Well, you are trying to use the U.S. standards of race to look at all countries, and race does not only work the U.S. way, especially in regards to light-skinned people. Although Ikael Tafari claims to be the offspring of a mixed African and white parents, he is seen as white by many Blacks in Barbados. Ikael Tafari was very used to people calling him a white man. He is way past what dark-skinned Blacks would casually call mixed. He would also be considered white in other countries, while if he was poor and in Venezuela or Brazil, he would be considered Black according to another more complex class system. In his book Rastafari in Transition published in 2001, he also said he had been involved with Rastafari for 10 years.

So trying to insist he is not white says nothing to Bajans who are used to seeing him as white. How the U.S. deals with race and mixed people does not fit all, and how the many social issues impact on you will condition how you view this issue. What we can agree on is that he is very light-skinned, and many Blacks in Barbados object to him and the idea of whites leading pan-African affairs. I wholeheartedly agree with these Blacks for the many reasons that Yan explained.

If you are of the view that the reasoning diverted, I am putting it to you that it is because you did not appreciate why Blacks should be distrustful of light-skinned, mixed-race people, and white people, in leadership over them. The reaction to this appointment in Barbados has to be seen in light of several issues.

Rastas have not been considered part of Barbados society. Having worked there for a while, I became very much aware of the extent to which they were treated as fringe elements. They were among the few people who were keeping the Black focus alive. Remember that Barbados' main income is from white tourism, and it is always careful to project the white-friendly images. These attitudes have not changed much, but the current government has shown a willingness to deal with some Black concerns, mostly because the Prime Minister Owen Arthur also has some experience being on the receiving end of racist treatment himself.

Unfortunately, it is being done with the same lack of sensitivity that dark-skinned Blacks are used to. They first appointed a light-skinned mixed Black to that post, and when they felt to move him, they put in someone who can pass for white.

They did not have any public discussions (at least for the years I was there) on racism. Many knew they would be victimized if they tried to take the race debate outside of private communities. What I am saying is that this is the traditional pattern. Dark-skinned Blacks who have struggled through the bulk of the social neglect are not seen as media-friendly material or as possessing the image or ability that many want to see in leadership roles, and that is so even over Black affairs. Funding is usually given to whites or near-whites to do for Blacks. The reality pattern is that lighter shades get preference over more experienced darker-skinned people. Dark-skinned Blacks who have been in the pits of the abuses have a right to be allowed to articulate these issues for themselves, and to interact with other Blacks who share their experiences.

Trying to associate a dark-skinned Black person with practicing 'Willie Lynchism' cannot harm or tarnish the image of a Black person. Light-skinned and white ones do not feel that dark-skinned blacks can do them collective harm in this Eurocentric system, and repeating 'Willie Lynchism' does not discredit the experiences of dark-skinned blacks, and it certainly will not scare us.