Talk:Dreadlocks/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Dreadlocks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page contains the posts to Talk:Dreadlocks, as archived on 11:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Jeeze! Why the photo of the white guy with the disheveled looking, unkempt dreads? I think a photo of the real deal would be far better. Find someone with coarse, naturally nappy, well-groomed hair, please! deeceevoice 15:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deleted passage about dreads being low-maintenance. If you've got long nappy hair, dreads can be pretty high-maintenance (and heavy). Removed the backshot (

) of the woman with braids. They're not dreads, so they're not applicable to this article. deeceevoice 19:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Caucasian

I do not like the term caucasian, so I changed it to whites to refer to people of european descent. I am not sure about the Wikipedia policy on this…

There is no set policy. Whites are Caucasians; the two words are interchangeable (but it is capitalized). But, hey, whatever floats your boat. deeceevoice 11:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's a problem in a fundamental premise

The article says: "For locks of fairly uniform size and neatness, most blacks will begin the process by oiling and sectioning off the hair into small braids or tightly twisted tufts."

This is factually incorrect. It's well known that oiling the hair that is to be locked will actually slow down the locking process for black people with 'black' hair. It's fine to oil the scalp, but not the hair. In fact, one MUST oil the scalp for general scalp health.

The basic way to form dreadlocks in 'black hair' is simply to not comb it. The person who wishes to wear locks can oil their scalp regularly, should wash frequently (in salt water if available) and do all general forms of hair upkeep. The two things that should not be done are combing and cutting.

It's as simple as that. I can't speak authoritatively on how it occurs for people with straighter hair, but there's how black folks make it happen in the Rasta tradition. There is no twisting or braiding involved. In fact, anything that makes the locking process easier or faster is regarded as something akin to sacrilege among the Rasta faithful.

Of course, there are other locking methods and traditions that have emerged. They are alternately called Nubian Locks, African Locks, etc. (eschewing the negative connotations of 'dread'). These other traditions may employ different methods to start or maintain locks, but the fundamental fact is that oiling the lock itself retards the locking process. --Adisa 06:29, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Adisa, see my comments below. Further, this article is about dreads -- not Rasta dreads. The article already says hair dreads naturally. What's your beef? People achieve the look in different ways -- and, by far, the most reliable way to for people who want a more groomed look (unlike the brother in the photo) is to uniformly section the hair off and start them that way. I'm not defending the article in its entirety -- especially all that crap about crochet hooks and stuff or perceptions about dreads being dirty. (I'm not at all interested in how white folks torture their hair into some simulation of Rasta locks or the misperceptions of the ignorant.) But someone wanted to put it in, and I left it. I appreciate you catching my edit error with the oil; I knew that. (Folks shouldn't use conditioners on their hair, either.) But next time you see something incorrect, change it. Nothing on Wiki is set in stone. deeceevoice 07:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just put a bit of what Adisa said at Rastafarianism#Dreadlocks, --SqueakBox 01:39, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

This page is terrible

I don't think I've seen a worse page. I'm not really informed about dreadlocks, a fact I was trying to remedy by looking to this page, so if anyone is, please help me out here. I removed the list of celebrities with dreadlocks because that was the fecal topping to the whole ordeal, but other things may need some informed editing. --The Grza 23:03, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Besides the removal of the pointless celebrities, I have also removed some of the more pointless information. I would suggest that whoever edits this page next remove all the information pertaining to "How To" and include, maybe some actual information. I fixed it about as much as I am informed enough to do, but it needs a lot more work.--The Grza 23:21, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, well! lol Don't be afraid to speak your mind. If you thought this page was crap when you got here, you should have seen it before.

Yeah, I know you don't oil black hair before you start dreads. I was thinking about oiling the scalp. Such cognitive slips, incomplete/screwy edits happen when people compose and type at the same time. Not a big deal. If you see an error, then correct it. But you didn't. So, I went back and did it.

Yes, the business about hair care, arguably, can be omitted. And while you may disagree with its inclusion, it is "actual" information. As far as the list of people with dreads -- obviously, someone thought it important enough, or of interest enough, to add. (It seems that articles on Wiki are replete with such lists.) The same is true of the links. I am inclined to leave them. I think your criticisms are a lot of bluster without much substance, frankly, and consisted primarily of deleting information you deem extraneous. It's likely others who may have included the info in the first place will come behind you and restore it. I did revert a split verb you edited into the text, but left much of your edits untouched. I'll leave that to others who may feel strongly about one thing or another.

One thing that would be extremely helpful if you have the time, however, that I think we may both agree on is the need for a decent photo. There was one earlier of a white guy with some fairly nasty-looking dreads -- hardly the example one reasonably would expect in such an article but typical of what kind of crap one sees on Wikipedia all the time. Someone deleted it, thankfully. And I deleted the photo of a woman with braids as irrelevant. But now there's no pic at all. If you have access to a decent photo of some real dreads (read "black" and "nappy" and preferably beautifully groomed) without copyright problems, it'd be great if you'd add it. deeceevoice 01:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To your response- The only posts I made were under this heading so I made no reference to "oiling" or any such information. Like I said, I am not really informed on how dreadlocks are created and I am in no position to make such comments. To your second point, which was the list, I thought the reasoning behind deleting it would be obvious to all, but apparently it is not. The list of "People with dreadlocks" is both infinitely incomplete and doesn't actually give us any information about the dreadlocks. If you feel the list is necessary, why not include everyone who has had hair on the Hair page or all the famous people with tattoos on the tattoo page. Also, the links were all "How To make dreadlocks" links. I really don't think there needs to be seven links to the same type of webpages. If someone thinks that there should be more, put them back, it isn't that big of a deal. They're just incredibly repetative. Perhaps someone would consider posting a link about Dreadlocks themselves, that might be interesting after all. To the picture, I'll try to find one. I'm not sure why it needs to be black, but I'll see what I find. And yes, I did say what I thought. The page was and still is crap and needs to be fixed a lot. --The Grza 02:34, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I never said the list was necessary. I said I have no strong feelings about it one way or another -- merely that others might. After all, I've seen such lists attached to all sorts of articles on Wiki, so that seems to be a Wiki peculiarity. With regard to links, I think I added one to the list -- only because there was no decent photo available, and the link I provided had a few pics of black folks with dreads. I haven't checked out all the links provided, but wholesale deletion of all of them seems excessive. Are they all completely worthless? And, yes. The dreadlocks photo should definitely be of a black person -- for, I think, fairly obvious reasons, which I will not debate. deeceevoice 08:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you were confused. I didn't delete them all, I left three links to sites nearly identical to the other sites I deleted. I imagine that three versions of the same information is enough. I did, however, suggest that those who knew better links or saw that I deleted perhaps some with more intriguing and in depth information on a hairstyle replace them. As for the race of the person involved in the dreadlock picture, it really doesn't matter, does it? There should at least be a picture on this page, even if it's only until a better picture is found. --The Grza 11:42, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

When I wrote the last note, I'd been switching among articles in different screens, at a time when the site was extremely sluggish. I probably was looking at another article when I wrote what I did re the links. My bad. As I've already stated, to me, the ethnicity of the person most definitely matters in an article on dreadlocks. I wouldn't have deleted the photo of the ratty-looking fake dreads that was already there. I think whoever did it tried to insert another in its place, because at the same time the photo disappeared, that multi-colored Wiki photo template appeared in its place -- which I deleted. But I'm glad the photo is gone, and I'm perfectly happy to leave it blank until a suitable photo of a black with dreadlocks can be found. deeceevoice 11:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It occurred to me to revisit Rastafarianism -- and there was a photo. The dreads aren't as neat as I'd prefer, but at least they're the real deal. I'd change the caption, though, to simply "Dreadlocks," but I don't know how -- and I've got a deadline this a.m. Maybe I'll read up later and fix it when I have more time. Peace. deeceevoice 12:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick - but - why should a photo of someone with dreads be limited to a particular ethnicity? I accept the term 'dreads' is derived from Rastafari, but what it describes is fairly universal. NickW 19:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) (white with non-'fake' dreads).

I agree with you to a point NickW. Dreadlocks have some connotation in some circles as being a "black power" symbol, an anti-white emblem as I understand it. If there is to be a argument over ethnicity, the reasoning for both sides needs to be explained on the page, instead of in here.--The Grza 21:37, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hold up! Black power, black pride, even black nationalism are not, ipso facto, "anti-white." Don't confuse the two! Rastafari, as a matter of fact, often (generally?) welcome white folks. And I've already said I wouldn't get into a debate about why a black photo. Suffice it to say that I wouldn't post a photo of a dyed redhead in the Wiki article on "red hair." Why? It's contrived! The fact that the dreadlocks article when dealing with white hair talks about crochet hooks and sewing with thread and wrapping the hair in wool and teasing and ratting and using wax and all that ridiculous mess in order to torture/force white hair into dreadlocks says it all. While all human hair will 5 (UTC)

Nope. I never said the list was necessary. I said I have no strong feelings about it one way or another -- merely that others might. After all, I've seen such lists attached to all sorts of articles on Wiki, so that seems to be a Wiki peculiarity. With regard to links, I think I added one to the list -- only because there was no decent photo available, and the link I provided had a few pics of black folks with dreads. I haven't checked out all the links provided, but wholesale deletion of all of them seems excessive. Are they all completely worthless? And, yes. The dreadlocks photo should definitely be of a black person -- for, I think, fairly obvious reasons, which I will not debate. deeceevoice 08:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you were confused. I didn't delete them all, I left three links to sites nearly identical to the other sites I deleted. I imagine that three versions of the same information is enough. I did, however, suggest that those who knew better links or saw that I deleted perhaps some with more intriguing and in depth information on a hairstyle replace them. As for the race of the person involved in the dreadlock picture, it really doesn't matter, does it? There should at least be a picture on this page, even if it's only until a better picture is found. --The Grza 11:42, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

When I wrote the last note, I'd been switching among articles in different screens, at a time when the site was extremely sluggish. I probably was looking at another article when I wrote what I did re the links. My bad. As I've already stated, to me, the ethnicity of the person most definitely matters in an article on dreadlocks. I wouldn't have deleted the photo of the ratty-looking fake dreads that was already there. I think whoever did it tried to insert another in its place, because at the same time the photo disappeared, that multi-colored Wiki photo template appeared in its place -- which I deleted. But I'm glad the photo is gone, and I'm perfectly happy to leave it blank until a suitable photo of a black with dreadlocks can be found. deeceevoice 11:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It occurred to me to revisit Rastafarianism -- and there was a photo. The dreads aren't as neat as I'd prefer, but at least they're the real deal. I'd change the caption, though, to simply "Dreadlocks," but I don't know how -- and I've got a deadline this a.m. Maybe I'll read up later and fix it when I have more time. Peace. deeceevoice 12:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick - but - why should a photo of someone with dreads be limited to a particular ethnicity? I accept the term 'dreads' is derived from Rastafari, but what it describes is fairly universal. NickW 19:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) (white with non-'fake' dreads).

I agree with you to a point NickW. Dreadlocks have some connotation in some circles as being a "black power" symbol, an anti-white emblem as I understand it. If there is to be a argument over ethnicity, the reasoning for both sides needs to be explained on the page, instead of in here.--The Grza 21:37, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hold up! Black power, black pride, even black nationalism are not, ipso facto, "anti-white." Don't confuse the two! Rastafari, as a matter of fact, often (generally?) welcome white folks. And I've already said I wouldn't get into a debate about why a black photo. Suffice it to say that I wouldn't post a photo of a dyed redhead in the Wiki article on "red hair." Why? It's contrived! The fact that the dreadlocks article when dealing with white hair talks about crochet hooks and sewing with thread and wrapping the hair in wool and teasing and ratting and using wax and all that ridiculous mess in order to torture/force white hair into dreadlocks says it all. While all human hair will mat if left ungroomed, only locks are locks. And only wild, black, nappy, frizzy locks are truly dread. And while you may disagree, while that may not satisfy you -- my regrets -- that's all I have to say on the matter. deeceevoice 07:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My personal (very limited) experience of Rastafari has been mostly positive. I guess I have some fairly strong views on this whole topic. I'm white and have dreads which have grown with nil interference (except the occasional ripping apart). I see plenty of black dreads that have come out of a salon. So to me, the notion of 'true' dreads has nothing to do with colour. I should add that the reason I have dreads, and many white friends of mine have had (now and in the past) has nothing to do with any culture but our own (I think the Celts are mentioned in the article, and even the Saxons had a term for dreads). I accept that the term 'dreads' has a black origin, but language can't grant exclusivity of concepts (unless you've totally lost the plot). To suggest that white people can only ever have 'fake' dreads etc.. is quite clearly racist. I'm happy to live with that of course, ignorance is a fact of life... But maybe these conflicting attitudes need to be described in the article as The Grza suggests... NickW 10:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

P.S. To add to above - I'm not pointing fingers or calling anyone racist - it's just the attitude re: white and dreads that I find frustrating. I think there's a lot of room for misunderstanding(s) on this one... Any suggestions for resolving this one - or should we work out how to present the 'opposing' views... Onwards and Upwards! NickW 12:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Racist" lol That's really funny. There's a hell of a lot of difference between going to a salon to have one's hair groomed and going to extraordinary lengths to torture one's hair into a style for which it is not naturally suited (the way lots of black folks endure all sorts of crazy chemical crap to perm their hair strait). And, yes, there are some white folks with really curly hair -- including some with African ancestry who have nappy/frizzy hair who do dreads without resorting to home crafting techniques and snatching hair off the backs of sheep. But they're certainly in the minority. If there's a single photo of dreadlocks in an article dealing with the subject -- my opinion? Hell, yeah. It should be of a blackman/woman. Same thing with an afro (and not that fool in a ratty-looking afro wig some jokester originally posted for that article). deeceevoice 19:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.

White people can grow dreads without the need to go to a salon etc... (of course many will take the quick 'fake' route).
White people can grow dreads naturally even if they don't have particularly curly hair, (it just takes some time).
Re: racism. Well, I've had plenty shouted at me in the street because I have dreads (although never from Rastas to date).

Everything I'm saying is based on experience (of myself and numerous friends). I hear your opinion, but I'm still interested in the ra tionale behind it. NickW 19:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've already stated my rationale. So, you get shouted at, 'eh? Funny. I wonder if the black folks doing that were wearing Western clothes or a straightened hairstyle. While I've never seen any white dreads I thought looked good (and there probably are some), I wouldn't think to harass anyone for wearing them. Silly, pointless business that. But I'd hardly call it "racism." Lots of black folks see dreads as expression of race pride, and they feel a sense of ownership of them, and given the history of black-white relations in this nation, the resentment doesn't surprise me. I suppose Jews would react similarly if a bunch of Germans suddenly decided yarmulkas were all the rage and started wearing them as a fashion statement. deeceevoice 20:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, racism to me is any discrimination based on ethnicity. If people shout at me then that just makes them ignorant and rude, and if they're doing it because of my colour then yeah, they're racist. I won't lose any sleep over it, but don't tell me you think only whites can be racist? I'm also still missing your rationale re: dreads, other than an irrational belief that dreads are somehow the exclusive property of one ethnic group, when history and cultural practices around the world indicate something else... But hey, the article is okay at the moment, so I'm happy to disagree with you :) Check this out though [1]. This picture would make a nice addition to the article! NickW 13:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a discussion about who is and who isn't racist. We'd likely disagree. Further, go back and read what I said. Never once did I say "I" when describing the people with whom you seemingly have come into contact. Further, when trying to understand the reactions of the people who choose to vocalize their objection to dreadlocked whites, I still think it would be useful to consider the analogy to Germans wearing yarmulkas. You likely still won't agree with them, but you may understand where they're coming from. deeceevoice 15:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just checked that link. That's just gross. And, no, that turd-looking thing is not the same as dreadlocks -- any more than a Polish plait is. deeceevoice 03:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What's with Sessions and that photo?

Is this person on a vanity trip, or what? The photo adds absolutely nothing to the article -- and all we see is one, big head and then a few weird-curlylocks off to the side. This is a joke/vandalism. Right? deeceevoice 09:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been reverting it as vandalism because he apparently didn't get the point and continued to include on the page. I left a note on his talk page, but I'd just keep reverting it.--The Grza 18:19, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Likewise. NickW 19:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i put quotes around some words

Such "neglect" often results in dreadlocks that are irregularly shaped and matted together, affecting a "disheveled and unkempt" appearance.

for obvious reasons. i have dreads and i didnt neglect my hair to get them and i dont think i affected a disheveled and unkempt appearance...well maybe some groups would see them as that...

Is this an intro/summary or a hairdressing guide?

The first sentence: "Dreadlocks, also locs, dreads, or in Sanskrit, Jaṭā, are ropelike strands of hair formed by matting or braiding hair." is great but the only pertinent sentence I can really see there. Surely instructions on how to style your hair should be in another section. Particularly as styling your hair to have dreadlocks seems to be such a contentious subject that is mentioned elswhere. I might go ahead and take the initiative on this. Llamageddon (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we need a better definiton of what dreadlocks are in different contexts. This links into the current debate about cultural appropriation which has partly been sparked by people who aren't considered black sporting dreads. I don't want to start that debate here, but for instance, I am not black but my hair forms dreds very quickly and entirely naturally if I just leave my hair alone. Surely that doesn't meet the definition of dreadlocks in the eyes of people who are arguing about cultural appropriation. This should be the page defining dreadlocks rather than that page. Llamageddon (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

On second thoughts maybe specific socio-political definitions should be left to the cultural appropriation page and not here. Unless for some reason it becomes more relevant. The one sentence definition at the start is nice and neat and to the point. Llamageddon (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You are abosuletely right on all this. In my opinion white people with dreadlocks is not cultural appropriation if you can get them you can get them. Also yes I agree there should be a separate styling section on methods and ways dreads are styled. Michael-Lee Mahachi (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"In response to the derogatory history of the term dreadlocks"

What is this derogatory history? Tombomp (talk/contribs) 22:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Really. Obviously you're not black or you'd already know the answer. for a long time Tombomp, people of mostly European descent denigrated and enslaved people descendant of Africa. While doing so, they ridiculed and insulted them, their hair, their languages and their beliefs. While it is not as acceptable to do so these days, it still happens and a large number of black people in the United States, Europe and colonized areas of Africa and the rest of the diaspora cant attest that white people in business environments have told them their natural hair and natural hair styles are unprofessional. Jmanagih (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Jmanagih, your response is well out of line, stop making out all black people know certain things, which YOU then happen to define. There s no specal nformaton only black people, who come form many different cultures, know. If you are talking about the theories of cultural appropriation you might be able to ref that for the article and that would be appropriate added in a blanced neutral way; but tone down the racist generalzatons and rememeber it doesnt matter what race one belongs to, we are all welcome to participate here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 23:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Egyptian history

Hello, The section on Egyptology seems a little misleading. Egyptians shaved their heads, so the 'locked' wigs in my mind do not represent a tradition of them being dreadlocked, rather a tradition of them wearing wigs. What physical evidence we have shows complex braids. Priests did wear a sidelock braid, while children wore a simple sidelock of hair akin to a ponytail. None of these suggest dreadlock in my mind. For further references, please see here: http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/hair.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.57.236 (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Original Research on Images

Unless it can be sourced to WP:RS and WP:V standards, putting in images that the user believes depict locks is a violation of WP:OR. In some of these photos of ancient art, there is no way to tell if what is depicted are braids, ringlets, locks, or just a sculptural technique of depicting hair. Unless there is good research that says this culture wore locks, we can't opine or editorialize on what the sculptures depict. - CorbieV^☊☼ 19:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed Shine2345's contributions:

"The controversy of whether dreads came from African slaves or Hindu laborers can be debated only with those with no knowledge of the subject. A simple fact check is observing the many areas of the Caribbean where dreadlocks is overwhelming. Example; dreadlocks are not in abundance in Dominican Republic, Cuba nor Haiti, this is because of the cultural and ethnic make up of these areas, originally (of course current times are not in this debate since Caribbean culture is far more mixed than before). Dreadlocks are also not as abundant in the north east Caribbean. Instead it is abundant in 3 major regions; Jamaica, South eastern Caribbean (Trinidad, St Vincent, Barbados), and Guyana/Suriname (again dreadlocks can be found all over South America, and Caribbean, as of late, due to culture spreading and media of course). And these of course are the heaviest concentration of the arrival of east Indian laborers.

African slaves brought to South America, Caribbean, and of course America, did not arrive with the dreadlocks concept. This is apparent by the actual culture of how hair was worn upon arrival in the new world. This is also evident, in that no picture past mid 1800’s containing any African wearing a dreadlock style (approximate time of east Indian labor arrival). Rather Dreadlocks have exploded in the western world in the last 50 years. Since 90% of the root African population in North America is from the Caribbean (something not taught in Most North American classrooms of actual numbers of slaves directly brought from Africa to North America), and since the Caribbean culture has exploded in North America in the last 30 to 70 years, it is obvious the dreadlock culture has come from the Caribbean or its 1st stop was the Caribbean when reaching the west.

Since many people are not educated on the history of the Caribbean including those of Caribbean descent, there is a very unclear understanding of the culture, to which everything is considered West African origin, instead of the obvious mixed culture that presents itself in each island and or region. Due to the different make up of the people who have been part of each regions culture, many are unaware of the actual origin of dreadlocks, and other aspects of culture such as the variety of patois in the Caribbean. Therefore, many, especially of Jamaican origin are unaware, or do not accept how certain parts of the culture have found their way in the fabric of the culture. This is apparent by how Jamaican culture refers to the non African population of Jamaica as Jamaican Indian, or Spanish Jamaican, or Chinese Jamaican. While those in the ethnic group themselves consider themselves Jamaican before bothering looking at their forefather region of disbursement. On the other hand, Trinidad and Tobago citizens refer to themselves as Trinis 1st, and of course will clarify if mixed or not if needed. That is the difference in the strength or mindset of the culture.

With the widespread arrival of indentured laborers into the Caribbean in the mid 1800’s, the style of dread locks was born. This style was worn by those who followed a Sahdus or “hill coolie” lifestyle. Sahdus are considered the holy men of India (also those responsible for the Marijuana explosion). Many of indentured laborers from India are of aboriginal decent, and came from villages that mirrored those of aboriginal decent in South Africa, and Madagascar. This is apparent all throughout India, in all regions, and those who wear the style come from all backgrounds of genetics, from Negritos, Caucasoid, monagloid, and or course the mix of all 3, the average East Indian person. Since many east Indians in the western world have either had their history lost or themselves are preoccupied by western culture, they themselves are not aware of the roots of the Indian culture. The lifestyle or culture of Sahdus is the root of the Rasta movement. As the concept of being vegetarian, and wearing the hair in a way that one does not care how society views you are apparent. Both concepts believe that any creature that bleeds is a creation of the earth or god and is a sin. Smoking ganja is one of the most important trait to the lifestyle, as it is considered an herb from mother earth, and can take the mind to levels of supernatural being, if used correctively. They heavy influence of the East Indian laborers is overwhelmingly obvious in certain parts of the Caribbean (Jamaica, Guyana, Suriname, south east Caribbean; Trinidad, Barbados, st Vincent). The actual dialect of loan words from Hindi and west African dialect, the numerous curry and spiced dishes, and marijuana explosion (ganja in Jamaica, for the Ganges holy river, where the crop was taken to the Caribbean by Sahdus), and dreadlocks and facial hair. Ganja especially going hand in hand with the dreadlock culture in India, as it is a staple and one of the most popular crops all throughout India. Other aspects of Indian influence in the Caribbean would of course be the dance, music, infused in the music and dance style with the West African styles combined into one. Many fruits have also been transported from India to the Caribbean, such as sapodilla, and sweetsop or cherimoya. However there are other indigenous versions of sweetsop to the Caribbean. "

Over 36,000 Indians were taken to Jamaica as indentured workers between 1845 and 1917, with around two thirds of them remaining on the island. The demand for their labour came after the end of slavery in 1830 and the failure to attract workers from Europe.

The Indian workers tended their own gardens after the work on the plantations was done to supplement their diet. Indian workers, in search of relaxation, also introduced marijuana and the chillum pipe, to Jamaica. Hindu festivals such as Diwali were celebrated although many became Christians over time. Gradually workers left the plantations for Kingston and took jobs that better utilised their existing, and newly learned skills. The Indian community adopted English as their first language and became jewellers, fishermen, barbers and shopkeepers.

Indians have made many contributions to Jamaican culture. Indian jewellery, in the form of intricately wrought gold bangles, are common on Jamaica, with their manufacture and sale going back to the 1860s. Indians established the island's first successful rice mill in the 1890s and dominated the island's vegetable production until the late 1940s.

Forms of Indian dress were adopted by some Jamaicans and can be seen in Jonkonnu processions. Many Christian African-Jamaicans participate alongside Indian-Jamaicans in the Indian inspired cultural celebrations of (Shia Muslims) Hosay and (Hindu) Divali. In the past, every plantation in each parish celebrated Hosay while today it has been rebranded an Indian carnival and is perhaps most well known in Clarendon where it is celebrated each August. Divali, a Hindu festival linked with the reaping of grain, the return of Prince Rama after 14 years in exile, and the victory of good over evil, is celebrated late October to early November on the darkest night of the year. Houses are cleaned and brightly lit and everyone is in high spirits.

Approximately 61,500 Indians live in Jamaica today, maintaining their own cultural organizations and roots but assimilated into the wider community. Traditional Indian foods such as curry goat and roti have become part of the national cuisine and are now seen as 'Jamaican'. Alongside Hinduism & Sufi Islam, the smoking of cannabis (Ganja) was introduced to Jamaica from India. The influence of the Caste system has largely atrophied and arranged marriages are no longer common.

Descendants of the immigrant workers have influenced the fields of farming, medicine, politics and even horse-racing. See Indo-Jamaican

http://www.akincana.net/multimedia/photo/old_india/Old%20India%2051.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.179.1 (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

so why did you remove this?

Jmanagih (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Origins of dreadlocks/racial bias

I'm commenting on what is written below this paragraph. Just to say that it is not a "bias" when something is factually evident. Please see the newish documentary film "Dreadlocks Story". It's absolutely true that Hinduism, especially the worship of Siva, who wore dreads and smoked ganja out of a chillum, spawned Rastafarianism. However, it developed as an Afrocentric religion and all Eastern traces were painted over in favor of Biblically-based "lost tribe" rhetoric. It is just as racist for Afrocentricists to claim that everyone who shows a non-African origin for something they'd like to claim, is themselves a racist. It's racist to claim credit for things done by other races. Also racists can be any race, it's not an exclusive pale-face thing. Anyway, here is a link to an excellently researched thesis paper on the subject. I actually never use Wikipedia because of exactly this kind of nonsense, and the difficulty in retaining simple truth in the age of identity politics, so I'm not even sure how I ended up on this page while researching an article on cannabis and yoga, but since I did. Here's my two cents. I'm sure I broke all the rules. Don't care. Just read the paper linked below please. All the best, Diana Trimble: http://kb.osu.edu/dspace/handle/1811/28443 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianarama66 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The article seems very biased with a distinct emphasis on Indian immigrants to the Caribbean. While, it's true that they have had an influence on the culture of Jamaica in a number of ways, as has every other group that immigrated to Jamaica, something is missing here.

Number one: dreadlocks is a term that came out of the culture developed by the maroon communities in the Jamaican hill country.
Number two: true enough the Indian devotees of Shiva do grow their hair in locks that resemble dreadlocks, but they are called something else. That was made clear in the article.
Number three: dreadlocks have been introduced to the world not by devotees of Shiva, but by Reggae musicians that claim Rastafari as their spiritual leader, like Bob Marley, Peter Tosh, Bunny Wailer, etc., etc.
Number four: I have yet to hear, see or become aware of any Jamaican Indian reggae musicians with dreadlocks.
Number five: There's little to no mention or pictorial evidence, which is readily available, of the influence of the Kenyan, "dreadlock" wearing, freedom fighters of the 1950's - 60's on the Rastafari community of Jamaica. Two prime examples of this are Field Marshalls Dedan Kimathi and Musa Mwariama, who both wore their hair in this manner. The obvious connection between them and Nybinghi who was well known in East Africa from Southern Kenya to Zimbabwe would seem to be obvious.
Number six: If the whole Indian connection is to be believed in Jamaica, then wouldn't it also be true in other British colonies where significant numbers of Indians were deposited as indentured servants? Where is the evidence of this connection in the present?
Number seven: there was also a comment about there not being any connection between the hairstyles of the Egyptians and that of the Rastas. However, that is contradictory to what I've learned about hats and headdresses from around the world, which I have found often derive from a hairstyle. One clear example comes to mind when thinking of the Khepresh or Blue Crown of the pharaohs of Egypt and the amasunzu hairstyle of the various people's native to the area south of Lake Victoria. The same comparison can be made between the isicholo worn by the Mangbetu of Central East Africa and the White and Red Crowns of Egypt. Last, but not least there's a distinct similarity between the "dreadlocked" hair of the Nubian warriors that were one of Egypt's primary opponents on the battlefield and the citizens of Egypt.
Bulleted list item

The fact that none of this comes up in this article is troubling indeed. How this article passes for scholarly work is beyond me, when it has so many basic major discrepancies, is beyond me. Realizing what I saw in the talk section on the Indian, so-called, dreadlock connection was excised, I have no qualms with that decision. What does bother me is that the rest of the article has been allowed to stand with only 1 picture of some "store bought" dreadlocks and not one picture of a person of African descent wearing dreadlocks, when useable pictures abound of descendants of Africa with dreadlocked hair, of the natural variety. Kkhemet (talk)

This article is extremely bias Jmanagih (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why you are so troubled, we are lucky to have an article here at all. If you can find sources edit the article but dont just stand on the sidelines makng bias claims without making edits. Indeed you havent edited the article at all. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 00:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Let's work together to make this a better article. AD64 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I also agree, Kkhemet might be making some valid points, and he is citing some references. Why not put the effort into objectively editing the article? I would like to see some references to back up the claim that the term dreadlocks originated from the maroon communities of Jamaica for instance as we need some etymology on the subject if we are going to argue over origins. Llamageddon (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dreadlocks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Section on Judaism and Christianity

I don't want to get into an edit war on this one, but this entire section appears to be original research. The entire section on the Nazirite vow is only sourced to verses from the Bible, with no reliable secondary source to verify the interpretation. It appears someone has gone to a primary source (in this case the Bible) and pulled out their own interpretation without giving any third-party support for that interpretation - which would be the essence of "original research."

The only secondary source that's cited is used to support the statement that "According to the biblical account, Samson was given supernatural strength by God in order to combat his enemies and perform heroic feats." That's fine as far as it goes, but has nothing to do with dreadlocks.

Don't get me wrong - this may all be absolutely correct. But, and this is a big "but," there isn't any sourcing for it.

In particular, part of the Nazirite vow was that you didn't cut your hair. But no connection is made between that simple fact, and something that would be recognized as a "dreadlock." EastTN (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Dreadlocks are actually a World Wide phenomena

There seems to be a badly mistaken and false assumption that platted, twisted or braided hair is something that originated in Sub Saharan Africa or the Caribbean, and/or is specific to people of Sub Saharan African heritage, or Black People. In fact, it is historically, ethnically, culturally and geographically worldwide.

In actuality, the very earliest historical depictions in art of such hair styles come from Caucasoid type peoples in the Middle East, Asia Minor, Aegean and North Africa, rather than Sub Saharan Africa. These styles were also common in the Caucasus, Western Europe, Southern Europe, the British Isles, Scandinavia, the Indian Sub-Continent, Australasia and the Far East in past times, as well as Africa of course.

During the Bronze Age and Iron Age many peoples in the Near East, Asia Minor, Caucasus, East Mediterranean and North Africa such as the Sumerians, Elamites, Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Greeks, Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Minoans, Hyksos, Hittites, Amorites, Mitanni, Hattians, Hurrians, Arameans, Eblaites, Israelites, Phrygians, Lydians, Persians, Medes, Parthians, Chaldeans, Armenians, Georgians, Cilicians and Canaanites/Phoenicians/Carthaginians are depicted in art with braided or platted hair and beards. These practices only died out among the Assyrians and Mandeans of Mesopotamia in the early 19th century for example.

The term Dreadlocks is used usually in reference to Rastafarians, who are only one of many peoples and cultures to have sported this general type of hairstyle, and one of the most recent, dating only to the 1930's. Other cultures had and have different names for varying forms of platted, braided or twisted hair styles.

So, in short, there is no race element to the subject, or shouldn't be anyway! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Had you paid attention, you'd have realised that almost none of the listed peoples are/were European, and none of them are Western/Northern/Eastern European. So even if they did wear dreadlocks – which is not proven: braided hair is not automatically dreadlocks! –, this would be irrelevant to the cultural appropriation issue, which is about White Americans of (mostly Western/Northern/Eastern) European descent appropriating dreadlocks from people of colour of non-European descent (note that appropriation is not simply borrowing a style). Ancient Egyptians, Sumerians, Akkadians, Hurrians, Elamites, Assyrians, Mandaeans, etc., may have been Caucasoid, but they were not White European (Semitic peoples were and are excluded from "whiteness" by most white nationalists of European descent). "Caucasoid" is a very broad designation without clearly defined, sharp boundaries and according to some writers includes dark-skinned peoples that nobody really thinks of as white in the USA, such as Indians and even Ethiopians, and for this reason "white people" are usually defined as "of overwhelmingly European descent" for purposes of discussions of racism in the USA. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, this is far more of a question of culture than race (it's just that the issue has become racialised, or framed in terms of race, in the US, also because of the way that white and black hair are different, so white people often resort to tricks like extensions), and even if the ancient Greeks, Celts or Vikings did sport actual dreadlocks (which is controversial), they're not modern White Americans. Dreadlocks were definitely not a part of modern White American or White European culture in the 1960s. So pointing to ancient peoples that supposedly were "white" and allegedly wore "dreadlocks" ("but-but-but the Celts/Vikings did it! so it's fine for me too!") is only a lame excuse, as pointed out here. tl;dr: You're not a bloody ancient Greek, Celt, Viking or whatever! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Florian Blaschke, the anonymous was talking about Caucasoids, not Europeans or white people. The grouping of people to a supposed Caucasoid race tends to include Asians and Africans. "Thus, Carleton S. Coon (1939) and Franco Bragagna (2013) included the populations native to all of Central and Northern Asia under the Caucasoid label. "... "Skin color amongst Caucasoids ranges greatly, from pale, reddish-white, olive, through to dark brown tones."

Carleton S. Coon's 1939 definition was wider than average: "The Caucasian race encompasses the regions of Europe, Central Asia, South Asia, the Near East, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa." Dimadick (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation

There is currently a debate going on in the United States over cultural appropriation, which to no small measure has been sparked by reactions to persons of European descent wearing dreadlocks. Would the addition of a section on this topic be appropriate? Un school 00:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

119.224.85.183 (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Might be worth mentioning. Although dreads have been worn by hippies since the 60s, possibly by a variety of European cultures, at least in single dread form, and the style originally comes from India - it was "culturally appropriated" from there. In general culture has done a lot of mixing over time. For example, the facing of altars across a variety of religions, towards where the sun rises in the northern hemisphere, was initiated by the ancient Egyptians (who also had dreads). They also started using make-up first. If one was to trace a lot of culture, back to its root, we'd mostly be looking at early civilisation, Babylonia, Sumer, Egypt etc. There was also a surprising amount of trade and interaction before global trade is generally regarded to have started - for example nicotine can be found archeologically across the globe before that period. The argument is really an ideological one, based on the intersectional feminist notions of oppressed groups, and oppressor groups, and if the topic is mentioned, those in my opinion should be regarded as ideas, rather than objective facts, as they do not cross the political divide, and are not actually views held by many 119.224.85.183 (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the debate on cultural appropriation regarding dreadlocks should definitely be mentioned, it seems culturally significant in itself and in direct relation to the page subject. I feel like there is a lot of subjectivity in the talk page; On this subject, particularly, editors should be as objective as possible and try to reference oppsing sources in the debate, just to avoid arguments here ;) . Debate is also probably not the best word to use for this issue? I'll have a look and see if I can find any reliable sources to reference. Don't want to step on any toes here though. It's obviously a touchy subject.Llamageddon (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Dreadlock, called "Polish plait" were common among Polish peasants, and also among ancient Germans. I'm not sure can this be cultural appropriation, if it was made by...unhygienic style of life, dirt and just being poor, not having combs, and so on. It's too common to be assign to one culture. AnnaValentis (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting comment. I've heard people address the question of dreadlocks and hygiene in private conversation, but is it something that could or should be addressed (using reliable sources, obviously). Un school 19:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Are Subcultures "white"?

"In white counterculture Caucasian-textured, hippie dreadlocks decorated with beads

In the West, since gatherings of Hippies became common in the 1970s, dreadlocks have gained particular popularity among predominantly caucasian, counterculture adherents such as hippies, crust punks, New Age travellers, goths and many members of the Rainbow Family. Many people from these cultures wear dreadlocks for similar reasons: symbolizing a rejection of government-controlled, mass-merchandising culture or to fit in with the people and crowd they want to be a part of (such as those who are fans of reggae music). Members of the cybergoth subculture also often wear blatantly artificial synthetic dreads or "dreadfalls" made of synthetic hair, fabric or plastic tubing. Caucasians in dreadlocks have been criticized for cultural appropriation as they generally do not face the same discrimination for adopting the style as do people of color who have historically faced oppression for wearing their hair in this, and other styles that are traditional for their hair type and cultures.[30]"

This part is whitewashing transcultural, postmodern neotribes and this is against the understanding of this communities.

Look for yourself: http://www.the-other.info/2014/rainbow-family-living-light rainbows come from all around the world.

http://masamania.com/japanese-hippie-style/ hippies from japan

also at goatrancefestivals there are much people from the amazonrainforests, many travel worldwide from festival to festival. the trance- and the hippiemovement belief in postmodern neotribalism beyond "race". celtic artwork meets spiritual practices from shivaism and tantra as well as shamanism from anay places.

..and don't forget that goagil, guru of goatrance, is a former hindu.

and did you know, that the ancient hungarians once were beleivers of tengrism? they belong to the shamanic peoples of the steppes before christianization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tengrism

so, don't be racist to transcultural people from other cultures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transculturalism

love and light to you, race is a myth, nothing more. let's deconstruct it :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:10BF:CCA8:F5AF:7C9:B47B:EF9A (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dreadlocks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

First of all this page has the worst researchers on the planet!

Egyptians Did not have "dread locks" They had PLAT WIGS!! In fact history states that Egyptian kings and queens shaved their heads daily hence why when the mummies are opened up in Egypt, they always find a PLAT WIG on their heads.

If this page is about Plat wigs then by all means, start the history with Egyptians elaborate "PLATTED" wigs, we can then go into detail about horse tails being platted, But as this page topic is not about wigs and not about wig plats then we should stop this childish injection of Egypt.

Every page on wiki starts with Egypt as if Egypt is the holy grail of wiki history, the world has far old history then that of Egypt so can we stop talking about Egyptian plat wigs and move onto real history.

Why has this page not got a write up on india or Hinduism? The editor has written Australia, Africa, Buddhism, Rastafarian white culture, Egypt but nothing on india?

No "Photographic evidence or footage " have ever been shown of Africans wearing the Dread lock style prior to the induction of Information on the Indian sadhus, in fact rasta is not even old, unless you class 1930s as old?

Show me ONE JUST ONE photo that shows a African wearing the dread lock style before the photos of these images taken by the british in the 19th century https://www.oldindianphotos.in/2015/05/vintage-photograph-of-indian-sadhu.html

Good luck twisting history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.21.184 (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I would be interested if someone could find any reference to corroborate this person's claims that egyptian wigs did not fit the bill for being considered "Dreadlocks". I certainly never considered egyptian wigs to be dreadlocks until reading this article. Llamageddon (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Can this page be turned to the original page before it was vandalized by racial issues. Who every made the edits, need to have all edits reverted back to page as it was a year ago. This new page seems racially and politically motivated. 67.10.249.179 (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)