Oh man! I’ve been hoping someone would find that Colbert video! Hilarious. And the best part is, that stereotypical condescending educated black woman thinks Colbert was being racist (because her type thinks everything is racist, and that blacks are incapable of racism), when in reality she’s the racist… and an idiot. She had no clue what was going on when he said she was judging blackness not on the color of someone’s skin, but on the content of their character… realizing Dr. King’s dream in a very special way. Of course the best was the line about Obama gaining street cred if he were to be enslaved for a while… basically he’s mocking the lady saying “well would you consider him black if he just had to be a slave for a little while?”

What’s odd, is at the same time she kind of does have a point… Barack wants to speak for American blacks, yet he didn’t live the traditional American black lifestyle… unless most blacks are raised by white grandparents in Hawaii, but my sources tell me that’s not the case. Honestly, he no more represents “blacks” than Trent Lott, yet his “blackness” is the only reason he’s anybody. If he were white we’d have never heard of him. He’s ridden this “black” thing to the top, without ever having to have substance.

As for the $5 video… am I the only one annoyed by the ebonics he’s attempting to speak “errbody hur ta pony up fi dollis!”… Wasn’t there already a video of him trying to “talk street” to the people? Or was that Kucinich?

RightWinged on March 2, 2007 at 11:42 AM

I dislike this woman as much as you do, but what you said in this post was racist. Or at least prejudiced and stereotypical.

So any black person who lets their hair grow naturally (that type of hair style is called a natural) is suddenly a caricature?

Nonfactor on March 2, 2007 at 7:37 PM

My comments were only stereotypical, because this woman is a stereotype… not because of my feeling about any given black person.

I’m not sure what this means in the context of your last two comments. How exactly should a black woman who has naturally nappy hair wear such and what does the style have to do with the political (or general) attitude of the woman in question? Or her education? Or her racism/lack of it? And what do white kids–most of whom don’t have nappy hair–have to do with the conversation at all?

The phrase seemed to indicate that you don’t care for the appearance of black women who don’t choose to emulate naturally straight-haired women in appearance. That’s fine, but it has absolutely no bearing on the attitude of the woman under the hair.

Signed,

A nappy-headed black conservative woman, who shaves her head nearly bald, but may grow some dreadlocks in the future just to defy yet another stereotype.

baldilocks on March 2, 2007 at 7:44 PM

You guys are all missing the entire point, I’m not saying anything about anyone’s “nappy” hair, and that wouldn’t even have been a word I would have ever thought to use to describe her hair because nappy has an entirely different image in my mind… But feel free to keep going on that “nappy” path that I never went on.

I’m talking about the stereotype that she is (See my full explanations above, like the rich white college kid determined to prove he’s not rich so he has to act like some grungy dreadlocked hippy wearing a Che shirt just so you know he’s as left as you can get, and so he can prove that he hates his parents’ wealth.) The hair is just one tiny part of her whole stereotypical behavior of one of these black women who has an attitude with every white person she encounters and is obsessed with “blackness” (it’s in the title of the book, and the whole discussion was about Barry not being black). She has to have that big attention grabbing fro, I’m sure she’s got a house full of African art to prove how in touch with her roots she is, etc. You guys are missing the entire point.

Back to the white college kid example… sometimes there is the occassional exception… the “chrunchy con”, but they are by far the exception, not the rule. Normally you see the kid and you can safely assume they’re going to be showing up at anti-war rallies and would jump at the opportunity to spray paint public property with “blood for oil” or “Bushitler”.

Now you guys can insist on focusing in on the hair and twist my words and call me a racist all you want, that’s fine..

I will however add that if you’re black then you haven’t lived “the white experience” and encountered condescending black people, usually women, who because they’re educated and have studied black history are obsessed with bringing it up constantly and talking down to every white person as if their condescending attitude is payback for some evils we’ve done to them. This woman’s whole image just goes along with it… the hair doesn’t actually have anything to do with it, other than this type of woman always feels the need to have the “cultural” hair to prove how in touch with her roots she is. The same way redneck’s complete the look with Calvin and Hobbs peeing sticker on their truck’s rear window, or gays have to have their little rainbow sticker, etc. The hair isn’t an insult, and there is nothing wrong with it. It’s just clear that the hair style is part of a conscious choice of showing off just how “black” she is… and part of the entire picture of what makes her obnoxious and racist herself, sense again, she isn’t a human or American first.. she’s “black” above all else.

But as I said, by all means, feel free to take it any way you like.

RightWinged on March 3, 2007 at 2:05 AM

Now the first one (2:05am) shows up.

RightWinged on March 3, 2007 at 11:29 AM

Who said anything about “making fun?” You said that “cultural” hair (which I took to mean “nappy” hair) was one racism that some educated black women have towards whites. That opinion is not you “making fun” of the hair.

I guess I’m just astonished that you view a black woman who wears her hair in its existential state and picks a method of styling it which is conducive to that state as something political.

See? You automatically assume that you’re being called a racist; what’s that about? And no one twisted your words; we just don’t understand *why* hair is part of the package that you described. The texture of one’s hair is something with which he/she is born.

BTW, white kids w/ dreadlocks do not have nappy hair–the term does not mean “uncombed.”

baldilocks on March 3, 2007 at 12:51 PM

baldilocks, you’re still doing it, you’re spinning and nitpicking at individual points while ignoring my larger point that I THOROUGHLY EXPLAINED. And nonfactor came about as close to calling my comments racist as possible, and you’ve clearly insinuated it.

You’re clearly not reading my comments, based on the fact that you’re still talking about “texture” of hair… Where did I say anything about that? It’s a style, but again it has nothing to do with the larger point, it’s just the cherry on top. As I THOROUGHLY EXPLAINED, there are so many different groups of people who feel the need to sport some kind of hair style or dress a certain way just to prove what they’re all about. I feel that she chooses this big poofy fro because it’s part of that whole “culture”… But I don’t even care, YOU’RE OBSESSED WITH THE HAIR. I just pointed out how it’s just part of the stereotype that her type insists on applying to themselves. Sure, there are plenty of other people who may just like the hairstyle, but like a gay who needs to have a rainbow sticker on his car, etc. in my opinion she chooses to have this hairstyle specifically because it goes along with the whole persona. I’m kind of surprised she’s not wearing an African style necklace, and any other number of the items and styles she needs to prove just how black and in touch with her African roots she is? You telling me you’ve never encountered someone who is obsessed with “blackness” and “black history” and lives there life around it? Clearly you have, and I think we can agree that this woman is one of them. But more often than not, these type of people need to have hair and clothing that makes them stand out in a crowd, not because it’s just something that comes naturally to them considering they grew up in the same cities as the rest of us, but because they need to make sure everyone sees them and knows what they’re about.

(Here’s the part where you still ignore that I drew parallels explaining how this has nothing to do “race” outside of the fact that the “hair” is one component of the self-imposed stereotype of people belonging to the group this woman does. Other groups have their own. And I don’t think (even though you do) that her hair is nappy nor do I have a problem with the “texture”, and I don’t even think it looks bad. It just goes along with her whole “image”. Others can have it and not be the same type of person, it’s not like it’s a gang symbol… and there are plenty of other styles, it’s not just a specific style… it’s just the big poof thing… She could do the two big cone things, she could have wrapped it in some “African-style” design piece of cloth, etc. It doesn’t matter, there’s nothing wrong with it… All I’m saying is she makes a conscious effort to do it, among other things, to be that stereotype and it’s obnoxious, the same way it is for other types. It’s no different than (as I’ve explained extensively) hippy college kids, or how about the “goth” kids in high school, etc.

But again, this is where you come in and ignore everything and totally misinterpret everything I’ve said, even though you know you’re choosing to selectively quote me to support your argument, and ignoring my point which wasn’t even intended to be “a point”, just a passing mention of something.

RightWinged on March 3, 2007 at 2:17 PM