#NotMyAriel trends after black actress was cast to play the Little Mermaid

[Brooklyn Knight 108]

45 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

 

First off, I never said that I support whitewashing - I don't. I'd be just as enraged if a white girl was cast as Tiana, Mulan or Pocahontas.

Ariel was always referred to as white until now. She is the same shade as the other white Disney characters, mermaids are already human from the waist up and her race doesn't change when she becomes fully human. So, why are so many people now trying to say she could have been any race? 

But were you a redhead watching the movie growing up? If not, it's hard to know exactly how we feel. I've found that it's hard for anyone, even other whites, to understand the struggles of having red hair. No one seems to take it seriously or think we need to be represented more. And it's still widely accepted to make jokes about us to this day.

Well, that's good that you take my account at face value because plenty of people don't, they just laugh and say I'm overreacting, which is so ironic because they berate whites for doing exactly the same to POC. I said previously that it's very hard to make a non-redhead understand the struggles we go through, only we can get it, which I guess is natural when you're only 2% of the world's population.

 

It seems like there is a lot to unpack here ... Casting a white person as the role of Tiana, Mulan, or Pocahontas would just be horribly ignorant given the fact that major plot points of the movie revolve around their culture and where they are from... ( Mulan takes place in china.... Pocahontas is a fictional take on an actual story of a Native American woman... Tiana's story having creole, southern and voodoo influence, even though shes a frog for most of it) to cast a white person is to be completely tone deaf to the fact that their race plays a vital role to the film. 

Ariel's race has nothing to do with the film, its just about a mermaid who wants to be on land and find love... there is no cultural storyline, and there is no written parts of the film itself that reference a specific culture to tie it too. While it is up for debate whether or not it took place in the Caribbean or Denmark, the fact that it is not explicitly obvious from the movie itself literally TELLS you that it is open to interpretation... 

On a separate note I think it would be worth evaluating your stance on feeling heard with the struggles you go through as being a red head, and comparing it to when white people berate POC... It is simply ILLOGICAL to say that you having red hair is in anyway similar to the experiences of POC, black people ESPECIALLY. I highly suggest you research if you haven't already and really get educated about the absolute discrimination and lack of opportunity that POC experience simply for being black and of color... I find it rather contrived and truthfully ignorant to make that connection. 

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

All the anti black people in this thread are clowning themselves. Feel free to talk sh!t about PoC to their faces, not online where it's safe..

[GypsyBabe 22,836]

44 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

 JK Rowling is heavily into the new SJW wave and she's taken back so much stuff she's said about her characters now because of it. I think it's sad, it shows she doesn't have the faith in her own creation. Not only was Hermione described as pale in the books but JK actually was involved in signing off illustrations of her books before the movies were made and Hermione is depicted as white in every official animation I ever saw of her pre-movies.  Oh, yes, and she gave her blessing to all the actors who got cast, no one was cast without her say so, so she wanted Hermione to be white. JK wrote her as white, she knows she's white, but now she wants to give black actresses a chance years later, so she now claims different. I'm just one for giving people a dose of reality.

I see you say that you were ok with Hermione being black previously because the book never mentioned her race and you never took it into account but if you look at what I said on the first paragraph of my reply two up from this one, you'll get the truth tea on this whole thing.

Firstly, JKR is not heavily into the "new" SJW wave...it has just been reported that way of late. For some reason people have forgotten that, for example, she stated Dumbledore was gay back in 2006/2007. People were NOT happy about that, though it is clear through many of the books. Suddenly it is in the news now and getting a lot of attention as though she is adding it more than ten years later for clout. Not the case. Many of these so called tweaks or additions are well documented by JKR and Potterheads in the past. 

Also, "pale" is not a skin color, but rather a shade on a spectrum. It comes from pallor. For example, you can be a pale white person like myself, just as you can be a pale person of color. Pale is the lightest shade of a particular skin color. Just like Ursula could be a pale purple or a dark purple. 

As for the casting. She gave the okay for Emma Watson because she was right for the part and embodied the bossy and bright nature that JKR exhibited as a child. Hermione was based off of herself as a person, not that conventionally pretty and extremely bossy. If she were basing the character Hermione off of who she saw in her head (herself) then she would be red headed, have freckles, and certainly not be as beautiful as Em Watson. JKR has been supportive of MANY different interpretations of her characters over the years, through fan art and fan letters. I've been a Potterhead since the beginning of the first book release, and "black Hermione" is not new thing. She has said many times that she wrote the main characters physically ambiguous except for a few defining features (big teeth, bushy hair, too many freckles to be allowed, black untidy hair, green eyes, crooked nose), so that the reader could easily project themselves into the main three. She describes the world in such perfect detail, but has left that characters to be painted by our own imaginations. Her indifference over a black actress being cast is just an illustration of what she has said about her characters since the beginning. WE as an audience decide who they should be. 

So, no offense, but you illuminated me to no truth tea on Harry Potter.  

I understand that you are very upset about the whole thing, but think of how wonderful it was, being a red headed girl, to see Ariel there on screen. To have someone that looked like you be a magical princess. Now imagine how many young black girls will get this chance and experience what it is that you felt as a child. They have never gotten to see a black mermaid, nor to see themselves in that role. They have been disenfranchised and ignored by Disney. We have had our Ariel for 30 years...but it's time to share with other little girls. I want them to feel the same way that we did. 

[Reality 73,890]

4 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Good point on your list of actresses but a lot of them are pretty niche except for maybe one big film. They're none of the major hitters and seem pretty invisible to me a lot of the time. Karen Gillian was in one of the biggest hit movies of the year that made nearly $1 billion and yet I never seemed to hear anything about that movie or seem to see her being a major player in Hollywood for it, she just seems to be operate on the periphery. And there is no teen up and coming actress with red hair for young girls to look up to. White actresses and white redheaded actresses are different. One is infinitely more common and more likely to get roles. Brunettes are the most common hair colour in the world, so they get the majority of roles, followed by blondes and then redheads, therefore, race ties into hair colour with this one and needs to be taken into account.

Well, that's good that you take my account at face value because plenty of people don't, they just laugh and say I'm overreacting, which is so ironic because they berate whites for doing exactly the same to POC. I said previously that it's very hard to make a non-redhead understand the struggles we go through, only we can get it, which I guess is natural when you're only 2% of the world's population.

"The ocean is a global location" is too vague a reason, sorry. There is land that is entered into on this location, it's not just water. Ariel goes right around this kingdom as a human and while some parts look very Caribbean (there's even some palm trees), the next minute, a whole section looks like it could be set in any European woodland. The interior of the castle is very European, everyone of every European nationality seems to live in this castle, the men on board ship are playing sea shanties and Eric plays a flute. Eric is one of the most common Norse names, particularly in their royalty, by the way. The Caribbean has also never had royal families. I daresay it's kinda like when Cinderella, which is a French fairytale, had everyone with an American accent, giving the illusion it was set in America even though America never had a royalty. American adaptions of non-American works always do this weird hybrid world thing, partly because they want to appeal to all and partly because they think America is the world. If anything, I say enough of this Americanisms in this day and age and take it back to the origins of any tale, we're past the stage where we have to Americanise everything.

Again, I can't really speak about your experience feeling like there's not enough redheaded actresses in media. That's something I never had to experience and because of that, that's something I cannot argue for or against. It's a completely subjective thing and I completely respect your opinion on that.

As for the "ocean is a global location" argument, I do think that's a valid argument to argue against. The details you mentioned about the castle and even Eric's name are all, in my opinion, fairly surface-level details. Like I've reiterated before, I've never watched The Little Mermaid, but I've never heard that the fact that Ariel's white or the fact that the castle has a European-style makeup severely affects the storyline or character arcs. Those are things that can be changed without doing a disservice to the movie. It's not like people are going to watch the movie and say "welp, the castle wasn't very 'European', so this movie isn't good". 

It's also not like setting the story in the Caribbean (or any other location where it'd be more geographically appropraite to have a black actress) doesn't have any precedent either. I can understand your argument if you took a story that was completely dependent on the culture and location and just suddenly changed it. For example, if they casted a black, white, middle eastern, latina, etc. girl as Mulan that could completely change the narrative and purpose of the stoy. In that case, I would agree that Mulan has to be played by a Chinese person (or at the very least, someone who can pass as Chinese. It's not right, but Hollywood does have a history—especially with Asian roles—of casting Asians that aren't necessarily the right nationality, but look "close enough"). Ariel doesn't have that kind of condition. You can make her any ethnicity you want without severely impacting the story.

[StrawberryBlond 14,331]

1 hour ago, Craven Moorecox said:

1. I never said you supported whitewashing, I just stated why it can’t be done as a sign of diversifying. White people don’t new diversification when they are the majority. Adding white representation in stuff that is cultural rooted is a problem because in the pass and now some white people would “steal” or be “influenced” by certain aspects of a culture, but then simultaneously call that cultural group inferior.

2. My statement about gay representation was an example of how anybody can view inclusion and representation as force diversity. It wasn’t a direct attack on you. 

3. You use “I” way too many time which shows that you may have A hard time looking from a perspective outside yourself. The way you word your statements makes it seem like you only really focus on yourself and how things should be to benefit your point of view. If you begin to look at the whole picture of how the world is for a lot of people “who are not like you”, you won’t make half of the statements you make + your statement wouldn’t requires you to back track or clarify things through long paragraph when someones call you out. I’m not trying to attack you, I’m just saying take a minute to clarify your thoughts and stay things clearly the first time. That way so many of the people you quote won’t be coming for you. 

But there's nothing being whitewashed here. Ariel's white in the original book, she's white in the original Disney film, so I'm just wanting the character to stay as she is, keeping the unique look that made her stand out. And we're all being inspired by each other now. White inventions and culture have also been "stolen" and changed but we just moved past it and made new culture. We're a mixed, multicultural society now, we define things by the present, not the past.

The fact I've used "I" frequently is because I'm stating my opinion, so this word will come up. I look at outside perspectives all the time, it just so happens that this one is very personal and sentimental to me so I want to let my feelings be known, as I have every right to. I keep going back to wanting representation for everyone so I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that my views are self-centered, I'm usually on the side of most liberal theory of making everyone involved and feel welcome, just because this particular piece of representation involves me doesn't mean I've deviated from that. Just because you talk about yourself doesn't mean you don't care about others. I do say things clearly the first time, it's just that certain people like to read sinister meanings into innocent things I say so I've got to reword things so they get the message, but they hardly ever do, so I don't know why I bother. People come for me because they just don't like what I say, long detailed post or not. I've been berated for saying too much and too little so I'm kinda damned either way.

34 minutes ago, Brooklyn Knight said:

It seems like there is a lot to unpack here ... Casting a white person as the role of Tiana, Mulan, or Pocahontas would just be horribly ignorant given the fact that major plot points of the movie revolve around their culture and where they are from... ( Mulan takes place in china.... Pocahontas is a fictional take on an actual story of a Native American woman... Tiana's story having creole, southern and voodoo influence, even though shes a frog for most of it) to cast a white person is to be completely tone deaf to the fact that their race plays a vital role to the film. 

Ariel's race has nothing to do with the film, its just about a mermaid who wants to be on land and find love... there is no cultural storyline, and there is no written parts of the film itself that reference a specific culture to tie it too. While it is up for debate whether or not it took place in the Caribbean or Denmark, the fact that it is not explicitly obvious from the movie itself literally TELLS you that it is open to interpretation... 

On a separate note I think it would be worth evaluating your stance on feeling heard with the struggles you go through as being a red head, and comparing it to when white people berate POC... It is simply ILLOGICAL to say that you having red hair is in anyway similar to the experiences of POC, black people ESPECIALLY. I highly suggest you research if you haven't already and really get educated about the absolute discrimination and lack of opportunity that POC experience simply for being black and of color... I find it rather contrived and truthfully ignorant to make that connection. 

You don't need to explain this. These are the reasons why I do want a POC to play these characters. I just don't see why it's so bad to want a white character to stay looking the way you remember them. I've seen many people complain when a character is whitewashed even when race doesn't play a role at all, so I don't like the double standard. Either changing race is bad or it isn't, just make up your mind and stick to it.

I didn't compare my struggles to be on the same level (although natural hair would be on an almost equal footing) and never would, I just wanted to shine a light on struggles which no one's really aware of until we point them out because they're very invisible to anyone who's not one of us. Of course I've researched years of black history, just because I want a white character to stay in their original conception doesn't mean I'm ignorant to history. I'm just a stickler for consistency in all its forms.

26 minutes ago, GypsyBabe said:

Firstly, JKR is not heavily into the "new" SJW wave...it has just been reported that way of late. For some reason people have forgotten that, for example, she stated Dumbledore was gay back in 2006/2007. People were NOT happy about that, though it is clear through many of the books. Suddenly it is in the news now and getting a lot of attention as though she is adding it more than ten years later for clout. Not the case. Many of these so called tweaks or additions are well documented by JKR and Potterheads in the past. 

Also, "pale" is not a skin color, but rather a shade on a spectrum. It comes from pallor. For example, you can be a pale white person like myself, just as you can be a pale person of color. Pale is the lightest shade of a particular skin color. Just like Ursula could be a pale purple or a dark purple. 

As for the casting. She gave the okay for Emma Watson because she was right for the part and embodied the bossy and bright nature that JKR exhibited as a child. Hermione was based off of herself as a person, not that conventionally pretty and extremely bossy. If she were basing the character Hermione off of who she saw in her head (herself) then she would be red headed, have freckles, and certainly not be as beautiful as Em Watson. JKR has been supportive of MANY different interpretations of her characters over the years, through fan art and fan letters. I've been a Potterhead since the beginning of the first book release, and "black Hermione" is not new thing. She has said many times that she wrote the main characters physically ambiguous except for a few defining features (big teeth, bushy hair, too many freckles to be allowed, black untidy hair, green eyes, crooked nose), so that the reader could easily project themselves into the main three. She describes the world in such perfect detail, but has left that characters to be painted by our own imaginations. Her indifference over a black actress being cast is just an illustration of what she has said about her characters since the beginning. WE as an audience decide who they should be. 

So, no offense, but you illuminated me to no truth tea on Harry Potter.  

I understand that you are very upset about the whole thing, but think of how wonderful it was, being a red headed girl, to see Ariel there on screen. To have someone that looked like you be a magical princess. Now imagine how many young black girls will get this chance and experience what it is that you felt as a child. They have never gotten to see a black mermaid, nor to see themselves in that role. They have been disenfranchised and ignored by Disney. We have had our Ariel for 30 years...but it's time to share with other little girls. I want them to feel the same way that we did. 

I've seen the way she acts on Twitter and the stuff she says, it's embarrassing. There's no media spin, I judge it completely on what she says. She seems to love comparing HP to the real world at all times as well, which is pretty annoying. I love her books and her liberal messaging but I don't think she was this extreme when she originally wrote them and it shows in the way she's talking now. I'm sure the books would have quite different characters if she wrote them now.

You don't use "pale" to describe someone who's dark skinned, even if they're the lightest variety of that race. Pale is a word associated with actual whiteness (the colour, not even talking about race here). You wouldn't say someone or something was "dark white," at least I wouldn't, as it seems an oxymoron. You wouldn't say "pale black" either. At most, you'd say "light black." It's how we use these words in our culture, I've never seen anyone question them or say any different. If you are described as "pale" and no colour after it, that means you're white. It's literally applied to no one else. Light skinned black people are called just that, light skinned. I've never seen a POC be called "pale" in my life.

I think the fact that JK lived in the UK heavily influenced her choice of the character's races, whether she likes to admit it or not. Fact is that the UK is a majority white country with pockets of other races and the HP universe embodied that, with minority characters being occasional but not widespread, just like the UK reality. That, I think, is the most logical conclusion behind her reasoning, even if she's not saying it. Yeah, she wrote them "physically ambiguous" but still ultimately decided to make them white. I think it sounds like she's backtracking.

Yes, it's nice that black girls are going to get this chance but it would be even better if they were given a new mermaid movie that's nothing to do with the original Danish story or Disney's retelling. A completely new one, un-connected to any previous white role, so it has nothing to compare itself to or have any casting controversy. Besides, in the Disney cartoon spin-off, Ariel meets a Hispanic or black Hispanic (it's hard to tell) mermaid called Gabriella who's deaf and uses sign language, so it's not like Disney never tried to be diverse with Little Mermaid or have never shown a black mermaid. They could have brought Gabriella back (or even forgotten the deafness and just made her a whole new character) who's be a fellow mermaid friend for Ariel, she could have a big role in it and they could even sing a new original song together. I'd have been totally on board with that too and it would have done the whole "putting new things in this remake" idea. But to throw out both these valid options and just completely change the race of the main character was a slap in the face for the nostalgic point of animation to big screen adaption.

15 minutes ago, M Monstre said:

Again, I can't really speak about your experience feeling like there's not enough redheaded actresses in media. That's something I never had to experience and because of that, that's something I cannot argue for or against. It's a completely subjective thing and I completely respect your opinion on that.

As for the "ocean is a global location" argument, I do think that's a valid argument to argue against. The details you mentioned about the castle and even Eric's name are all, in my opinion, fairly surface-level details. Like I've reiterated before, I've never watched The Little Mermaid, but I've never heard that the fact that Ariel's white or the fact that the castle has a European-style makeup severely affects the storyline or character arcs. Those are things that can be changed without doing a disservice to the movie. It's not like people are going to watch the movie and say "welp, the castle wasn't very 'European', so this movie isn't good". 

It's also not like setting the story in the Caribbean (or any other location where it'd be more geographically appropraite to have a black actress) doesn't have any precedent either. I can understand your argument if you took a story that was completely dependent on the culture and location and just suddenly changed it. For example, if they casted a black, white, middle eastern, latina, etc. girl as Mulan that could completely change the narrative and purpose of the stoy. In that case, I would agree that Mulan has to be played by a Chinese person (or at the very least, someone who can pass as Chinese. It's not right, but Hollywood does have a history—especially with Asian roles—of casting Asians that aren't necessarily the right nationality, but look "close enough"). Ariel doesn't have that kind of condition. You can make her any ethnicity you want without severely impacting the story.

To be fair, the problem was worse when I was growing up, there's more now. But even they're not playing redheads all the time or are in the biggest of movies (Jumanji and Jurassic World notwithstanding).

Well, no, it doesn't affect anything about the story, but that's not the point. The point is determining where it's set. You know that would be the defining factor of the highest importance about where a movie's set if the character was originally POC, so I'm just maintaining the same standard.

In a sense, though, it's not fair that Little Mermaid should have to have its asethetics changed purely because there wasn't a huge focus put on the location or culture. I thought the whole point of a movie was to tell a good story, not get hung up on where it was set. Instead of just saying "everyone in this is white, probably a white dominated country, let's leave it at that," like you'd do with any movie filled with all black or all Asian characters, you have to bring up stuff about "open to interpretation" when it's white dominated, not even taking the time period of 1837 (though probably a bit later than it in the Disney version) into consideration as the reason why it was all white.

[Adakam 2]

On 7/6/2019 at 6:29 AM, Didymus said:

 

My disgust reaches new depths every few hours, it seems.

And I should care about your disgust because??

 

[Craven Moorecox 2,806]

@StrawberryBlond just because things are better than how they were in the past doesn’t mean that the present is good. A lot of places and people still have bits and pieces of the past mindset. I live in the southern part of the US, and I see on a daily bases “in your face” and subtle acts of prejudice and racial bias from conservatives, liberals, college students, and people I’m friends with. So it irk me went people make comments about how things are great for all now or things against needed diversity. I’m not that attach to Ariel so I didn’t see the big deal of it, but I do understand the disappointment. Sometimes these shady and misinformed comments on gagadaily can make you go on tangent. I apologize for addressing a lot of other people comments to you. These racial threads blow up fast and a spiral out control quickly. I disagree, but understand your reasoning now and I want to apologize for misinterpreting you and for being a **** 

 

[Reality 73,890]

31 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

To be fair, the problem was worse when I was growing up, there's more now. But even they're not playing redheads all the time or are in the biggest of movies (Jumanji and Jurassic World notwithstanding).

Well, no, it doesn't affect anything about the story, but that's not the point. The point is determining where it's set. You know that would be the defining factor of the highest importance about where a movie's set if the character was originally POC, so I'm just maintaining the same standard.

In a sense, though, it's not fair that Little Mermaid should have to have its asethetics changed purely because there wasn't a huge focus put on the location or culture. I thought the whole point of a movie was to tell a good story, not get hung up on where it was set. Instead of just saying "everyone in this is white, probably a white dominated country, let's leave it at that," like you'd do with any movie filled with all black or all Asian characters, you have to bring up stuff about "open to interpretation" when it's white dominated, not even taking the time period of 1837 (though probably a bit later than it in the Disney version) into consideration as the reason why it was all white.

The setting would only be of high importance if it was crucial to the story, regardless if it was about a POC. Yes, while characters like Tiana, Mulan, and Jasmine are women of color, the fact of the matter is that their race and ethnicity is directly tied into the story. Merida is a white princess, yet her story is tied in with her ethnicity and hertiage. In that case, you can't make Merida black or Asian or anything other ethnicity. 

I'm also not saying that The Little Mermaid should  have its aesthetics changed, but it's clear that Disney is taking the liberty to change some stuff, so why not try and make it unique? If the whole point of a movie is to tell a good story, then why does it matter if she's black? Like I said in the beginning, as long as she does a good job, and as long as the story is presented well, it ultimately doesn't matter. 

[Didymus 34,379]

4 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Ariel was always referred to as white until now. She is the same shade as the other white Disney characters, mermaids are already human from the waist up and her race doesn't change when she becomes fully human. So, why are so many people now trying to say she could have been any race? Are they forcing themselves into denying reality for the sake of their interpretation of progressivism, maybe?

You're thinking about it way too hard though Nobody's saying Ariel was not really white in previous adaptations, just that in new adaptations of the same character her skin color is of absolutely no importance That's a completely different thing and it has only very little to do with "progressivism".

4 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

But were you a redhead watching the movie growing up? If not, it's hard to know exactly how we feel. I've found that it's hard for anyone, even other whites, to understand the struggles of having red hair. No one seems to take it seriously or think we need to be represented more. And it's still widely accepted to make jokes about us to this day.

The chances of the actress being a natural redhead were close to zero though Like, sorry but you can't use that now.

Not even Ariel was a redhead, she had red ****ing hair that no one ever had, except as a Halloween wig. I never even thought of Ariel as a redhead until all of these comments. For me she was just a fairytale figure with red hair

She might still have that hair color in the movie though, that has almost nothing to do with casting, so I don't think it's fair to bring that up so you can switch between the racial and the hair color argument whenever it suits you in the conversation...

[Pacify Him 9,073]

Are you guys writing a book? Wtf is this last page?

[Glamourpuss 29,062]

35 minutes ago, Pacify Him said:

Are you guys writing a book? Wtf is this last page?

I enjoy reading all the long posts. 

[Pacify Him 9,073]

1 minute ago, Glamourpuss said:

I enjoy reading all the long posts. 

rip mobile users 

[giskardsb 12,565]

Red hair is not exactly endemic to Denmark or the carribean or anywhere else the story might have taken place. Ariel as a redhead was invented by Disney.  

and sorry but the louder and longer some of you argue that Ariel HAS to be white the more and more racist you actually sound, whether you actually are or not.

[Earthling 3,688]

@StrawberryBlond

Remember that time they made a movie about a princess who literally embodies and represents being a beautiful archetype of a Disney princess AND they gave her very clearly distinct red-hair (strawberry blonde if you will), pale skin and blue eyes.

 

 

[Brooklyn Knight 108]

5 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

You don't need to explain this. These are the reasons why I do want a POC to play these characters. I just don't see why it's so bad to want a white character to stay looking the way you remember them. I've seen many people complain when a character is whitewashed even when race doesn't play a role at all, so I don't like the double standard. Either changing race is bad or it isn't, just make up your mind and stick to it.

I didn't compare my struggles to be on the same level (although natural hair would be on an almost equal footing) and never would, I just wanted to shine a light on struggles which no one's really aware of until we point them out because they're very invisible to anyone who's not one of us. Of course I've researched years of black history, just because I want a white character to stay in their original conception doesn't mean I'm ignorant to history. I'm just a stickler for consistency in all its forms.

race is a nuanced topic, and to say that casting a white person in a role intended to be a black person is inherently different than a black person playing a white role, in my opinion, and it has largely to do with the fact that there are rarely many black characters to begin with in modern media. Sure, in the last few years there has been AWARENESS around this fact and casting has been more diverse, but again, this is still something that is recent in a long history where blackface exists and black bodies and voices were erased. If you don't or can't see it from that perspective than there isn't much more to talk about... 

now as far as the "natural hair" argument, and it being equal footing as you having red hair... I am going to have to CLOWN you for that. Not sure where in the world you are located, but in the US, just within the past MONTH California was the FIRST state to ban discrimination against hairstyles, something that historically has been used against black individuals, reducing their hairstyles to tired and dated racial stereotypes. This is a national ( and I daresay worldwide) issue. I truthfully don't see in what instance you, an ( I assume) white individual with RED hair, can say that you face some adversity on any level similar to those of black people. Ultimately white people have a privilege that grants them almost unwarranted access to the world compared to most black people simply because of the color of their skin. I'm not invalidating your experience, or saying that you HAVENT been treated differently, I think its just very showing of your PRIVILEGE that you think your experience and that of a black person are in any way similar