Absolutely. In fact, when people ask me about my hair, I use the word as casually and comfortably as I use the word kinky and curly and coily. I tell them that my hair is nappy--coz they only ever see me in extension braids. I even undo a section and wet it so they can see it coil up tightly into the naps it is made of. Nappy is a blinking English word that means tightly coiled. It is not an insult.
True.
There are places where women are thought of as being way beneath men. So does that mean being called a woman is an insult?
Yes, actually. All over the world to call a man a woman or a "female dog" follows the line of thinking that because a woman is physically (and at one time and in some places still is considered intellectually lacking to men) weaker that being referred to as one implies weakness.
It just means those who think that way are ignorant, IMO coz Woman is a being worth recognizing and doing so with awe. She's beautiful and gentle yet strong and resilient. I know better so no one can ever make me think of myself as beneath them, no matter what THEY in their narrow mind think.
True, but that doesn't erase it's negative usage and the understanding cultivated around that particular usage for hundreds, literally, of years.
That's the same with the word "nappy". So I come here and find out that massa called our hair nappy with a look of disgust no different from the way he described our skin. But those w/o nappy hair were house slaves who were treated better than those with nappy hair. So we were brainwashed to think "nappy" didn't describe the true nature of our hair but was instead a word that meant "something we'd rather not have".
Sheeps wool is NOT soft. Lambs wool is...until it becomes a sheep. Unless you specific refer to lamb's wool, you're NOT describing the true nature of my hair. And the "treated better" deal went out the window closer to the Civil war as the South moved towards Wh*te slavery being the norm and had BLUE-EYED, RED-HEADED, FAIR-SKINNED "blacks" working out in the FIELD. See some of Lawrence R. Tenzer's research on this for those interested. Fascinating stuff.
So we pressed our hair so we'd not see the nappy state. We relaxed it so we'd not see the nappy state. But even sadder, we interpreted that word that meant nothing more than tightly coiled to be an insult.
This is sad, I agree.
This is no different from TD Jakes' son crying his eyes out when he realized that there's a chance that he could get darker.
Sorry, I beg to differ. We cannot assume to know what was in his mind. I was born a certain color, despite it being "high yellow" I STILL was taunted and teased by non-black children. Being "light" doesn't make one "white" or even near the "Club door". I BURN HORRIBLY and have had sun poisoning THREE TIMES. I ALWAYS wear sunscreen and use parasols. IF I were to get a bad sunburn, I wouldn't be crying because I "got darker" it's because that darkening showed me I didn't take care of my skin and when new moles pop up I have to have them tested to be sure it's not skin cancer. I'm concerned about my HEALTH. Not some stupid hierarchy only BLACKS are keeping alive about skin color. Especially when AGAIN, the south had BLUE-EYED, FAIRSKINNED "BLACKS" (who were a 64th African 
) working in the fields a bit before the War actually began.
When did being dark become a bad thing?
Since the beginning of time the WORLD over. The difference is back then it was PURELY A CLASS ISSUE. Those who worked in the field verses those who could lounge inside. From India, to the middle east, to Europe, to Asia, to South and Central America this holds true. Now for some this isn't the case: IE in Africa (some parts, others had the same issues) and certain Native American tribes. It was europeans who used it as a measure of CHARACTER and PERSONAL worth. THAT is the stigma that effects minorites EVERYWHERE now. Sad, isn't it?
Again, it's just brainwashing. That something so neutral and so true of us can be turned around to mean "something we'd rather not be".
True, but to ignore it or pretend it can be reversed in ONE generations time would not be good either. It can be -with time. Not saying you're saying that. Just making an observation. You're post is making me think and I LOVE IT! 
As for whoever said nappy or kinky are not used to describe coils/springs, could it be because they aren't soft as wool?
Again, wool is NOT soft. Lamb's wool is...puberty hits...then BAM! It is INCREDIBLY ROUGH!
Nappy was used to describe the sheep's wool or rugs that have that look. To me it is one of the best words to describe our hair.
PERHAPS, in terms of the VISUAL, but not the feel. Which is how it was used to "prove" we weren't truly human.
But if you prefer to use "curly", "coily", whatever, then be my guest. I prefer to say "tomAHto" while others say "tomAto" and it doesn't bother me that if you call my tomAHto a tomAto.
Let's note though this is not the same thing. That is an example of accent. Not using nappy because of am understanding of its negative and horrific use throughout history is an attempt to undermine certain sociopolitical ideas that have been ingrained the world over for HUNDREDS of years. That goes a bit deeper than pronounciation. 
I still know what you mean. And about accepting insults?
OK! I guess that's just like the light-skinned kid who'd rather pass off as not being black. Because to him, that's an insult. *shrug* To each his own.
When I tell other black women that, they are like how can you say that about your hair?! I don't think it's the word nappy that gets them, because when I say kinky, they also laugh. But, I don't use the word 'nappy', alot. I more so use the word 'kinky' to describe me and my daughter's beautiful hair!
We get so used to being insulted that we think it actually defines us. Take the "N" word for instance. I don't use the terms nappy or kinky because of the negative origins and the fact that it's non descript unlike straight, wavy and curly. With those terms you know what people are talking about. And they don't have political affiliations. The fact that kinky and nappy has even crept into scholarly dialogue and professional publications is atrocious. 
It bothers me when it comes up as an example of our post-slavery mindset, when it's far deeper than that when you speak of the issue from a GLOBAL perspective. Can you tell I'm am IR major, yet? 
