<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote cite="midE1D7vjD-00029w-Vu@hausdorff.zen.co.uk" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Traditionally, do-rags were worn only by black males to keep
processed hair in place/ to maintain the 'do. Clarence Major's Juba
to Jive traces it back to the 1940's. It's not just a "scrap of
material" but a scarf or handkerchief or stocking cap.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
Mr Major's dates are, sadly, rarely to be trusted. He dates it from
1940s but the only refs. he offers are from glossaries by Claerbut
(1972) and Smitherman (1977). More pertinent might be<br>
<br>
1965 (context mid-1950s) Claude Brown <i>Manchild in the Promised Land</i>
(1969) 192: I got tired of being the old-style nigger with the rag
around his head.<br>
<br>
Brown is writing of his life c.1952-3 so, and in fairness to Mr Major,
he may well be referring to the 1940s. However the processed 'do' does
not seem to be recorded in print until 1960s; the 1940s word, at least
as printed, is more likely to be <i>conk </i>(see Chester Himes,
Herbert Simmons et many al). <br>
<br>
The OED has a 1901 cite for 'do' from Dialect Notes (<font size="4"><small><font
color="#6666cc">‘a great <i>do</i>’, a child's word for a mass of
woman's back hair)</font></small></font>, but given that <i>do</i> is
accepted as a clipping of <i>hairdo </i>(OED first use 1932) my own
feeling is that the child is simply using 'do', to operate upon (OED
1881: '<font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><small><font
color="#6666cc">Women do their back hair, and do everything that they
arrange...') or even </font></small></font><font size="4"><small><font
color="#6666cc">abbreviating 'to-do', a fuss.<br>
<br>
Jonathon Green<br>
</font></small></font>
</body>
</html>