I am Not a Ho

The following is an except from an email exchange between Donald Matthews and Hayes Stamper in response to Donald Matthews attempt to justify and legitimize the use of the word "ho" as it was applied to the Rutgers womens basketball team.

From: Donald Matthews [mailto:donhmatt@yahoo.com]

After discussing the issue with my daughter Faith and a doctoral sltudent Elonda Clay in Chicago I realized how limited my initial response to Imus was. They helped me to understand how the "official" black response played into the politics of respectability and self hatred in the black community. They helped me to be careful not to deny the texture of our hair (nappy) or our refusal to buy in to white christian middle class sexual values that are hypocritical and racist. I realized that in the 60's it was an insult to be called black and so we flipped the script and claimed our blackness.

Likewise we should also say that "I am a Nappy headed Ho and proud of it." If we don't we buy into the concept that there is something wrong with being nappy headed or having sexual values that don't match the middle class norm. The blaming of hip hop artists is a neat distraction from the issues that stem from the politics of respectability or as I have called it in my writing; the ethics of discretion. We should flip the script and not deny our culture by buying in to the politics of
respectability in which we have to prove we are OK because we are like middle class white people i.e., not nappy headed or over sexed but beautifully coiffed, professional people who are appalled at being associated with "lower class" black people. It was sad to see so many black women, including the Rutgers women, feel forced to defend themselves as not being like the "real" hos. This is the same defense the negative rappers use when they say there is a difference between a good woman and a ho and they were only referring to the "real" hos.

In my book I talk about the blues sexual ethic in which black folks were not ashamed of who we were and did not conform to the sexual norms of white america. I know that I am nappy headed, like sex and have had sex outside of marriage with more than more woman. So I guess that makes me a Nappy headed ho as well. Before Jesse became concerned with his public image he would have led the charge to claim his "Ho ness" Perhaps because he has been outed as a "secret ho" along with brothers like Bill Cosby, Julius Erving, Michael Jordan, etc. ad infinitum, who once claimed
respectability, he has lost his edge. Let us stand together as academics who can deconstruct the politics of respectability and shout from the rooftops "I am a Nappy headed Ho and I am proud of it." One doctoral student suggested that we make T-Shirts with that signage and therefore publicly claim hour Ho-dom.






Date: April 19, 2007 11:11:20 AM EDT
From: Donald Matthews [mailto:donhmatt@yahoo.com]

I appreciate the numerous responses my thread has generated. I realize the kind of visceral reaction that the statement would generate. In trying to comply with the editor's request for a research based response. I would welcome public or private responses to my explication of black sexual ethics (Black Sexual Ethics: The Use and Misuse of Black Sexuality) into what I call "blues based", i.e. sexual attitudes that are founded in a sexuality developed by poor black folks who did not conform to the notions of sexuality, what I term the sexual ethics of discretion/spiritual ethics, that were a part of the middle class sexual ethics. These ethics were first described by E.F. Frazier in the Black Bourgeoisie or the politics of respectability as found nit E.Higginbotthom's work on the Black Baptist Church. It is interesting to me that the great ideological opponents Du Bois and Washington both castigated poor blacks in their works who did not conform to the middle class sexual norms. They almost made the adoption of these norms as a requirement for the entrance of blacks into American society. They held these views despite the fact they were involved in the same sexual behavior that they criticized in lower class blacks.(Martin Luther King's writings and behavior also reflect this dichotomy/attitude)

A part of my argument is that sexual norms are the products of ruling social classes. They have changed and will change as social structures change. For example, recent demographic data has shown that not just Black Americans, but American society as a whole is now composed primarily of single headed households. In the 60's and beyond black women, men, and the black family were vilified for this family structure. These figures will increase as gender based economic shifts continue to occur and the U.S. continues its economic reorganization from an agricultural/industrial society to a technological society with little need for the labor of poor and working class persons. These persons will be called the "hos" of our society despite the continued incursion of these trends into the white middle class because they don't have a way to defend their behavior and attitudes. However, their artistic productions will continue to be commodified. Black and white cultural commentators in the early 20th century decried the spread of the "jungle" music of the black lower classes. Middle class black churches would not play gospel music because it was blues based nor the spirituals because it reminded them of their slave past. The black and white guardians of social respectability warned the public about the negative influence that the blues and its offshoots was having on white youth and American society..

A word is an arbitrary sign and its meaning can change depending on its use. If we all claimed to be hos the meaning and effect of the word would change. The religious scholars recognize that to be called a Christian was once a word that warranted death, now it is a sign of respectability. I find this ironic because the erstwhile founder of that religion once embraced the hos of his society (Mary Magdalena, the woman at the well, the woman taken in adultery, his mother Mary, the tax collector, the zealot, the leper, etc). Thank you all for your responses.

Rev. Dr. Donald H. Matthews


Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:18 PM
From: Hayes Stamper [hstamper@advertain.tv]
TO: REV. DR. MATTHEWS

I challenge him on several points “A part of my argument is that sexual norms are the products of ruling social classes”, the traditional conservative sexual values expressed are not “white ruling class norms” but actually inherent in the ethos of our pan-African ancestry. I would invite the author to research the courting practices of Kenyan young people and the participation of both immediate families and extended clan, then look further into the role of class, status and royalty, he will find centuries old cultural norms that predate both IMPERIALISM and COLONIALISM. So if he wants to lay that at the door of middle class black bourgeoisie he will need to come with something stronger than a weak statement like that.

“These figures will increase as gender based economic shifts continue to occur and the U.S. continues its economic reorganization from an agricultural/industrial society to a technological society with little need for the labor of poor and working class persons. These persons will be called the "hos" of our society despite the continued incursion of these trends into the white middle class because they don't have a way to defend their behavior and attitudes”….Actually if you look at the data for the Europe, the marriage stats, single parenting stats and percentage of homosexuality, in all respects they are outpacing the US, and yet there does NOT seem to be a debasement of the Caucasian participants of alternative lifestyles.

“Middle class black churches would not play gospel music because it was blues based nor the spirituals because it reminded them of their slave past.” A statement with questionable historical evidence, such postulates can often be dismissed along with falsehoods such as “we only use 10 percent of our brain”..sounds nice, but where is the quantitative proof to back it up.

A word is an arbitrary sign and its meaning can change depending on its use. If we all claimed to be hos the meaning and effect of the word would change. The religious scholars recognize that to be called a Christian was once a word that warranted death, now it is a sign of respectability. I find this ironic because the erstwhile founder of that religion once embraced the hos of his society (Mary Magdalena, the woman at the well, the woman taken in adultery, his mother Mary, the tax collector, the zealot, the leper, etc).

If there was ever a case to demonstrate the difference between learning, knowledge and understanding. The author states “erstwhile founder of that religion”, I think he means the pro-Pauline ideology as promoted by Rome, but it is theologically and historically clear, that Yeshua ben Yosef…started no new “religion”. The “hos” of his society, laughable, by that he must mean the Roman perpetrated humiliation of North African Semitic women, not a shred of evidence that the Jewish community of Judea addressed their women derogatorily.

And the best misuse of logic “A word is an arbitrary sign and its meaning can change depending on its use.” Kind of like changing his name from Ieuses the Kristos to Jesus the Christ.


Yours in Success,
Hayes H. Stamper II




From: Donald Matthews [mailto:donhmatt@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 9:55 AM
To: Hayes Stamper
Subject: RE: I am Not a Ho

Dear Hayes:

Thank you for your response but I believe that I can support my statements. Even in Pan African precolonial societies there were always persons who didn't fit into the gender social norms. (see Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart).

In terms of the European situation you would have to examine how minorities are treated in those countries. Algerians in France, Turks in Germany, Jamaicans in Great Britain are all under verbal attack as these societies have less and less need of their labor.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the literature on African American church history and ethics. I would suggest you check out Higginbottham's work, Du Bois' Philadelphia Negro and Souls of Black Folks, the work Benjamin Mays, C. Eric Lincoln and numerous others before you assert that there is no evidence for my statements.

Linguistics courses begin with that assertioon based on the work of Whorf and Saussure among others. I was not speaking about Saul of Tarsus but of Jesus of Nazareth. All the types I mentioned were persons Jesus was criticized for being in relationship with during the course of his ministry.
I hope I am incorrect but Ihave a feeling that you will also discount the authors I have named based on your own ideological leanings. Please don't fulfill my negative expectations and check these authors out if you are not familiar with them.

peace and power,

Donald Matthews




FROM:Hayes Stamper [hstamper@advertain.tv]
SENT: Fri 4/20/2007 11:55 AM
TO: REV. DR. MATTHEWS


Dear Rev. Dr. Donald H. Matthews:

With your pardon, I have extended the dialogue to a few interested parties.


In the context of justifying the adoption of such a derogatory label as “ho”, to use Achebe’s seminal work as a defense is too far a stretch for any academic, wouldn’t you agree?

Perhaps I should have asked him back when spoke at Cornell back in the fall of 2005. I was delighted to hear his personal story and thought to myself how closely related it seemed to be, to the book “Kaffir Boy” by Mark Mathabane. I raise the title of the second book, because in the original Hebrew form, the word Keffa is joined to Kaffir, the term used by Yeshua to address the man you would probably only recognize via his Anglo designation, Peter. Kaffir is about as charged as “niggardly” or “ho”, so its historical context found in the man you called Iesus calling the “black one” to lead is really interesting, hopefully the irony will not be lost on you. An ever expanding appreciation of historical colloquialisms will hopefully let us see the folly of adopting “nappy-headed ho’s” as something to be embraced.

Point two, let’s take a look back at this country, we see the steady influx of Asians in sweatshops as well as the sex trade, Russians mopping the floors of Targets at midnight, and the iconic Mexican immigrant offering cheap labor in front of the Home Depot, in any of these cases do we see a media or cultural “label” applied to the sexuality of its women. All are at the bottom of the economic and social caste system, yet each seems to be able to move beyond the utterly senseless self perpetuation of negative stereotypes.

I am quite aware of DuBoise work, and am proud of the inclusion of several titles in my personal library “The Philadelphia Negro”, “Souls of Black Folks” as well as the “Litany of Atlanta”, being close to Morehouse in both local and spirit, I am well aware of Dr. May’s work, Howard Thurman’s and the list goes on. Actually, all are being examined in my forthcoming deconstruction of the Black Church, entitled “The MisEducation of the Black Christian”. Nonetheless, the role of African rhythms’ and chanting, the use of tambourines and drums, the lining of the hymns, call and response, the prominent display and status accorded to women wearing headdress, or crowns, all give evidence that the history of the Black Church embraced and absorbed much of its African origins and did not wholesale abandoned them as some have suggested.

On linguistics, the question is whether language determines thought or thought determines language, so in addition to solely relying on Whorf and Saussure, I recommend you consider the works of Claude Levi-Strauss, Tzvetan Todorov, and Roland Barthes.

Finally, it is not a simply a matter of ideological leanings, but looking at the evidence. And the evidence tells me, your original proposals

• “… Let us stand together as academics who can deconstruct the politics of respectability and shout from the rooftops "I am a Nappy headed Ho and I am proud of it…"

based on the misunderstanding that


• “..We should flip the script and not deny our culture by buying in to the politics of respectability in which we have to prove we are OK because we are like middle class white people…”

or that objecting to our black women being called “nappy headed ho’s” somehow invalidates our black self identity because it subscribes to

• "...white christian middle class sexual values..."

is UN-DEFENDABLE, but since black Christians have found a way to embrace an Anglicized Christ figure, maybe your arguments will find a home, but I will speak against just as Yeshua spoke against Manessah and corrupt Zaddokite high priest, or Jesus versus the Sadducees for those who are limited by that perspective.



Yours in Success,


Hayes H. Stamper II