Is Nappy the new Black?

I was in a shoe store a few days ago looking for some snow boots.  The recent snow storm left my Uggs wrecked and my feet soaked.  Who pays 150 dollars, three times over, and learned each time that the effin boots aren't waterproof?

Me.  Once I left denial and entered acceptance that yes, the company certainly took at least 450 some odd dollars from me for some boots that keep my feet warm, but wet, I decided I needed to get my grown-woman-mom on and get some real deal snow boots.

I found some boots.  They were $110.00.  Still cheaper than the Uggs.  Still ugly with a little sexy in 'em.  Yup.  They gots fake fur on the top.  Yep.  Go me.  Sexy in the snow.

But none of this has to do with my post.

I was in the checkout line looking at available products for cleaning Uggs.  I came across a product that "prevents the nappy look from suede or nubuck." Yup.  That was the advertisement.

Pause.

I had never heard the term "nappy" anywhere but referencing hair.  And deduced as a young un', because all things Black were bad, nappy was bad.  So "nappy hair" was "Black hair" and thus, bad.

But I didn't think the adjective, apart from it's linkage to Black hair, was bad.

But here I was, having a moment:  Is Nappy intrinsically linked to Black hair, and thus, Black people, and thus, bad?  Is it like "black" which never means anything good?  Is "nappy" the new Black?  The new "ghetto"?

Struggling to process this one...

post scripto:  some etymology...comes from the verb "nap".  It's adjective form is said to be "downy", "fuzzy, kinky" and circa 1950, was used derogatorily to reference the hair of Black people.  But I just can't seem to detach "kinky" and "nappy" from the notion of "bad" Black hair. And maybe if the picture of the shoe on the can wasn't brown or something...