Pierced Ears

Anonymous
I am going to try and explain WHY historically many people (and perhaps mostly white people of a certain background) in the United States consider piercing a baby's ears "lower-class" but, in doing so, I am not stating my opinion just a relating a historical perspective.

The United States, as we all know, was formed in large part by waves of immigrants that came here seeking religious or political freedoms, economic opportunities, or a "better life." This continues to this day. Many of those waves of immigration in the late 1800s and early 1900s were the poorest, or peasant class, from their respective homelands. Many of these homelands were places where ear piercing is "cultural" regardless of class or socio-economic levels. However, to many people already inhabiting the US, from cultures that did not practice this, it was associated with the ethnicity and class of these immigrants as that was the only reference available (people didn't travel for pleasure so much back then). Therefore, the ear peircing of babies was considered "ethnic" and "low-class" as the people who did so were mostly poor immigrants. That perception has persisted until today in many white familes who can trace their ancestors back beyond those immigrant waves. To others it simply became the "common wisdom" that only the lower classes pierced baby girls' ears. Within this same context, in those days, most middle and upper class families in had servants. Most of those servants were recent immigrants and many of those servants pierced their baby girls' ears. In those days servant class = lower class.

Now, as to why many AAs also pierce their baby girls ears, it is likely somewhat the same in that, in many African cultures, piercings are common amongst some populations, although not just females. Africans who were kidnapped and transported for the slave trade may have brought these cultural norms with them. After Emancipation, it may also have been seen as a way to differentiate themselves from the whites who were slave owners or it may just have been a look that certain parents thought was attractive or pretty. It also may be that, due to our terrible history of slavery and segregation, many AAs were relegated to lower socio-economic rungs because of the lack of education and professional opportunities. They ended up living amonst other "poor" populations such as recent immigrants and adopted some of their neighbors habits and cultural norms such as piercing the ears of baby girls.

So, there you have an explanation at least of WHY some Americans consider piercing the ears of babies as "low-class." I would also hazzard here that, as populations that continue to immigrate here in large waves are also coming from lower socio-economic rungs, looking for better opportunities and, are also from societies were piercing is the norm, the attitude persists.

Lastly, of course you have those who protest due to the pain involved and/or the altering of the natural look of a baby. That's a different argument entirely.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I am going to try and explain WHY historically many people (and perhaps mostly white people of a certain background) in the United States consider piercing a baby's ears "lower-class" but, in doing so, I am not stating my opinion just a relating a historical perspective.

The United States, as we all know, was formed in large part by waves of immigrants that came here seeking religious or political freedoms, economic opportunities, or a "better life." This continues to this day. Many of those waves of immigration in the late 1800s and early 1900s were the poorest, or peasant class, from their respective homelands. Many of these homelands were places where ear piercing is "cultural" regardless of class or socio-economic levels. However, to many people already inhabiting the US, from cultures that did not practice this, it was associated with the ethnicity and class of these immigrants as that was the only reference available (people didn't travel for pleasure so much back then). Therefore, the ear peircing of babies was considered "ethnic" and "low-class" as the people who did so were mostly poor immigrants. That perception has persisted until today in many white familes who can trace their ancestors back beyond those immigrant waves. To others it simply became the "common wisdom" that only the lower classes pierced baby girls' ears. Within this same context, in those days, most middle and upper class families in had servants. Most of those servants were recent immigrants and many of those servants pierced their baby girls' ears. In those days servant class = lower class.

Now, as to why many AAs also pierce their baby girls ears, it is likely somewhat the same in that, in many African cultures, piercings are common amongst some populations, although not just females. Africans who were kidnapped and transported for the slave trade may have brought these cultural norms with them. After Emancipation, it may also have been seen as a way to differentiate themselves from the whites who were slave owners or it may just have been a look that certain parents thought was attractive or pretty. It also may be that, due to our terrible history of slavery and segregation, many AAs were relegated to lower socio-economic rungs because of the lack of education and professional opportunities. They ended up living amonst other "poor" populations such as recent immigrants and adopted some of their neighbors habits and cultural norms such as piercing the ears of baby girls.

So, there you have an explanation at least of WHY some Americans consider piercing the ears of babies as "low-class." I would also hazzard here that, as populations that continue to immigrate here in large waves are also coming from lower socio-economic rungs, looking for better opportunities and, are also from societies were piercing is the norm, the attitude persists.

Lastly, of course you have those who protest due to the pain involved and/or the altering of the natural look of a baby. That's a different argument entirely.



WHAT? Thanks for speaking for me moron but that is not why I dislike earrings on babies. I didn't realize we had an expert in our midst. I dislike them because I think that children should look like children. No make up, no jewelry, just chubby little cheeks and onesies. Some people think it's trashy for me to put DD in a onesie and take her to the Burger King. I doubt it is based on culture but just their personal preference. Some just don't like things period. And sometimes it's just because!
Anonymous
Actually, PP, your post makes you the moron.
Anonymous
Just a plain white onesie looks like underwear to me so I would not take my kid to BK in that. But otherwise I agree, kids should be mostly unadorned.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Actually, PP, your post makes you the moron.



PP is a moron for objecting to another for making a blanket statement?
Anonymous
To the all the pps who think its cruel and low class and that one needs a deep philosophical meaning before piercing a baby's ears........

I'm sure that those of you with baby boys opted not to have them circumcised?
Anonymous
I was wondering how long before someone made an outright comparison with circumcision. Sigh.
Anonymous
oy.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I was wondering how long before someone made an outright comparison with circumcision. Sigh.


I made it in page 2. I don't get why it is such a risk of infection when clipping the baby's penis is even worse.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I was wondering how long before someone made an outright comparison with circumcision. Sigh.


I made it in page 2. I don't get why it is such a risk of infection when clipping the baby's penis is even worse.


I always wonder about it too. At least a babies ears don't get covered in feces and urine.

Anonymous
Wow, I had no idea people had such strong opinions on pierced ears! My ears were pierced by my ped at my 6 month checkup. I am AA, but I recall most of my friends (of all races) having their ears pierced by preschool. My mom had it done when I was a baby because it would be much easier for her to monitor and clean my ears as an infant than as an 8 or 9 year old. I agree with the poster who said it doesn't seem so "life altering" on a baby as it could be for a girl approaching adolescence.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I was wondering how long before someone made an outright comparison with circumcision. Sigh.


I made it in page 2. I don't get why it is such a risk of infection when clipping the baby's penis is even worse.


Boys don't get circumcised at the Mall by a salesgirl using hydrogen peroxide.

But you are hilarious! MYOFB, ladies.
Anonymous
My mom still thinks that red toenails are trashy -- so taste changes! I wear red polish all the time and ignore her comments.

But that said, I guess I'm with the poster who said that babies should be babies.
Anonymous
To each his own. The world would be pretty boring if all of our children looked and dressed alike. And who would we mock on this board?
Anonymous
Definitely cultural.

I know a lot of women (from different cultural backgrounds) who have upheld this tradition and I think it's fine for them if that's their choice.

I do not have my ears pierced - never wanted to get them pierced. I personally would never go out and pierced my own child's ears as an infant but if she wants to get it done later then that's fine with me.
Forum Index » Off-Topic
Go to: