i&i would never claim to speak on behalf of all of the other white people on the board, but here, for exactly what it is worth, is my two cents worth.
Marcus Garvey was indeed one of the foundations of the modern rasta movement, not the only one, but one of the most important. And i think that you would find that in fact there are very few white people who post on this board with any degree of regularity who have any problem with the concept of black nationalism. It is to me, a perfectly rational, and natural expression of a fundamental desire for equality and dignity. The fact that white people have been instrumental in keeping black people from achieving this for at least the last five hundred years is an utterley undeniable fact. And, once again, like what I would imagine are the majority of ongoing white contributors to this forum and dialogue, I wholeheartedly endorse the idea that the black liberation struggle is to be run by, and for, black people. My people, the irish, ran their libertaion struggle this way, and insisted on retaining their language and as much of their culture as they could salvage. And they won back at least the majority of their country.
So there you go Iyah, I am afraid I am going to have to subject you to a barrage of almost total agreement.
Now onto the broader issue. Here is the thing. I am white. I follow as closely as I am able my conception of what a rasta livity entails. I am a 'white rasta'? I dont think so. You see I have a fundamental problem with using the expression 'rasta' as some kind of label, at least for myself. It is true that I try to live rasta, but that does not mean that I "am a rasta". I think that this distinction is important as it means that rasta is for me an ideal to aspire for rather than some sort of identity that I can appropriate, or movement that I can get my grubby white paws on and attempt to 'help' or 'influence'.
I dont want to be in charge of anything, just myself thanks.
Bantu Kelani, while I have the utmost respect for Garvey's opinions on race and the black struggle, I dont think he was much of a military strategist or historian. HIM did what he had to do. I think that you can probably agree that in the face of overwhelming Italian firepower at the outset of the war the only thing that HIM would have achieved in some kind of heroic homeland defence would have been his death , and those of many other people alongside him. By biding his time and securing necessary support he was able to drive the invaders out, and to do so in an honorable way, something fairly rare in the second world war. Whatever else people may say about him, everything that I have read about HIM suggests that he was a fine strategist and leader.
just a few thoughts,
love and life
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site may at times contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml