Sis, I heard every word that you said, the reason I only focused on a couple of things was that those were what I disagreed with. The rest of what you say I either agree with or have no problem with.

As far as "filthy profanity", I wonder if your years in the Pentecostal Holiness Faith have affected your thinking on this matter. More times I write the way I speak and I use those words when I speak. Partly because I grew up with nuff people using them all around me (if you know any Guyanese then you know how we does love to cuss) and partly because I want to emphasize a point sometimes. I used to write f*!! etc. instead but then I said why bother, everyone knows what you're saying anyway, why not spell it out. If y'all have a serious problem with that I guess I'll go back to asterisks or maybe I'll just start saying things like "blurredcleat", "mubbaslunt" and "phooking". I really didn't expect anyone to make a big deal about it, I mean we're all adults here as far as I can see. (Not that it's much point hiding those words from children either since they're gonna hear them anyway).

In my first post to you I started out by making it clear that i didn't intend disrespect, before raising the first issue which vexed and concerned me, using language that was certainly emotional- I feel emotionally about this issue- and that I guess you would call "profane". You didn't respond to that post and maybe because of that I got a little more vex than i should have on the second. Sorry if I caused offense, my intent was to get you to think about a couple of things.

Yes I feel emotional about these things. I won't pretend that I don't.

Now the specific topics:

You wrote "I know of the rejection and scorn of the early Rasta. But I think a lot of it has to do with one's mentality. If one sees the world as your enemy then that is what one will receive."

First, it's not only the EARLY rasta who was rejected and scorned (and let's add brutalized, murdered, tortured, imprisoned, etc.) What happened to my uncle that i told you about happened in the late 80s. Up until a couple of years ago it was still a 3-year minimum sentence for possession of so much as a twig or seed of herb in Guyana. In Jamaica, where rasta has had more time to develope and become accepted by society than anywhere else, it is still commonplace for police to arrest, torture and kill Rastas on the flimsiest of pretexts (or no pretext at all). Just recently they shot a youth dead for smoking a spliff. Muta talks about this on his radio show. So, to say "rejection and scorn of the early rasta" is misleading, it makes it seem like it's all in the past, and that the biggest problem is rejection and scorn, rather than presecution and murder. If someone rejects or scorns me I don't care, cos I don't reject or scorn myself. If someone breaks my ribs or shoots me that's somewhat of a bigger problem don't you think. I know you probably didn't mean to belittle what people did and STILL DO have to go through, but it came off as such.

Again, maybe this was not your intention, but to say that persecution "has to do with ones mentality" came across to me as a serious lack of acknowledgement of the sufferation our people have been through. Whether Rastas, Black Panthers, MOVE, SNCC, or just ordinary everday Black (and all colors of) people who have gone through and STILL ARE going through SO much suffering. "If one sees the world as your enemy then that is what you will receive": no star, it's the other way around, we have received unprovoked attacks and every possible violation of our rights from a certain set of people, and that is why we see them as our enemy. There are those who say that we must overcome the whole concept of "enemy" and these things, I can't agree with that, I believe in facing reality.

"It is not the world/BABYLON, it is the people who make babylon what it is." Thanks for clearing that up, all this time I've been angry at the planet earth, when I should have been angry at the people fu.... uh, messing it up.

Sarcasm aside though, it is also babylon that makes its people what they are. That's my whole point about the brainwashing thing.

You say (I'm paraphrasing)"We can't blame everything on the downpressor... Africans sold their own people into slavery too." Those were the chiefs and the self-procalimed Big Men. They WERE downpressors just as much as if their skin had been white. And yes our blood is on their hands too.

Of course we shouldn't use downpression as an excuse not to strive to do the best we can with what we've got. No argument there. But when you start talking about "poverty mentalities" and things like that, yes there's a grain of truth to it, but if you don't point out the MANY obstacles that have been DELIBERATELY placed in our paths, if you don't point out how the shitstem (oops-profanity) is DESIGNED to keep people in poverty, then you run the risk of sounding like some Booker T. Washington/ Alan Keyes type. "Pull yourself up by your own bootsraps" has some worth to it, but it's 90% bullpoop, balderdash and any other non-filthily-profane word you can think of.

"There is nothing in the Bible that speaks about Dreads..." of course not. As far as referring to hair, the word (as far as I know) was invented in the 20th century. Cos whitey and self-hating black people used to see locks in the 50s and it would strike "dread" in their heart. As it should. Dem was frightened of de MAU MAU warrior dem.

The ancient Nubians and Egyptians wore manicured locks, the people around long long before them, before it had combs and hair-care products other than what barks and roots you could get from the forest, they had unmanicured locks (which I am assuming is what you are referring to when you use the word "dreads"). I agree that locks are antennae to the I-niverse (and by the way I want to give a much-belated word of thanks to the wise man name IanI who e-mailed Iman over a year ago about this topic- blessed rasta). When they're entirely natural and allowed to grow exactly as Jah intended, without any manicuring or manipulating them other than keeping them clean, they will be more receptive antennae than if they are restricted in their natural growth.

If you find natural dreads "ugly" then you have issues my sister. Straight up. It's not OK because it's just "your opinion", any more than a Black person who dislikes dark complexions is just "expressing an opinion." I can't work out your issues for you, but if I see that you have them I'll point that out. I got issues too, if you want to point them out feel free, I won't take offense, in fact I'll appreciate it, as I said at the end of my first post.

I'ight? Cool then. Hit me back if you want.
Raspek, Peace, Love--------JAH GUIDE