Jul 3, 2010

Has the definition of natural changed?

Earlier while i was on my personal twitter page, a female twitpic'd saying that she was all natural now, no nails, weave or anything. Of course I though that perhaps she BC'd or transitioned or even decided to get braids. I was slightly disappointed when I found out it was just her relaxed hair, but without the usual weave. Have we as black women been wearing weave so much that the term natural has been reduced to hair without weaving and stitches? Does anyone else view this as being natural or just a minor step towards accepting what we are born with; Kinks, coils and naps. This also reminds me of a similar "natural" hair rant I saw earlier; If the hair is natural, and woman chooses to straighten it with heat, does that make it less natural? In my opinion, the hair is still natural since it hasn't undergone any chemical process, but other women don't share this opinion. Hair will always be hair, all that matters is whether or not it's healthy.






Naturalhaving undergone little or no processing and containing nochemical additives

1 comment:

nappy headed black girl said...

This is a touchy subject. The definition that you provided ("little or no processing") is what leads many to think they are natural.

"Little processing," IMO, is stuff like texturizing. and to me that's not natural.

I'm also torn on the color thing. Color is a chemical, whether people want to admit it or not. And like I already mentioned, chemically altering your hair, IMO, means you're no longer natural.