She's a modern day black feminist.
For folks like her, everything the black man is, does, and says, is "morally worse"
She literally calls us "troglodytes" in her posts
She's a modern day black feminist.
For folks like her, everything the black man is, does, and says, is "morally worse"
She literally calls us "troglodytes" in her posts
- 22,895
- 26,767
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2010
email I received last month from farmacyforlife (Styles P Run natural Pharmacy). Take it for what it's worth
- 22,895
- 26,767
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2010
while i 100% agree that this is being purposely done & pushed on social media, i would like to point out that a good 80% of the people doing it aren't in on the engineering & have actually been affected by it. These are there actual thoughts & these are actual people, taking real world roles & having real life impact on younger peoples psyche. this is far to big to just ignore & leave unchecked as just some social media movement.
This type of thinking is becoming more & more prevalent in the "educated" demo of young black people & it's only growing
THE FIRST BLACK SLAVE OWNER--AND THE ORIGINS OF SLAVERY
Euro-Americans arrived in Jamestown Virginia in 1607, and the first large group of Africans arrived in 1619. However, House of Burgess records show that Africans were already in the colony before 1619. John Rolfe provides us with an eyewitness account of this first group. “About the last of August [1619] came a Dutch man of Warre that sold us twenty negars.” Among them was one called Antonio from Angola. Later, we find that Antonio becomes Anthony Johnson. Other listed was Angelo, a negro woman,” and John Pedro, a neger aged 30.” The census of 1624-25 showed that there were twenty-three Africans living in Jamestown, Virginia listed as servants and not slaves.
Africans coming to Jamestown between 1630 and 1640 could expect to be freed after serving their indented period of time about seven to ten years for Africans and Indians. At this time there was no system of perpetual servitude or slave for life, but the system was rapidly evolving. Between 1640 and 1660 slavery was becoming a customary reality. In 1640 three servants of Hugh Gwyn, “a Dutchman called Victor, a Scotchman named James Gregory, and John Punch, a negro,” having run away from their master were overtaken in Maryland and brought back to stand trial for the misbehavior. The verdict of the court would change the system of indentured servitude and set the system in transition to plantation slavery. The court ruled that the three servants shall received punishment by whipping and have “thirty stripes apiece.” The court ordered that the Dutchman and the Scotchman should “first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is expired” and that they shall served the colony for three years. “The third being a negro. . .shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life.” This marks the first time that race and color becomes a factor in the status of both black and white indentured servants. In other words, the system is rapidly evolving to meet the new demand for cheap labor, and race is slowing being used as the justification for the enslavement of peoples of African origins. Between 1640 and 1660 Africans were going to court and suing for their freedom.
In 1644 Thomas Bushrod, assignee of Colonel William Smith, sold a mulatto boy named Manuel “as a slave for-Ever, but in September, 1644 the said servant was by the Assembly adjudged no Slave and but to as other Christian servants do and was freed in September, 1665." A similar ruling is found in the case Robinson.
In 1649, there were about three hundred Africans in the colony and an increasing mulatto population. African and European indentured servants off springs were increasing and considered alarming in regard to the status of the mulatto. That is a system was evolving based on being either black or white.
Africans who entered Jamestown between 1620 to 1650 could expect to be freed after serving their indented time and given 50 to 250 acres of land, hogs, cows and seeds and the right to import both white and black indentured servants. For a brief period in American history between 1630 to 1670, a number of Africans had become freedmen and owned indented white servants. The act of 1670 forbidden free Negroes to own Christian servants but conceded the right to own servants of their own race. By 1670, it was becoming customary to hold African servants as “slaves for life,” and by 1681 what was customary became law.
The first laws regarding the status of Africans recognized the free blacks. The first status was passed in 1662 provided that the status of offspring should follow that status of the mother. What this law did was to allow white fathers to enslave their own children, and free women of color to perpetuate the free black population. In other words, it also guaranteed freed black females the right to extend their free status to their children. Black women who have served their indentured period would not provide foundation for the free black community. Many of those African who were grandfathered in the new system not only became the free black community, but this is the origins of Black slave owners.
The act of 1668 dealing with the condition of the colored population related solely to the tax obligations of a free black woman, and two years later an act guaranteed to “negroes manumitted or otherwise free” the right to own servants of their own race and expressly denied to them the right to purchase or to own white or “Christian servants.” This law recognized and sanctioned slavery, but also guaranteed the continuity of the free black class, who were now largely mulatto.
Euro-Americans arrived in Jamestown Virginia in 1607, and the first large group of Africans arrived in 1619. However, House of Burgess records show that Africans were already in the colony before 1619. John Rolfe provides us with an eyewitness account of this first group. “About the last of August [1619] came a Dutch man of Warre that sold us twenty negars.” Among them was one called Antonio from Angola. Later, we find that Antonio becomes Anthony Johnson. Other listed was Angelo, a negro woman,” and John Pedro, a neger aged 30.” The census of 1624-25 showed that there were twenty-three Africans living in Jamestown, Virginia listed as servants and not slaves.
Africans coming to Jamestown between 1630 and 1640 could expect to be freed after serving their indented period of time about seven to ten years for Africans and Indians. At this time there was no system of perpetual servitude or slave for life, but the system was rapidly evolving. Between 1640 and 1660 slavery was becoming a customary reality. In 1640 three servants of Hugh Gwyn, “a Dutchman called Victor, a Scotchman named James Gregory, and John Punch, a negro,” having run away from their master were overtaken in Maryland and brought back to stand trial for the misbehavior. The verdict of the court would change the system of indentured servitude and set the system in transition to plantation slavery. The court ruled that the three servants shall received punishment by whipping and have “thirty stripes apiece.” The court ordered that the Dutchman and the Scotchman should “first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is expired” and that they shall served the colony for three years. “The third being a negro. . .shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life.” This marks the first time that race and color becomes a factor in the status of both black and white indentured servants. In other words, the system is rapidly evolving to meet the new demand for cheap labor, and race is slowing being used as the justification for the enslavement of peoples of African origins. Between 1640 and 1660 Africans were going to court and suing for their freedom.
In 1644 Thomas Bushrod, assignee of Colonel William Smith, sold a mulatto boy named Manuel “as a slave for-Ever, but in September, 1644 the said servant was by the Assembly adjudged no Slave and but to as other Christian servants do and was freed in September, 1665." A similar ruling is found in the case Robinson.
In 1649, there were about three hundred Africans in the colony and an increasing mulatto population. African and European indentured servants off springs were increasing and considered alarming in regard to the status of the mulatto. That is a system was evolving based on being either black or white.
Africans who entered Jamestown between 1620 to 1650 could expect to be freed after serving their indented time and given 50 to 250 acres of land, hogs, cows and seeds and the right to import both white and black indentured servants. For a brief period in American history between 1630 to 1670, a number of Africans had become freedmen and owned indented white servants. The act of 1670 forbidden free Negroes to own Christian servants but conceded the right to own servants of their own race. By 1670, it was becoming customary to hold African servants as “slaves for life,” and by 1681 what was customary became law.
The first laws regarding the status of Africans recognized the free blacks. The first status was passed in 1662 provided that the status of offspring should follow that status of the mother. What this law did was to allow white fathers to enslave their own children, and free women of color to perpetuate the free black population. In other words, it also guaranteed freed black females the right to extend their free status to their children. Black women who have served their indentured period would not provide foundation for the free black community. Many of those African who were grandfathered in the new system not only became the free black community, but this is the origins of Black slave owners.
The act of 1668 dealing with the condition of the colored population related solely to the tax obligations of a free black woman, and two years later an act guaranteed to “negroes manumitted or otherwise free” the right to own servants of their own race and expressly denied to them the right to purchase or to own white or “Christian servants.” This law recognized and sanctioned slavery, but also guaranteed the continuity of the free black class, who were now largely mulatto.
- 22,812
- 46,184
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
Oh my gosh I can't believe I agree with Osh.
I was having this same debate with my current situation a couple weeks ago. For full context she's a lightskin Black women dad is white and mom is black. I tried to explain to her how black men don't care if they're getting fetishized because the end result is still us getting what we want.
- 32,604
- 27,121
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
yah I also think it's also the nature of male vs female sexuality.
women are generally pretty concerned with whether a man "truly" likes them and wants to have a relationship vs just wants to have sex with them.
Men generally don't care about that because in 90% of the time if a woman is willing to have sex with you,
she's also probably willing to be in a relationship with you.
if "fetisization" means access to sex but no relationship, the vast majority of men would be cool with that.
so other than some extreme scenarios, no man is really worried about "fetisization"
- 5,072
- 6,224
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
This is changing I've learned. F boys are dudes women will have sex with but don't look at as relationship material. Basically a male THOT.
- 22,812
- 46,184
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
That's still a win though.
Fun guy > relationship guy. All the relationship perks but none of the emotional or financial responsibilities.
- 32,604
- 27,121
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
I've heard a different definition of F boy.
From basically all women I've heard use this phrase, it's to describe a man
who purposely makes you think he wants a relationship
but actually he's just trying to have sex with you.
- 5,072
- 6,224
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
As long as you know you're a F boy it's a win
- 5,072
- 6,224
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
That's not how women explained it to me
- 41,157
- 42,383
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
I kinda feel like “f-boy” got gentrified by the internet. It was just another way to describe a goofy. You can tell someone didn’t get, and made the phrase literal. They people use it now ain’t even a diss. Especially after sex.
- 5,072
- 6,224
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
I'm old so I have now idea how or what. Some young girls I skate with explained it that way to me. The dude they were talking about had no idea he was a considered a F boy I tell you that much based on his proclamation of love thru text.
- 27,824
- 40,039
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2010
Yeah, F-boy and F-n in the hood use to mean a leach, a dude with no hustle, a dude who gossips/pillow talks, turncoat, a dude who begs, a dude who robs or steals…
It’s had NOTHING to do relationship roles. Same way “hitting a lick” got gentrified. That’s when I knew I was getting old.
Bingo. FN or FB was like a snitch, tattle tellers, or an untrustworthy person.
- 27,824
- 40,039
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2010
It be awkward women like this who never had a boyfriend or are always single, trying to kick knowledge about the dating game
- 27,824
- 40,039
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2010
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with interracial dating.
There’s 8 billion people walking this earth. It has to happen. Plus it creates genetic diversity. I can’t believe it’s still debated. America isn’t the end all, be all of civilization.
People would rather you suffer or beat your head against drywall, to search for someone who looks like you. If you have to date outside to find happiness or cure your loneliness, do so.
I only date black women personally, but if there’s a black man or women who’s broken and needs a change of pace, so be it. Same goes for an Asian, Indian, white person, etc.
400 million Americans, vs 7.5+ billion others worldwide
There’s 8 billion people walking this earth. It has to happen. Plus it creates genetic diversity. I can’t believe it’s still debated. America isn’t the end all, be all of civilization.
People would rather you suffer or beat your head against drywall, to search for someone who looks like you. If you have to date outside to find happiness or cure your loneliness, do so.
I only date black women personally, but if there’s a black man or women who’s broken and needs a change of pace, so be it. Same goes for an Asian, Indian, white person, etc.
400 million Americans, vs 7.5+ billion others worldwide
Last edited:
- 5,072
- 6,224
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
Its amazing how prison culture makes it into mainstream culture smh. Im gonna go with the women's definition on this one
- 5,072
- 6,224
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2018
I'd really be the old guy if I told them chicks "well actually a f boy is a prison term
" be like trying to convince Meg a stallion got a dong
- 41,157
- 42,383
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
Michael Jai White: “….but a Stallion is a male horse??”
I'd really be the old guy if I told them chicks "well actually a f boy is a prison term
Nixon/Reagan = the fathers of prison culture. Planned to be like this decades ago.
As far as the lingo goes, the same thing happened to the word "chivalry".
Once the mainstream has a narrative that helps consumers consume/generate revenue - nobody cares about history/ facts anymore
- 22,812
- 46,184
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with interracial dating.
There’s 8 billion people walking this earth. It has to happen. Plus it creates genetic diversity. I can’t believe it’s still debated. America isn’t the end all, be all of civilization.
400 million Americans, vs 7.5+ billion others worldwide
The thing is the ones complaining aren't really interested in interracially dating, or dating someone that is longer than a 15 min commute from them.
They want their pick of their partners race, physical appearance, socio economic status, and personality and then wonder why their options aren't lining up with their expectations and wants. I'm not saying racism and colorism doesn't impact dating because it does and it always will. Dating as a whole is inherently discriminatory and people are better off finding those that actually like them than being mad at others who do not.
Just factually speaking every race is more likely to marry someone of the same race. BUT when you are in a racial group that has historically dealt with generational poverty due to slavery, Jim Crow, mass incarceration and then want to add additional dating requirements like height, education level, financial status then yeah you're cutting your dating pool down tremendously.
Last edited:
- 27,824
- 40,039
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2010
I'd really be the old guy if I told them chicks "well actually a f boy is a prison term
You shouldn’t be talking to them youngins anyway. Unless they’re relatives, your kids, or if you’re a coach or work with your programs.
I’m 35 and I avoid discussions with anyone 18-27 unless they’re a relative of mine or close proximity to my family. They make my head hurt.
