"Nappy-headed who'es" redux

[Doug Harris]

'Sorry, Wilson. Didn't mean to over generalize. Or appear to.
I'd say the meaning of 'male of the species' in this context is both
specific (humans: as exemplified in the book of the same term by Alex Mindt,
Delphinium Books, Apr. 2007, ISBN 9781883285289, and the 1969 TV movie,
written by Alun Owen and directed by Charles Jarrott, using the phrase as
its title) and unspecific. And unfortunately so: Though it's true that men
of assorted racial and ethnic backgrounds wear do rags, I was referring more
specifically to the African American, and most specifically to those whose
do rags less often serve the original, intended (do-keeping) purpose than
they serve as a fashion statement, of sorts.
In that a fashion statement is 'something,' I was both inaccurate and unfair
in stating the rags do 'nothing.'  (I wonder, though, is it most accurate to
say the rag is making the fashion statement or that the wearer is, by
donning the rag?)
While you're absolutely right in suggesting it probably is of no importance,
in the grand scheme of things, whether a hair cover does or does not perform
a function, I respectfully suggest that it is in fact true that a hair cover
always performs _some_ function, whether it's so simple a function as
protecting the wearer from the affects of sun, rain or whatever, or a more
complex function as participating in the making of a fashion statement, or
the representation of the wearer as a member, follower or even a
pretend-follower of a group, club or whatever.
Oh, and for the record, I understand that women made famous the do rag look
during World War II (Safire, 'The to-do over 'do' and the do-rag,' NYT,
3/7/05) and that both men and women wear them now. But my original comment
reflected my perspective, as coincidentally expressed in a Columbia News
Service Report on 5/23/03
(http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2003-05-23/293.asp) that the do
rag look is "in-your-face ghetto," and I happen to intensely dislike the
practice of people of whatever race or whatever background making a point to
look, in their perception, as if they came from or were of a like mind with
people unfortunate enough to live in a true ghetto.
That I am not alone in finding fault with the ghetto look was exemplified
earlier this year in the reaction to some U. of Connecticut Law School
(white) students' behavior at an off-campus party. According to The Smoking
Gun (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0125072uconn1.html),
"do rags, gang signs and gold teeth" were both worn _and_ shown off to the
world via postings on the web. Other UConn students and administrators at
the law school criticized at the 'Bullets and Bubbly' party as "racially
insensitive," according to that article.
(the other) doug



Poster:       Wilson Gray <hwgray at GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: "Nappy-headed who'es" redux

Geez, the other doug, that's harsh! "The male of the species"? To what
species do you refer? What is the source of your implied claim that
the 'do rag' is peculiar to the male of the 'do rag-wearing species?
What is the basis of your stated claim "the male of the [un-named]
species is better known for the do-nothing 'do rag'' hair cover"?Why
do you think that the 'do rag is a do-nothing hair cover? What does it
matter whether a hair-cover perform a function?

IAC, the purpose of a (hair-)do rag, whether worn by a man or by a
woman, is to hold a hair-do in place until that hair-do has set.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org