new thread
(I was asked to repost this which I posted two days ago, because it got removed by accident.)
Article in San Francisco paper about the US Army deciding to allow a Sikh with long hair to serve:
US Army to let longhaired Sikh serve
This an in interesting article Bill and thanks for sharing it.
I must confess to mixed feelings. I spent 12 years in the U.S. Air Force and wore my uniform proudly. And while I did not agree with the emphasis placed on the short haircut, I felt it was part of that uniform, also to be worn proudly.
I am afraid that allowing a Sikh to be an exception will be perceived as ethnic favoritism rather than religious expression and will result in resentment.
Recently when I was renewing my drivers license, I was not allowed to wear my ball cap (much less my western hat) for the photo as it "covered too much of my face". Yet a Mid-eastern women was allowed to cover her face completely with her Chador. HUH??
The Sikh story should be an interesting one to follow.
Again, thanks for the link
Walter
P.S. I argued with the DMV and was allowed a photo with my hat, but pushed way back on my head....looks dumb, but I made my point. One for the old coots !!
To me, a uniform is "clothing", and your hair is part of your "body". No one should be allowed to dictate matters concerning your body, unless its condition truly gets in the way of doing the work. If you are too fat to walk down the aisle on a plane, for example, you can't be an airline steward. Clothing, on the other hand, needs to be controlled only when workers need to be quickly identified. Police and military officers are an example of that. If a guy has a beard and long hair and is wearing an Army uniform, everyone will nevertheless know that he is in the Army. Adding some small clothing item like a turban or yarmulke or something to restrain long hair shouldn't change that.
A person's identity is just as important whether it be rooted in one of those two causes or in others. A few courts, such as the California Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Unruh (civil rights) Act, have begun to recognize that.
Some states will not allow covering the face for an ID photo like that, of course. Some banks will not let you go in like that either, and for a very good reason!
When I went for my driver's license photo, they asked me to take my bandanna off. I almost always wear it when I am outside, and I do all of my driving outside of course, so anytime I am stopped I will look more like my picture if it has me wearing a bandanna. Since they wanted me to, I took it off, and there was a white bandanna still across my forehead, because I had gone hiking a few days before, and I had no tan there!
The main thing I have to watch out for when photos are taken is to step back a few inches behind the line painted on the floor. My hair and beard are part of my head, so my head is bigger than most people's, and if I toe the line, the picture will come out looking like I was standing too close to the camera.
Yeah, they said in the article it was a one time exception, but we know others will argue for the same treatment. Face it, these guys were doctors and the Army is desperate for doctors, but they weren't going to say that. It sets better with the public to say it was for religious reasons. This tack is not a first - they have looked the other way when they've found gay people to be in critical positions as well.
So they got a picture that looks less like you than they would have. Duh.
A friend of mine in St. Louis who is bald and always wears a cap took us to see the Catholic cathedral there. They would not let him in unless he took off his cap. How embarrassing! He never shows his bare head in public....
People are way too obsessed with what other people look like. Unless there is a valid physical reason, how others look is none of their business, and commenting on the appearance of others is extremely rude.
Bill
-I completely agree with what you said about hair being a part of your body. I've thought that way for a while. Hair is separate from clothing, and no one can tell you what to do about your body.
To point out another side of the picture here though.... As someone who has begun to explore the joys of bushcrafting, there is a reason the military tends to go for short hair. When you are on field maneuvers, you are exposed to a lot of things that can cause health issues, and that thrive on/in line hair. Lice, Fleas, ticks and other such nasties.
Most people who operate out in the wilderness for long periods of time keep their hair cut short to make it easier to inspect their scalps for these nasty little critters. Short hair also leaves less trace behind if you are hiding from the enemy (and they have scent dogs and whatnot). It also prevents hair from getting snagged in tree branches and getting in the way.
And to address the idea of a uniform. The uniform is not just a set of clothes. It is a state of being. It is the clothes, it is the attitude, it is the teamwork. Being an infantryman (for example) is about being "one of the crowd".
I'm all for religious freedoms, but I'm sorry, the regulations are there for a reason. If you want to enlist, then you should be prepared to have to follow regs.
The problem I have here, and keep in mind I was in the military for eight years and five of them were spent in combat units, females are more and more often being deployed to the front lines. Not in combat units but there are female aircrew, female MPs, female field medics, etc., all operating in a field environment who are NOT being ordered to cut their hair. In these cases they are wearing the same uniform and performing the same job as their male counterparts. If their hair really was a problem the military would order it cut. Yet no such order has been issued. The hair does not interfere with their ability to do the job and it does not prevent them from having a professional appearance or being part of the team.
Yeah, but the real reasons there are longhaired women in the military are:
1. It makes the leadership horny.
2. If all women in the military had short hair, it would look like 100% of the women were lesbians, which is a slightly larger percentage than is actually the case.
Bill
Maybe things have changed in the last 12-13 years, but when my wife was going through Basic training, they made the women in her group get haircuts just like the guys.
Or maybe it's just the Canadian Forces.
Then again, she got shafted by the recruiting sargeants too. They lied outrageously to her about the area she was signing up for.
I can't speak for the Canadian military. But in the US females can wear their hair as long as they like but in uniform it must be worn up in a manner that is off the collar and doesn't interfere with the wearing of headgear.
You know how you can tell when a recruiter is lying? His lips are moving.
I've read that in the US the women get short hair in basic training, but can grow it back, although the men can't. This just proves exactly how insane the hair rules are, IMHO. It varies by service, though. I don't think they get shorn in the air force.
I served in both the Army and the National Guard component of the Air Force and as far as I know no female that I ever ran across was ever required to cut her hair.
I read something recently about a woman being made to have a very short haircut on induction into one of the US forces. I'm not sure which one, but I know that she could grow it back afterwards, and I knew it wasn't the Air Force. For that matter, I've heard that male recruits are often made to get their hair cut much shorter initially than regulations require. I doubt that any of this is any kind of official policy. It seems more like hazing to me.
I just spoke with my wife regarding what happened when she went into basic. She says they weren't MADE to cut their hair, as long as it was kept off the collar and under the beret. However, there was a lot of encouragement to cut it short. Namely that it was a whole lot easier to get it groomed and ready to fall in for inspection. The military is all about efficiency after all, and the quicker you got things done, the better!
Yeah that's why the Native Americans had such short hair ain't it? Oh, and the ancient Celts.
The armed forces have a high percentage of hair nazis. That's the real reason for the haircut policy.
Paul
And it even explains why Special Forces Types have modified grooming standards to allow them to blend in with the locals. After all, those guys NEVER spend extended periods of time in the field.
Hi Bill,
Thanks for sharing the interesting article.
I know that it's an exception circumstance and perhaps very encouraging for us folk with longhair. It will be interesting to see how this pans out in the future and if anymore cases will be made exceptions.
Walter has highlighted a valid point as it's part of the "uniform" and has been deemed that way for along time. As for the expression and that person beliefs it's certainly something that is not for this forum.
Walter also makes an interesting point about having passport/ID card photo's taken. When I last renewed my driving license (every 10 years) there are alot criteria for valid pictures (face visability, not caps, not smiling etc) and they wil reject your application and have to take the picture again. I'll have to do the same thing again when it comes to renewing my passport in 2011.
Cheers,
John.B
NOT SMILING!!!??? You've got to be kidding. How do they decide whether you are smiling or not? Here they usually prefer you be smiling. That is how most people appear in photographs on this side of the pond.
I've heard that for immigration IDs here, they want one ear to be showing, so if you have long hair you have to tuck it behind that ear. Also, for some photos your head has to be so big in it. Other than that, the only restrictions I know of have to do with hats, scarves, bandannas, etc.
There are some small religions here where the adherents do not allow themselves to be photographed for any reason, but most states have nevertheless said that, if they want to drive, they will have to be photographed to get a license. Some small religions do not allow their adherents to have numbers assigned to them, and for awhile they got away with not getting ID numbers like Social Security numbers, but I haven't heard of this being allowed lately, and I'd suspect that's no longer permitted.
We have a lot of quirky religions here, and we both know why that is: YOU BRITS RIDDED YOURSELVES OF THEM BY SENDING THEM HERE! [grin] Truthfully, this situation has resulted in America's being behind the times, and to our detriment, in certain ways.
On the other hand, no one here is trying to stamp out smiling. Cultural differences can certainly be interesting.
Bill
Hi Bill,
Here is a link to the UK passpot site and have a read!
http://www.ips.gov.uk/cps/rde/xchg/ips_live/hs.xsl/36.htm
Cheers,
John.B
Interesting that they talk about where the chin should go. That is the one thing on me that people miss by a country mile. My eye doctor has a cradle he wants me to put my chin in, and he never presets it to within an inch of where my chin actually is.
Bill
I just looked at several of my photos, and I almost always have my mouth open and usually I am smiling. The UK wants one's mouth closed and with no expression. I probably don't do that often in photos because if I do that, one can't see my mouth at all. Well, if that is really what they want....
Bill
My guess would be that you'll remain an American citizen then.
Time to renew my passport also and we'll see if I smile or not, I didn't for the last one.
Kevin
Hey John. Yeah they don't care if you smile in your photo in Alabama.
No hats though and I did hear about one instance where a young boy was told to get a haircut before they'd take his picture. I think he had "Emo" hair which hangs way down in front.
I never had a problem with them.
Paul
Thanks for sharing this Bill.
There have been quite a few Native Americans that were allowed to keep their hair.
I was in the army four years and I never did see any connection of the uniform which you wear and your hair which is a part of your body.
To me the required haircut was a very unnecessary part of the whole experience and it was never justified to my satisfaction.
I might agree with the shaving part due to the NBC mask not being able to seal on your face if your have a beard.
Lice in the WW1 trenches was the start of their little pet haircut policy. The army, with it's often questionable intelligence, never admitted doctors come up with delousing medicines.
But when the lice are crabs they don't require that you shave your gonads to get rid of 'em.
Paul
Hi Paul,
You make some very valid points and since I've never been in the military it was interesting to read your comments.Yes sir you are a fountain of information my friend:)Cheers
Mark
I was in the military for eight years and it never sat right with me that females who did the same job and wore the same uniform could have their hair as long as they wanted but I had to get mine cut once a week just to stay within regs.
Odd - Here in Canada Sikh's have served with honour and distinction in our armed forces and police. The uniform was modified to include the turban as an option.
Certainly there was some controversy and discussion about it, but it all worked out OK. The latest issue that hasn't been resolved though was with our motorcycle laws. Some Sikh's wish to ride motorcycles without helmets and that has not been decided in their favour and might well not be.
AndrewB
I suppose the answer to that would be for an enterprising designer to come up with a turban-friendly crash helmet. However, that would probably look like the Mekon!
Well, I hope they get to chose whether or not they wear the helmet. I don't like the seatbelt and helmet laws, I think how you protect yourself should be your choice. Then again, I'm against a good bit of laws and rules that ban things/dictate apperance/have no real reason/etc.
In the UK they can ride motorcycles without helmets. The helmet law has an exception just for 'sikhs in turbans'.
The British Army has had sikhs with turbans since we occupied India in the days of the Raj. The latter is nothing to be proud of, of course, but the precedent is old enough. Not only that, but they have a reputation as being courageous in battle. Send them to Afghanistan, and history will have come full circle.
I doubt if this any indication of long hair being allowed in general. If you must join the military, you'll have to fight for Sweden.