Black hair, white fetish Part II

I had to stop and think about this for a moment. McKinney's hair looked fly to me. So much better than her braided coif with the huge bow. It definitely brought her into the twentieth century, and surely, she is adamant about wearing her hair without chemical straighteners. This would look quite different if your image of a woman is that of a white woman. If the hairstyle was placed on a white woman's head, the aesthetic rooted in Black natural hairstyling would not be there. Cynthia decided to have a hair-style that registered with Black U.S. Americans. I'm not saying all Black folks love the do, but they definitely recognize it as a real and socially acceptable aesthetic.

For this white man, it references savagery, wildness, and "hideousness."

Black folks have definitely made the link from our hair to our African roots. This is definitely why the Afro became a popular hair style in the seventies. It was a way to shed a white standard of beauty from imposing on our Black bodies. It embraced the "nap"* and although the Reagan years brought on an unfortunate descent into the Jheri Curl, the black community held on to natural hair as a referent to our African roots. That is what is unacceptable here—the ways in which the nap is an outright rejection of American (read white) standards of beauty and respectability. The nap does not conform, it is not restricted, it does indeed go "in every conceivable direction." That's what makes it beautiful.

And so Black hair becomes, in many ways, a cite where politics are imprinted on the body. The choice to "go natural" or to wear thick, kinky, un-straightened hair is one that reveals a kind of personal politics. We (U.S. Americans) know the politics of respectability. We know that kinky hair is not acceptable. To wear it reveals, in many ways a political choice not to cooperate with that politic. (Note I specified the politics of respectability in regards to what hair means in U.S. American society, not radical politics in general.) This is not to suggest that there are not radicals who straighten their hair. I’m talking about here, how it is imprinted on the body by kinky hair.

Kinky hair also invokes issues of class. Who can afford to get their hair "done," and who can't? While kinky hair is far from low maintenance, it is certainly cheaper (in most cases) as it does not require the monthly purchase of cream crack (store bought no-lye relaxer), the one-time purchase of a stove heated hot comb, or the bi-monthly trip to the beauty salon to get it pressed or relaxed. So who has their hair straightened, how straight (i.e. bone straight), and how often certainly wears an air of respectability, and wealth that, at least to the outside community (read white folks) do not immediately register. We all know this to be a farce, as for a while I was paying $80 dollars a visit to have my thick head of locs maintained (I have since found a better deal at $65). We know that twists and braids can cost upwards of $50 and some times go into the hundreds. Oh, black folks can find a way to consume. But this is a truth, I expect white folks not to really know. It’s a relatively new development, this natural hair stylist, locatician, etc. movement. Since Madam C.J. Walker, Black middle-class-ness has looked straightened, and "respectfully" styled. That has changed dramatically as means of straightening have become more accessible to the poor (for a while now, keep up white folk) and natural hair for Black folks actually suggests that someone is financially secure enough to not have to depend on white standards of respectability in order to keep their jobs. White folks may not have caught up with this class dimension reality, but that doesn’t make them any less obsessed with Black hair. In fact, natural or not, the major image of Black women is tied to this aspect of our hair so regarldess if the Rutger's basketball team has/had straighetneed hair (which look at the roster pictures and you will see they mostly do have their hair straightened) the overarching image of black women, especially for white racists becomes attached to the "natural." Symbol: black women. Sign: nappy headed ho.

But lets get back to the psychological aspect of this whole hair deal. "Natural" hair references a rejection of a respectability aesthetic based in European standards of beauty. It politically symbolizes (whether intentionally or not) Black U.S. American historical ties to Africa which, for white people, continues to be a place that represents the primitive. White supremacist ideas of Africans as not only primitive, but savage, oversexed, and immoral therefore get tangled up in our kinky, African hair. This is how "ghetto," "ho," and "slut" easily slip into a reference to Black women, especially in regards to our hair.

Lets look at it from another perspective. Rewind: Above I stated, "...back to the psychoanalytic aspect of this whole hair deal. "Natural" hair references a rejection of a respectability aesthetic based in European standards of beauty. It politically symbolizes (whether intentionally or not) Black U.S. American historical ties to Africa which..." (I would like to insert here.) references the history of the middle passage, slavery, the nadir, and jim crow. (Note the semi-linear timeline.) It is a site that brings down heavy upon some white folks—white guilt. The guilt mired with the fascination and fetishization of Black hair results in the well-known intrusive behaviors of some of our white friends. Uninvited touching, a mirage of questions (often accompanied by intrusive touching) "I just love your hair. How do you make it do that?" "Do you wash it? How often?"

It reflects itself on any point of the political or cultural spectrum, a fascination with our hair. So lets return to the jerks at hand.

Imus' "nappy headed ho" reference, and Boortz’s "ghetto slut" reference. The former being a recent follow up to the latter, if actually discussed in a public forum would have the potential to put white America’s psyches on blast. Instead Imus has successfully, single handedly given us the distraction of hip hop, an issue he clearly knows is one of contention within the Black community, to cover white America's ass on the issue. This isn't the first time. It won't be the last. Every five seconds a white person is referring to a black woman as a nappy headed ho (or some variation thereof).

In love and nappyness,

a black girl

Black hair, white fetish Part I

This is a long one. It's broken up into two parts. This is part one.

So, here we are again: back to Black women's hair. Somehow with war, genocide, AIDS, and any other number of things threatening the lives of humans (mostly of color) on this planet we come back to the issue of Black women’s hair.

Recently, Don Imus was thankfully fired from his post at WNBC for referring to the women of Rutger’s basketball team as "nappy headed hos." This statement was of course followed by a media frenzy that included an interesting twist: blaming hip hop for the source of Don Imus' comfort with saying "nappy headed hoe." As if, somehow, white men weren't saying derogatory things about Black women’s hair and sexuality before the onslaught of hip hop in the 1970s. This also comes up as the boys from the Duke lacrosse team are released from charges of rape of a Black woman. Let’s not act like the shit ain't linked. I could go there. I could go down the road of how Imus' invocation of hip hop is purely a way to distract attention from himself, and dissemble what could be a fruitful conversation about the U.S. American audience’s complacency for violence verbal or physical against Black women’s bodies. But I want to stay on a topic that seems benign in all of this. The issue of Black women’s sexuality is certainly hot, and certainly needs healing. (For Black women in the DC metro area, please contact me, as I will be having a circle on May 3rd to discuss issues around the body for Black women.) I am going to talk about that. But first, I would like to make a small observation.

So Don Imus gives us the double whammy of referencing Black women’s hair, and Black women’s sexuality in one poignant moment that reveals, I would argue the psychological underpinnings of U.S. American fears, fetishes, whatever of Black women’s hair. Let me focus on it as a fetish: white people have a fetish around Black women’s hair. Well, actually white people have a fetish around Black women’s bodies period. Here I am talking about hair. Hair that is a combination of awe, disgust, fear, and hatred. It is as if our kinky roots are what Joseph Conrad calls The Heart of Darkness. Our bodies have been the maps of imperialism, and our hair strikes a chord of dread (no pun intended, but get why you don't call my hair by that word) and fascination in their hearts.

Let me back it up. I made a generalization. I said white people have a fetish around Black women’s hair. Just wanted to acknowledge that. No apologies, challenge me on that later.

As I was saying, white people have a fetish around Black women’s hair. I don’t know the source of this. I think looking into this will require a space as a chapter in my dissertation. I do have a few ideas. Don Imus’ comments reveal that fascination. How exactly does Black women’s hair become the marker for an entire basketball team that includes white women? This is clearly evident of a predisposed fixation of Black women’s hair. But he ain’t the first one in recent history. Can we back up almost exactly a year ago when another radio personality, Neal Boortz described Cynthia McKinney’s neo-afro as making her look like a “ghetto slut.” That’s not the only thing he gives us. Boortz goes on in a spiraling psychological (here is a moment where I invoke the postmodernist ability to make up my own words) Conradian descent into the depths of his fear, hatred, and awe of this Black woman’s hair. May I share?

It just flies away from her head in every conceivable direction. It looks like an explosion in a Brillo pad factory. It's just hideous. To me, that hairstyle just shows contempt for -- no, it's not an Afro. I mean, no, it just shows contempt for the position that she holds and the body that she serves in. And, I'm sorry, there's just no other way to -- it's just a hideous and horrible looking…

More on this issue here.

Let me be specific. It is the "natural" that frightens white folk the most. No such comment has made of one of the most prominent Black women in pop culture at this moment: Beyonce. (Outside of the Black community's whisperings on how bad her weave can be.) Boortz can barely contain his contempt for the natural. For him it actually "shows contempt" for her position as a government official. Black women’s hair in this state is something that can never be professional, that is always tied to our "primitive" roots, and most of all locates us on the lower rung of an aesthetic and moral hierarchy. Black women's kinky hair is evident of our sexuality. Note how Boortz references in horror "It just flies away from her head in every conceivable direction. [...] It's just hideous [... It’s just hideous and horrible looking."

[continued on next blog]