Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List

Here is a link to this page:

Dreadlocks or just locks?

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 23
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 11/24/2016 1:06:49 PM

Fashion locks and dreadlocks.
Yes Iahs.
In all honesty the ones who have been pushing to remove the dread from the word dreadlocks are not natural 'locksmiths' they do not identify with rastafari and although some claim some level pf consciousness.... are not in the same paradigm as InI. So yes, i agree with the I dem line of reason still

Give thanks especially Jah child for the inclusion of the Sphinx. Like Rastafari, a perfect fit for both definitions.


Messenger: JAH Child Sent: 11/24/2016 10:51:29 PM

Yes Iyah

Messenger: RastaGoddess Sent: 11/25/2016 8:33:39 AM

Good reasonings!Garveys and Jah Child, you both have taught I something NU!

Give thankhs!

Messenger: RastaGoddess Sent: 11/25/2016 8:33:40 AM

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 11/27/2016 6:35:00 AM

NEWS SEP 21 2016, 6:07 PM ET
U.S. Court Rules Dreadlock Ban During Hiring Process Is Legal



The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled against a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Catastrophe Management Solutions, effectively ruling that refusing to hire someone because of their dreadlocks is legal.

The lawsuit was filed by the EEOC on behalf of Chastity Jones, whose job offer was rescinded by Catastrophe Management Solutions, located in Mobile, Alabama. According to the case file, Jeannie Wilson, a human resources manager for CMS, commented on Jones' dreadlocks during a private hiring meeting to discuss scheduling conflicts, telling Jones, "they tend to get messy, although I'm not saying yours are, but you know what I'm talking about." Wilson told Jones that CMS would not bring Jones on board with dreadlocks, terminating the job offer.

RELATED: Charlene Dance is Taking the Natural Hair Movement Global

In their suit, the EEOC claimed that this was a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's Title VII, arguing that dreadlocks are a "racial characteristic" that have been historically used to stereotype African-Americans as "not team players" and as unfit for the workplace. Therefore, claiming that dreadlocks do not fit a grooming policy is based on these stereotypes and inherently discriminatory, as dreadlocks are a hairstyle "physiologically and culturally associated" with African-Americans.

Rushay Booysen / Getty Images
The court of appeals disagreed, ruling that CMS's "race-neutral grooming policy" was not discriminatory as hairstyles, while "culturally associated with race," are not "immutable physical characteristics." In essence, traits in a person's appearance that are tied to their culture but are otherwise changeable are not protected and can be used to deny job offers.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has been routinely interpreted by the courts to only protect against "immutable characteristics" and not cultural practices. In Garcia v. Gloor, the courts ruled against the plaintiff, arguing that being fired for speaking Spanish at work despite their employers English-only policy did not violate Title VII.

RELATED: Alleged Discrimination Against Dallas Prep School Students Offers a Lesson

Restrictions against dreadlocks have also been implemented in schools. This past July, Attica Scott, whose daughter is a student at Butler Traditional High School in Louisville, Kentucky, tweeted the dress code distributed by the school, which specifically prohibited "dreadlocks, cornrows, and twists."

Messenger: JAH Child Sent: 11/27/2016 8:26:39 AM

Yes beloved Goddess.
Garveys Afrika give thankhs for sharing this article... "In essence, traits in a person's appearance that are tied to their culture but are otherwise changeable are not protected and can be used to deny job offers." Wow. And that final paragraph.... My best answers, homeschool and self employment.
Fyah burn babywrong

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 11/27/2016 8:10:36 PM

My mother get told to chop i dread as a 6 year old entering junior school. I get sent home and told not to return until i secondtime natty chop in first year of high school.

Now man turn a man locks will never chop much less for any babylon works. If a so man would take it to the courts. If the courts rule against i man will take it to the high courts newsmedia and social platform. Man wil create so much pressure and attention toward the work that it wouldnt benefit them at all to persue it. We have to collectively fight this beast and not give up at the first second or third hurdle. This is a long distance cross country hurdle race.

Interestingly enough i see this ruling is generalised for locks as an expression of culture. I would urge ones to instead explore the dreadlocks as a 'religious' need and religious rights as rastafari instead. I think this would have had more of a bearing (i dont think the person involve here was specifically a ras). As im sure workforces are not allowed to openly discriminate against seekhs for wearing turbans or jewish for wearing fe dem style of locks etc so 'religous' reasons are different

Still the ruling is both unsuprising yet TERRIBLE at the same time.

Bless up

Messenger: Sister Ifua Sent: 11/29/2016 5:05:58 PM

Cut off your culture like your hair and be oh so grateful to get a job...

Life is DREAD inna Babylon and as long it is dread, InI will be dread! What a question; Rastafari has always been dread to the downpressor man. Samson was dread to the Philistines; the Lion of Judah is CONQUERING. And so is his mane also feared. Teferi means "The One who is feared".


Thank you JAH Child! :-)

Messenger: JAH Child Sent: 11/30/2016 1:32:45 PM

Yes Ras Garvey and Sister Ifua!
Fearsome and terrible
ReverencedNattylock upon I&I Ras.
Give th ankhs
Ras TafarI

Messenger: Israel Sent: 12/4/2016 8:35:10 AM

Jesus is a DREADLOCKS Rastaman

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 23

Return to Reasoning List

Haile Selassie I