still perpetuating this myth that women will easily subject themselves to rape trials in order to 'get even'? Especially when we know that often, women are made victims a second time by the indignity of some of our court proceedings and the victim-blaming found both within the court and in popular discourse? False charges of rape are sometimes made, as is the case with other crimes, but this is not nearly as common a problem as people seem so eager to believe. And in any event, this is the role of due judicial process: to uncover the truth. Are the opponents of this bill suggesting that we leave thousands of women unprotected from sexual violence on the off chance that some woman gets pissed off and tells a lie? Question marks abound in this paragraph, because i am confused.

And the opposition to the bill on the grounds that it contradicts traditional Christian values just makes me weary. Perhaps if your Christian values allow a man to rape his wife, they have no place in law or society.

I'm also a bit concerned by this:

The proposed law would allow a judge to decide the penalty for marital rape. People currently convicted of rape face a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Because surely the legislation must include some sentencing guidance for presiding judges. The law fairly loses its teeth if someone can be charged with raping a partner and then sentenced to six months community service. If rape in a marriage really is rape, then why the need to go softer on the sentencing? I'd say this is one to keep our eyes on, because the mere existence of legislation does not in itself translate to fair protection under the law.

We're all in IDAHO now

Today is IDAHO: International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia, and being from the Caribbean, boy am I glad this day exists as an internationally-recognized occasion around which we can advocate for people to stop the hateful nonsense that is homophobia and transphobia. From the IDAHO UK website:

[IDAHO] was founded by Louis Georges Tin in 2005. Campaigns and Initi[a]tives take place on or around May 17th every year to combat prejudice against LGBT people. May 17th is chosen because it marks the anniversary of the day in 1990 when the World Health Organisation removed homosexuality from its list of mental diseases.

IDAHO is needed because: 86 member states of the United Nations still criminalise consensual same sex among adults. Among these 7 have legal provisions with the death penalty as punishment. In addition, there are 6 provinces or territorial units which also punish hom[o]sexuality with imprisonment.

IDAHO day can also be celebratory because all over the world people are fighting against the persecution of LGBT people and are involved in positive initiatives and campaigns which can be celebrated and give hope for the future.

[...]

This year the IDAHO theme is "End Transphobia: Respect Gender Identity". Please sign the petition to support this campaign.

In December 2008 a declaration against homophobia and gender identity discrimination was finally heard at the General Assembly of the United Nations.

http://ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/08/Dec/1802.htm

The website also lists IDAHO events in the UK by region, and you can see what else is going on worldwide here.

Amid growing calls in the international activist community to boycott tourism and products that would benefit 'homophobic countries' - on the list of which Jamaica features high - Barbados too has been censured in a recent shadow report "for its criminalisation of same-sex sexual activity and the violation of the rights of lesbian[s], gay[s], bisexual[s] and transgender[ed people] (LGBT)." While I think that the types of boycotts mentioned are often ill-conceived and counter-productive (if you want to change public attitudes towards the LGBT community, maintaining the already poor in poverty is not the way to do it), and based on the absurd notion that for example Jamaica is one homogeneous society thinking and acting as one, I do believe that properly-implemented action by the international community is one of the ways to develop political will among these countries' own governments to effect change from within. Tying development aid or representation on certain international bodies to the proven enforcement of human rights conventions is one place to start, and while it is not the place of the US or any other country to wholly dictate cultural values to another country, it is certainly the place of all of us to expose institutionalized bigotry and hate in countries that claim to promote human freedoms for all.

And positive momentum is already building. Barbados, with a highly-educated young population who acknowledge the value of complete civil freedoms, is fully engaged in a discussion on LGBT rights. While there is a significant, religion-led voice that would seek to withhold these rights - as there is in the US (let us acknowledge that this is not some purely 'third world' scourge as some would represent), there is also a progressive, politically savvy community that is becoming less afraid to support the LGBT struggle for equality. And this community is growing, and becoming more equipped to expose the insularity and fear that are at the root of most of the anti-gay arguments.

So on this IDAHO, I feel hopeful and encouraged to continue to advocate alongside and in support of LGBT individuals, especially in my corner of the world, one of the places it is most needed. I think that with our commitment, truth, justice and - let's face it - plain common sense and decency will win.

The ghosts are coming!

Quick! Someone skip around in a circle while saying "Bailey!" three times or whatever you need to do to call Jennifer Love Hewitt! As Maya would say, we've got ghosts all up and through.

The majority of Britons believe in heaven and life after death, new research suggests.

The survey of 2,060 people showed 55% believe in heaven, while 53% believe in life after death and 70% believe in the human soul.

The study was carried out between October and November last year for the public theology think tank Theos.

It also suggested that nearly four in 10 people, 39%, believe in ghosts and 27% believe in reincarnation.

A further 22% believe in astrology or horoscopes and 15% believe in fortune telling or Tarot.

The think tank said the findings were "especially striking" when compared to the 1950s.

Then only 10% of the public told Gallup that they believed in ghosts and just 2% thought they had seen one.

I tend not to rule out supernatural encounters. Life is weird and mysterious, and just because we have not yet come to terms with something doesn't mean it's not going to jump out and yell at us sometimes.

I feel less certain, if that's possible, about heaven and hell. (The study, though, seems not to reflect the "if there's a heaven, surely there must be the opposite" belief of Christian religion.) Surely, even the most evil could be made infinitely more productive if they didn't just stand around permanently engulfed in flames wailing, moaning, gnashing teeth and whatnot. And if this is in fact just a metaphor, and we'll each experience our own personal hells, then mine would be a permanent loop of Samuel L Jackson films, Celine Dion and Enrique Iglesias duets on the radio and only celery and yogurt to eat. Just thinking about it is making me want to pray to someone.

I’m in “Good” Company: Hitler, Mussolini and Pinochet

The mongoose has her first guest post. Last week, Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho became famous in the news for the excommunication of the adults involved in providing an abortion to a nine-year-old child who had been raped by her stepfather. Today, Jodi, a writer from Jamaica and one of the directors of WHAN, shares her thoughts on the incident from a religious and philosophical perspective. Welcome, Jodi and take it away:
_______________________________________________________________

“Practical Wisdom is the combination of moral will and moral skill.” – Aristotle

Tonight I read that a nine year old girl had an abortion and as a result a Brazilian archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church, Father Sobrinho, excommunicated her mother and the medical doctors who carried out the abortion. Apart from the fact that the girl is nine, the medical doctors decided to carry out the abortion because:

1. The child was going to die because she only weighs 80 pounds and can’t support two foetuses. The little girl was pregnant with twins. (Attention Father Sobrinho supporters: if the child was going to die, chances are the foetuses weren’t going to make it either.)
2. The child was raped by her step-father.
3. The child is nine years old.
4. Nine.
5. Years.
6. Old.

The fact that the child’s life was in danger is enough for a logical person to feel that the abortion was a sensible decision taken by the adults in her life in order to save her life. Without even knowing it, we automatically apply Aristotle’s definition of Practical Wisdom in order to come to these decisions. Moral skill allows us to know what is right and moral will allows us to do what is right, often in spite of what the rule book, society or our family says we should do. Rather than apply practical wisdom, however, the Catholic Church has chosen stupidity and hatred in the form of excommunication.

Excommunication in every practical sense of the word means nothing to a non-religious person such as myself. In the Roman Catholic Church, it is merely a formal announcement (not usually made public) that someone is no longer allowed to receive sacraments other than reconciliation. Reconciliation is the act of asking a priest for forgiveness and paying penance. Penance is usually the recital of a few well-rehearsed prayers such as the Hail Mary and the Our Father. If you’ve been really, really bad you can only be reconciled by the Pope himself. Otherwise, you can more than likely be reconciled by the local archbishop. Hallelujah!

Though excommunication may seem like a silly consequence to people like me, to someone who is religious and who relies on the Catholic Church as their community and a major source of support in times of difficulty, I can imagine that excommunication is a cause of great shame and may create a sense of hopelessness and confusion as well as loss of self esteem. For them, excommunication from the Church is the same as being sentenced to hell.

I know all of this because I am a Roman Catholic. I should say that though I am not a practicing Catholic, I have not yet been excommunicated. Apparently, I am in good company; other non-practicing, non-ex-communicated Roman Catholics were Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Augusto Pinochet who each managed to avoid being excommunicated from the Church while they were alive.

I can’t argue this from a biblical standpoint. I am not a Christian and I can’t even pretend to know the bible. In my own opinion, religion has been and continues to be a tool used by men for centuries to carry out atrocities upon groups of people they hate. Unfortunately, women have always fallen into that category. Some will argue that just as religion has been used to carry out atrocities, it has also been used to carry out good. Well, I am sorry, but I do not believe that the end justifies the means. I’m sure that Hitler, Mussolini and Pinochet did nice things for people they liked on the same day as they were ordering the murder and torture of others. I also believe that the people who do good in the name of religion would do good without the existence of religion. However, some people who carry out evil in the name of religion would think twice about doing so without the support of their religious leaders and followers.

This is not a rant against religion, and I apologise if it seems that way; it is a rant against this ugly act against this family and a plea for humanity to apply a little practical wisdom each day in spite of rules of law, religion or society.

Sorry, no laughing. It's Lent

My friends are asking me what I've given up for Lent, and everywhere I go, people are hunched over in talks about their respective decisions as if they're at a G8 summit. Maybe I was a completely clueless Christian when I used to go to church - which is likely - but I never heard of all this Lent sacrifice in my evangelical church. I think that has to do with the separation in Christendom after the Reformation. Martin Luther hooked us up.

Even at primary school, where they dragged us to Ash Wednesday service and rubbed ashes on our foreheads in the shape of a cross, I don't recall such decisions being discussed. All Ash Wednesday service marked was a comparison of the blackened smudges and a competition to see who could keep them on our foreheads the longest:

Child 1: Ooh you got a big cross!
Child 2: Yea but my ash is falling off 'cause it's too much to stick.
Child 3: At least you got real ash and not just a dark mark.
Child 4: Fill it in with crayon!
Child 2: Crayon don't mark skin, foolbert.

And so on.

But this Lent thing seems pretty mainstream these days, like New Year's resolutions, only better, because you don't have to pretend you're actually going to keep it up for a whole year. After the forty days, it's right back to good, old-fashioned sinning and debauchery. Or in some cases, just back to Facebook.

It seems you don't have to give up the biblical sins for Lent, just something you consider a vice. While at my friend's house the other day, her daughter decided she was going to give up 'fizzy drinks'. Then she remembered that it was already past Ash Wednesday and she had had one that day, so she had to find something else to give up. Apparently chocolate was out because it too had suffered the similar fate of her forgetfulness. I suggested that she give up fighting with her brother, but she gave me a withering, 'old people are so stupid' look and said "No, that's not possible." The girl knows her limitations.

Another friend of mine is giving up the following: flour (poor flour, walking along minding its own business, trying to feed people, and then 'Whap! You're a vice now, fella. Into the pokey with you.'), junk food, drinking, cursing and sex. I pointed out the irony of an unmarried Christian giving up sex for Lent. "Why don't you give up say, fornication, you know - forever?" I asked. She laughed. She too knows her limitations.

I'm not giving anything up for Lent. I've worked hard to perfect my vices and I'm keeping them. But I'd love to hear what other people are giving up, or how you feel about the tradition in general. So leave your thoughts in comments, if you haven't given up typing for Lent.

The prophet Jeremiah figures in Jamaica abortion debate

The debate continues over abortion law in Jamaica, after an Abortion Policy Review Advisory Group last year recommended that the law be changed to make abortion legal. Termination of pregnancy is now illegal under an 1864 Offences Against the Person Act, although common law permits the procedure in cases of significant fetal abnormality; where pregnancy would represent a threat to the welfare or health of the mother; and where pregnancy is an outcome of rape or incest.

Over the weekend, a local group, The Coalition of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn, called the suggested decriminilization measures 'revolting', and took particular exception to a recommendation in the proposed law prescribing sanctions against medical personnel who refused to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of 'conscience'.

And more recently, the Jamaica Gleaner reported on a pro-life pastor who compared a provision in the draft bill to Adolf Hitler's plan to exterminate Germans with physical or mental disabilities, a comparison which might perhaps be valid if said Germans had been living inside various women at the time. The pastor of course went on to quote the Christian bible in an attempt to show that "God's plan for human lives started from conception."

According to the clergyman, God said to Jeremiah: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee ... and ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." He said this indicated that God had a specific plan for the prophet's life even before he was born. He argued that no doctor, psychologist or theologian could determine God's plan for a human life. In that regard, he said abortion should remain unlawful, except in the most extreme cases such as proven threat to the life of the mother.

Although, I'm not sure how we would know that God's plan for that foetus isn't way more important than whatever the mother was doing at the time. I mean, according to the pastor's argument, what if that child would have cured cancer, whereas the mother was pretty much just hanging out shelling peas and watching Gilmore Girls? Does God's supposed plan for this foetus just go away because it's a threat to the mother's life? And if the two lives are equally valuable to God, how is it we automatically choose the mother's? Or is God going to tap us on the shoulder and say, "Um yeah. So I'm going to go ahead and keep the cancer-curer kid. I know you have your laws and stuff that you used me to make but...ooh. Awkward."

Reverend Thames said in the case of rape or child abuse, there should not be an automatic abortion, but attempts should be made to preserve the life of the child and counsel the mother to consider adoption. "If the mother insists on an abortion, this should not be treated as a criminal offence, but as the subject of further counselling," he added.

And if I throw a really heavy shoe at someone who's trying to 'counsel' me into his own agenda after I've been through an extremely traumatic experience? What will that be treated as?

Certain things are clearly still escaping the way we govern in the Caribbean: like the fact that your religion cannot dictate my reproductive choices, and that even setting aside the origin of the State's laws, it is still not allowed to plant its flag in my uterus. Ultimately, a woman must be allowed to determine what happens to her own body, for reasons that have to do with human rights, health and well-being, and personal freedoms.

Gay Rastas jump off cliffs

I’Akobi Maloney was a 23-year-old, Barbadian university graduate who was found dead on June 18, 2008 after an encounter with police. Law enforcement officers said they were responding to a call of a drug landing in the north of the island when they “observed and interviewed” the young man. During this time, he apparently "suddenly ran and jumped off a cliff.” Well the Maloney family was having none of it, and with the support of their community, managed to have an inquest opened into his death.

Media coverage of the Coroner’s Court proceedings has been a bit questionable, and has included publication of a private journal entry that Maloney was supposed to have written. But perhaps the most ridiculous part of the inquest surfaced recently in this Nation newspaper article, and focuses on the testimony of a gay man who claimed to be in a relationship with someone who may or may not have also been in a relationship with the deceased. You probably need to read that again very slowly. And while you’re at it, take a look at this:

Shon Boyce, who admitted to being a homosexual from his childhood days said he was introduced to Jason Collymore, a former witness at the inquest, in 2003.

He was introduced to Collymore, he said, and they subsequently got involved in a same-sex relationship where he was the outside man, since Collymore, who works at the Cement Plant, told him that he had a Rastaman and he, Boyce, should never come to the house when the man was there.

He said Collymore lived at White Hall Main Road in an apartment, and he did not know the Rastaman's name as it was never told to him, but he used to pass a man on the stairway going down smiling as he would be going up. Boyce said he only recognised that the man was Maloney when he saw the advertisement in the paper and decided to come forward and give testimony after reading Collymore's evidence in the newspaper that he was not gay.

I love how they mention that Mr. Boyce “admitted to being a homosexual”, as if this were on par with, say, admitting to being the Unabomber. And notice the use of what, in Barbados, is scandalous language like "outside man" and "had a Rastaman". Now this is not a direct quote, so presumably this particular testimony by the witness could have been conveyed in a less prejudicial way. The inquest goes on to discuss in detail the supposed intimate relationship of these three men, and throughout, I am trying to figure out what in the name of all that is holy any of this has to do with whether there was foul play involved. Or is it that, in their experience, gay men often jump to their deaths?

Then “Constable Wendell Walkes…went into some personal history, on the questioning of Coroner Faith Marshall-Harris, about his own Rasta brother's suicide.” I get the trend here: Rastafari people are clearly prone to suicide, so if you’re gay and Rasta, well, surely that’s enough to drive anybody off a cliff.

I don’t know what happened on that cliff in Cove Bay last year, but I’m not sure what the inquest is trying to establish by focusing on Maloney’s religion and raising conjectures about his sexuality. Perhaps they’re implying that in a homophobic society like Barbados, a secretly gay man might feel tortured enough to end his life. But all they and the media who give them voice are succeeding in doing, which might also be their goal, is encouraging those who see gay people as unimportant and dispensable to carry on in such thinking.

I can't handle the truth

I wish I were a bigger woman, but ever since Tom Cruise outed himself as a wackadoodle, it affects my enjoyment of his older films. I don't consider Cruise's furrowed-brow approach to every emotion brilliant acting, but sometimes that wild-eyed grimace is just what a movie needs. And he is the face of a few classics that I like to dig up now and again, like A Few Good Men and Top Gun. But Mission Impossible III was on TV this weekend, and every time I saw his face, I just wanted to keep yelling "Glib! GLIB!" at the television.

Sometimes I really don't want to know the truth about actors. Then - as in the case of Sean Connery (I knew there was a reason Roger Moore was my favourite Bond) - I might be forced to hate them forever.

LolDarwin of the day: Open post

I was just sent this Guardian story, along with the admonition:

You should write about this. It is so full of idiotic ideas, one hardly knows where to begin.

This might be the truest thing ever spoken. According to the story:

The Ulster Museum in Belfast faces a legal challenge unless it stages a creationist exhibition as a counter to its forthcoming series on Charles Darwin, a Democratic Unionist member of the Northern Ireland assembly warned today.

The chairman of the education committee at the Northern Ireland Assembly said: "I am not against the museum or anywhere else promoting Darwin's theory, but I think it would be in the public's interest to give them an alternative theory as well."

I don't want to turn this into a creationism vs. evolution battle, so I will highlight a very simple fact: we're talking about a museum. The UK Museums Association defines museums as "institutions that collect, safeguard and make accessible artifacts and specimens, which they hold in trust for society." Charles Darwin was an important scientist who made a significant contribution to theories on the natural history of the world. He collected specimens and submitted copious written records that led us to a much greater understanding than we would have had without his efforts. Whatever you believe about the man or his theories, they both belong in a museum.

If there is a similar figure behind creationism, if there is similarly thorough and tangible evidence to support robust theory, then by all means, have a creationism exhibition. I suspect, however, that it might be a little sparse.

You know what I wish? I wish people could be discerning enough to separate their own religious passions from the governance and education of the public. But I'm not going to rage against the machine. I'm instead making this an open post so you can tell me what you think. Have at it.

I am not my hair. And neither are you

It took long enough, but it’s finally happening: the discussion of whether Michelle Obama should or will change her hairstyle to one that more ‘accurately reflects’ her ethnicity. Erin Aubry Kaplan writes an interesting piece at Salon.com, considering whether part of our acceptance of the First Lady is tied up in her straight, shiny, inoffensive hair, and whether America would be quite so gracious if she rolled out of the White House one day in box braids or an afro. Aubry suggests that – aided in part by Chris Rock’s recently released documentary “Good Hair” – America might be moving towards a black hair moment, in which white people feel more comfortable questioning and understanding once and for all the mystique surrounding the history and ritual of styling black hair.

I’m not quite as annoyed by the article as I thought I would be. Aubry is right about the various associations black women and others have with different types of hair. Relaxed hair is largely seen by the mainstream as well-behaved and harmless, while dreads are seen as revolutionary. (I say ‘dreads’, ‘dreadlocks’, ‘locks’. Please don’t come in here yelling at me about how natural hair is not ‘dreadful’ because that’s not what it means. The term first originated among the early Rastafari to mean that the wearer lived a 'dread' life, or a life in which he feared God.) I do, however, take exception to the tasking of the women in the Obama family – especially the daughters – with sorting out images of black hair and blackness on behalf of the African American community. While it might be interesting to see the First Lady’s greased scalp peeking out from amongst some corkscrews, what would that really say about her? Would we feel more assured of her blackness, and feel that she was fighting the good fight on behalf of natural hair and images of natural, black beauty? And is it her fight to fight? (I promise that’s the end of the rhetorical questions.)

The only thing the way Michelle Obama wears her hair tells me is how Michelle Obama likes to wear her hair. Perhaps she is embroiled in some consuming identity struggle as all wearers of relaxed hair apparently must be, or perhaps she got tired of breaking combs or spending three hours every day just parting her hair. For goodness sake, just let the woman have her own hair evolution like the rest of us. She’s 45 now, and probably well past the “I’m going back to Africa which as it turns out is very convenient because it takes way too long to straighten my hair in the mornings before class anyway” university days; and the “maybe if I just texturized it I could have that cool black girl vibe and still be able to comb it” phase. But whatever relationship she is still to have with her hair, it is her own, and – and I’m really going to be in trouble now – it’s just hair.

Many of my girlfriends wear dreads. For some, it is the end (or is it?) of a journey in which they experimented with several hairstyles that did not satisfy their wallets or their mirrors or their souls, or all three. And so they began the dreadlock journey and now wear their locks with pride.

For others of my friends, their hair is a crusade; it’s a religion; they are the Jehovah’s Witnesses of hair. My late grandmother was a Jehovah’s Witness, and even though she was the gentlest spirit you will meet, she was always handy with that ubiquitous Watchtower - you have to admire their devotion. But these friends aren’t the gentle types like Dorothy (how great is it that my grandmothers were called Blanche and Dorothy, who are clearly the coolest of the four Golden Girls? Thank you for being a friend!) They are smug and judgmental. I, with my relaxed hair, am self-loathing and brainwashed by Whitey, while they, in all their dreadlocked wisdom, have found The Way. They cannot have a conversation without disparaging some other black woman’s choice of hair maintenance and simultaneously praising their own. I once had a woman tell me, when she learnt that I perform African dance, that I don’t ‘look the part’. I promptly looked down at my arm to see if my pigment was starting to fade. Apparently, I should leave the African dance to the real black people. And the kicker is that some of these are the same women who, on special occasions, take their inspired behinds on over to the hairdresser to have their hair wound around rollers or flattened to death or pinned to within an inch of their lives in order to emerge with neat little drop curls or Victorian up-dos. Steamroll your locks if you must, but don’t then stand in judgment of me when you are aspiring to the same ‘mainstream aesthetic’ as I.

I have had unprocessed hair that I wore ‘out’, braids, weaves, twists, afros, cornrows and relaxed hair. I had a moment back in secondary school when I started reading books on Rastafari and twisting my natural hair, and since I was already a dancehall/reggae historian, my mother – who ordinarily let me be with my various explorations – was all set to call either the pastor or the police. She managed to avoid both after I realized that Rastafari was in fact not the one religion where women were not second class citizens. (Throughout all the holy wars and Reformations, what a thing to still have in common.) And I also once had my dear Jupins, good friend and old roommate in the DR, come into my room and spend two hours helping me part and comb my afro, and massage my scalp that had become sore and tender from the combing. I have the original black girl nappography going on up there, none of that blow in the breeze stuff. But my hair has always been something for me to experiment with. And black women, even the poor, brainwashed straight hair-having ones, have once again shown how when we do something, we do it with style and make it our own.

There is a great deal of creative energy behind many styles of relaxed hair: from the Mohawk warrior do which see the sides shaven and the crown fiercely upright, to the blues and oranges worn like plumage. I don’t believe in punishing hair in the name of style – if your plumage is staying behind on the bathroom floor it may be time to look into some braids or an afro – but it’s a fun accessory to play with. And it really is just hair. I am no less black because I’ve made it straight. And if I feel like shaving one side and wearing the other blue, which I might do, and then stand next to Ms. Dreadlock Earth Mother with her drop curl locks, who is likely to look more revolutionary?

But I won’t do that, because I refuse to contribute to this spirit of competition – tacitly encouraged by men - which constantly pits women against each other. I love all black hair (or should I say most because sweet fancy Moses who is styling the weaves in London and why are they so bent on uglying us up?) I love the dreads, the afros, the straight, pink hair and the corkscrews, because they are all expressions of blackness by different people with different things to say. I’m not saying we don’t have issues as a community with loving our blackness. There was a reason my mother pulled my nose up when she gave me a bath, and why as a child I put a yellow towel on my head and flicked by ‘blonde hair’ about while singing into a hairbrush in the mirror. But while we keep the dialogue open and reassure our children that they are beautiful, women have to have their own journey, and their reasons for how they style their hair as adults are not yours to approve. So, you do your hair, and I’ll do mine.

The dreadlocked beauty above is Kali-Ahset Amen, featured as a DivaSoulSista 2006.
The picture of Michelle Obama is among those featured in a Vogue spread by Annie Leibovitz, 2007.

Four percent of people do not believe in cucumbers

The Guardian reports that

Half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22% preferring the theories of creationism or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, according to a survey.

The poll found that 25% of Britons believe Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is "definitely true", with another quarter saying it is "probably true". Half of the 2,060 people questioned were either strongly opposed to the theory or confused about it.

This is going to get me yelled at, but how do you believe or not believe in something for which there is clear, scientific evidence? Isn't that quite like not believing in fingernails or cucumbers? I have nothing against people's practice of religion, but surely it must be robust enough to stand up to scientific theory and fact.