I came across the above statement on one of the social network sites I frequent.  The five word sentence was responded to by another that declared “perms” the necessary alternative for certain “unfortunate women”, and from there  an abundance of similar statements were added.  For a good minute I pondered over the specific meaning of the initial asseveration. Did it mean that it is to be believed that for some people, the curls and abundant thickness that sprouted from their scalps in utero and had been allowed to mature from the moment of their birth until whenever they chemically treated their hair is, in fact, not fit for them to proudly sport unaltered?  Well that’s not a new assertion, actually.  Since being brought to this country African-American hair has been like a brand and made into the hallmark of all things bad, ugly and wrong.  Nappy hair has been the one thing that has made us largely identifiable in slavery times, as well as the negative connotation placed on it.  White beauty has been the “right” beauty for so long so the statement was “understandable” in a sense, but I found that after all this time and all the strides that have been made to break the mental chains attached to our appearance, both statements (along with a good fifteen or twenty other responses posted by persons of colour), it’s sad that this represents how we still view being “ourselves” today. That’s deep.

Initially I brushed the comment of as simple social network blather designed to catch the attention of bandwagoners.  Being that I have been doing the natural thing by the seat of my pants for two years I’m not immune to the ignorance surrounding the natural hair of African-Americans.  As previously stated, the disavowing hair associations all started as a means to keep us feeling inferior and “in line”, then “somehow” got adopting into our direct culture as socio-political gospel (two of the books I am reading now for research — Hair Matters and Hair Raising — outline this process from its inception).  It’s all historically founded and widely understood, so the yardstick by which we measure each other’s character based on hair is damn near as old as time and unconsciously accepted.  But the more I thought about the implications of the social networking call and response, I began to get irritated, and then outright angry!  Of course it wasn’t just because I’m a naptural.  Couldn’t be, because I KNOW I look damn good with my unaltered tresses, no matter who has what to say about it. *snap snap* The reason I got angry was that in one hundred forty-four years the idea that what is good for European-Americans as the mark of beauty and assent, is still what we consider the pinnacle of what’s par for us.  How ludicrous is that?  Yeah, yeah, yeah… Three hundred years of slavery and oppression, having that “beat” into “our’ heads (and onto out backs), and yadda, yadda, yadda.  It’s so ingrained in us that we’re now doing the divide and conquer work for “them”, whoddie, whoddie whoo.  All of that is well known and recognized, but I wonder when it will stop being perpetuated and when we will embrace how we are.  Damn the antagonistic history, why aren’t we looking to the affirming history of the accomplishments post slavery that have created a new standard of beauty and acceptance for us, by us.

Hey, ya’ll remember back one year, eleven months and twenty-eight days ago when while live on air, radio personality Don Imus used the words “nappy headed” when referring to the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team.? Remember how in an uproar not just the African-American community, but the world was about it?  Well yeah, he also used the word “ho’s” in there too, but I don’t think he would have received even a quarter of the flack he did had “nappy headed” not been appended.  It’s because the word nappy dredges up unpleasant perceptions that have been burned into our psyche about what having tightly coiled hair was said to represent and has been fashioned to say about us.  Immediately, and justifiably, of course, Imus was virtually bitch slapped with reprimand from not only his employers, but “nappy headed” people worldwide, cause what he said just was not right.  But what I cram to understand is why the statement made by the random social network detractor was not treated with the same disdain.  He/she/they essentially said the same thing in different words with a less defamatory tone (in a sense).  At least it seemed that way to me.  Probably because Imus was white, and since the originator of the statement — that ended up in a discussion and several other posts on a different site — was of colour he/she/they felt more entitled to say such a thing because they could relate by proxy.  Seems like double standard BS to me, or maybe I’m just being hypersensitive.

Suffice it to say, I think the statement was beyond ignorant and  narrow minded.  To say the protein strands that emanate from a person’s body by design, something that is as much a part of their chemical makeup as their nails and skin, is not right for them is to cut them from being who they wholly are.  Who has the right to make that judgment?  And it always seems this assessment only made towards women?  I don’t see men being urged to “get a perm” or “slap in a weave” as the ultimate solution to combat the truth of their heritage when it begins to show on their heads.  Sure there are chemical “solutions” geared towards the male consumer, but on a wider scale all most men need is a simple trim and line up, a tightening trip to their braider or loctitian, or a good stiff brush and wave cap to keep them looking their personal (or socially acceptable) best.  While a lot of men do go the texturizer route, the campaign for them to alter their hair in the name of appearance propriety in no where near the level of what we women have to “fight” against.  Yet another double standard.

There were a couple of replies made that spoke of certain women thinking “going natural” meant they didn’t have to properly maintain their, which I have been witness to.  But that speaks more of grooming than being “natural”, doesn’t it?  There were also responses that decried the appearance of certain women wearing Afro’s or washouts or cropped brush cuts that just didn’t “fit well” with their head or of face shape.  But that has to do with style more so than being “natural”, right?  I think had the comments been expressed in those contexts, I would not have been as upset because I more than agree that every style does not work well with every head.  And no matter if you are relaxed or nappy, an unkempt head just is not the business.  But I feel it is unjust to say natural isn’t for every woman of colour who chooses to take the journey, educates herself on proper maintenance methods to keep her “crowing glory” looking right and takes pride in being able to say she’s proud of her 100% unaltered kinks and coils, despite what history tried to make her believe they said about her.  Sounds like someone needs to take a check of the reality they are constructing for themselves, and stop trying to project it on those who are just trying to “be.”

Notice you don’t see our Euro-American counterpart telling each other that type of BS.  Take note, and break the chain.

Healthy Hair Wishes,