Tweet
wen u ansa mi post someting
-
-
Re: TG u still deh bout...rope in right yah now
Yes I am still here! -
Re: TG u still deh bout...rope in right yah now
Comment
-
Re: TG u still deh bout...rope in right yah now
LOL so except for the hair you kept the colour?Comment
-
u look?
Comment
-
Re: TG u still deh bout...rope in right yah now
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL so except for the hair you kept the colour? </div></div>
and dat was tanned..see di hair have di red tinge n di fly awayComment
-
Re: TG u still deh bout...rope in right yah now
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL so except for the hair you kept the colour? </div></div>
and dat was tanned..see di hair have di red tinge n di fly away
</div></div>I see it!Comment
-
Re: TG u still deh bout...rope in right yah now
I have always said anytime you see a Jamaican arguing that black in Jamaica suffering dem hiding dem high colourComment
-
Re: TG u still deh bout...rope in right yah now
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL so except for the hair you kept the colour? </div></div>
my mom's mom was herself some St Elizabeth mix so di only melanin contribution was from my paternal mom...now my son's father was along the line of my paternal grandmom but my son still took mine...go figgaComment
-
Re: TG u still deh bout...rope in right yah now
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL so except for the hair you kept the colour? </div></div>
my mom's mom was herself some St Elizabeth mix so di only melanin contribution was from my paternal mom...now my son's father was along the line of my paternal grandmom but my son still took mine...go figga </div></div>Out Of Many One People!Comment
-
Re: TG u still deh bout...rope in right yah now
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tuff Gong</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have always said anytime you see a Jamaican arguing that black in Jamaica suffering dem hiding dem high colour </div></div>
mi no hide mine...neva...mi live rung suffering..,mi seet upfront daily wen mi was growing up..my difference is dat i also lived wid people who helped said suffering rather than chat bout it...n i suffer from my shade also...suffa in ways dat still mark me...is not nice living in a glass house...but dat is anodda discussion...juss as black people stipulate behaviour to dark hues they also STIPULATE BEHAVIOUR TO LIGHT HUE...TINK PON DAT STATEMENT... the Yendi uproar bears dat out dont...all the discussion re colourism bear dat outComment
-
Re: TG u still deh bout...rope in right yah now
btw mi juss a realise dat u MITE be saying mi a hide mi colour...say it is not so..mi haffi mek mi Starbucks run but will b back to attack u if is dat u a sehComment
-
Re: TG u still deh bout...rope in right yah now
Aye Sista being from St. Elizabeth meself I know what you chatting bout. Believe me it is better these days despite the big ole discussion right yaso recently - it used to be worst say 40 - 50 years ago. Even in your own fambily you would see the differences but I always maintained that it is a throw back to slavery when high colored was deemed to better than darker hues. I think that that might have been because the lighter ones were the children of backra so they were treated and assumed to be better (the same thing goes for good hair, bad hair), etc.Comment
-
Re: TG u still deh bout...rope in right yah now
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">btw mi juss a realise dat u MITE be saying mi a hide mi colour..</div></div>Many browning here hide their colour!Comment
-
Re: TG u still deh bout...rope in right yah now
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: St_Bess</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I think that that might have been because the lighter ones were the children of backra so they were treated and assumed to be better (the same thing goes for good hair, bad hair), etc. </div></div>
I read an interesting history about this recently. It seems that white men in Jamaica were never partial and it was common-place to see white bachelors having open relationships with mixed and black women during slavery. The history book was saying though that the man usually raised the children under his own roof as one of his own, the same as his white children, and often left large inheritances to them, to the extent that they passed a law limiting the amount you could leave. This effectively created a class distinction between white and mixed people.
<span style="font-style: italic">"
In 1763 the assembly instituted an inquiry into the amount of
property left to coloured children, when it was found to amount to
between two and three hundred thousand pounds, including both
real and personal property. Amongst the former were four sugar
estates and thirteen pens. Fear was expressed lest the colony should
be injured by the accumulation of so much property in such hands,
and a bill was passed, declaring that a devise from a white person
to a negro or a mulatto exceeding in value £1200 sterling should
be void. Nevertheless private bills were passed occasionally,
enabling gentlemen to bequeath their property free from such
limitations, though only where the legatee had been baptized and
fairly educated.
The result of this class legislation was to lead even the poorest
and most dissipated white person to look down on the free
coloured people, however respectable or superior to himself in
manners or morals. The position of such of these ostracised classes
as had been educated in England was the most painful of all. A
wealthy planter or merchant, strongly attached to the coloured
mistress he had selected, would determine to give her children
every advantage. They would be sent home to receive a first-class
HISTORY OF JAMAICA 171
education, over which no expense was spared. On returning to the
colony, their treatment contrasted most unfavourably with that
they had received in England.
Whether it was well for English gentlemen to form the
connections they did, is a question to which but one answer can be
given. They did not then marry coloured women, and therefore
their offspring were illegitimate. But when they made the only
atonement in their power, by educating and providing for these
children, it was cruel to visit those who were innocent with a
social ban. Mr. Long affirms that almost without exception these
mistresses were unfaithful;1 Mr. Edwards, with far more truth,
asserts the contrary.1 “In their dress and carriage,” he says, “they
are modest, in conversation reserved; and they very frequently
manifest a fidelity and attachment towards their keepers, which, if
not virtue, is something very like it. The terms and manner of their
compliance therefore are commonly as decent, though perhaps not
as solemn, as those of marriage; and the agreement they consider
as equally innocent, giving themselves up to the husband (for so he
is called) with faith plighted, with sentiment, and with affection.”
It would be difficult to show wherein many of these unions
differed from certain Scottish marriages, except in legal status. As
nurses to the sick, these women were remarkable for their skill and
kindness; and when the cruel disabilities under which they
laboured were considered, their forbearance and gentleness is
remarkable.
"</span>Comment
Comment