|
This is one of the best responses in this thread because it recognizes the complexities and ambiguities of rastafarianism. It is a 'livity', meaning a way of life and spiritual outlook, that's very different than a religion where one must follow received knowledge word for word. I look at rastafarianism, like everything in life, as existing along a spectrum, not as black and white.
This same question was posed on a website that I write for, JahWorks.org, and I wrote the following response:
Rasta is about a lot more than race. There are certainly race-based movements and ideologies in which white people do not have a place, but Rasta is not one of them. But Rastafarianism has to be explored and debated before we can talk about how race comes into the picture. There is very little common understanding of what we mean when we use the word Rasta.
Rasta means many things to many people. To many it is a way of life, a set of guiding principles. Some call it a religion, others a political movement, others a millenarian cult. For many more the term Rasta just evokes a symbol: reggae, locks, ganja, peace and love, Afrocentrism, Jamaica, Africa. The key to understanding Rasta, in my opinion, is to realize that it can't be understood in the conventional sense, because it means different things to different people. No matter how much you study Marcus Garvey, Leonard P. Howell and Haile Selassie, there is no singular, great truth to be discovered. Rasta itself is a path of self-discovery. To me it is about challenging received wisdom and charting ones own path, personally and spiritually.
So Rasta means many things to many people, that should be clear by the diversity of Rastafarian sects and by the movement's disparate influence around the world. I'm sure the visitors and contributors to this website realize that to be Rasta is not an either/or proposition. Rastafarianism is a way of life, not an organized religion, and nobody decides who is and is not accepted. That Rasta is a fundamentally personal experience is perhaps the one generalization it is fair to make.
That said, who is debating whether or not members of one or another "race" can be Rastas? We should remember that the use of socially constructed racial classifications for purposes of division is against what nearly all Rastas -- and especially the vocal spokesmen of the movement, our roots reggae artists -- are against. Lest we forget that Bob Marley's father was white. Some of his children are lighter than he was. Do we question their ability to claim Rasta? What is achieved in doing so?
To me, the people who we should examine are those trying to say who can be a Rasta and who cannot. In my experience I have never heard this from true Rastas. It would more likely come from someone outside the culture who is trying to make Rasta out to be something it is not. What is to be gained by placing boundaries around Rastafarianism? Maybe agendas can be advanced, but they are not the Rasta agenda. The message of Rasta does not seek to limit, constrain and bind. It is one of liberation, upliftment and unity, and these are causes fit for us all.
Nyabinghi! - "death to all black and white oppressors"
Check this link to read other people's responses to this question of the month: http://www.jahworks.org/special/question/answers2.html#august
Mesnjah
I could go on and on the full has never been told ~ Buju Banton
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okay Activist Archives
