Jan Havlík
IMS II
Multiculturalism, IMS FSV UK
Summer semester 2001/2002
March 29, 2002
The Rastafarians – discrimination of an ethnic group
In this essay I would like to talk about the levels and kinds of dicrimination that Rastafarians encounter mainly in Britain and the United States and also about what makes the ”rastas” an ethnic and not only a religious group, as they are sometimes refered to. I shall also try to describe the ways the rastafarians view the world and to what extend their claims are just. To complete this writing I have consluted various Internet resources, some works on multiculturalism and some works on the rastafarians alone (see further).
Trewor Dawkins was a bus driver from South London. He recognised himself as a Rastafari and so wore dreadlocks. In his day – the end of the 80’s – the rasta subculture was overall taken to be of criminal nature by the Western society. What the white Babylon establishment – as the Rastafarians would say – did not like about the Rastas was their distinct appearance; that is the dreadlocks symbolising the natural way of growing hair and also a protest against the white man’s idea of the right way of growing hair. The Rastas claim they have evidence in the Bible : Leviticus, 21:5 : ”They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings of the flash.” This rather problematic proof has become one of the cornerstones of the rasta culture, much unfavoured by the majority of the society. Another reason why the society looked down on the Rastas was their popular use of ganja. This plant, as the Rastas say, help people to see things clearly and to articulate better. This to me is highly questionable. A Rasta would not drink alcohol or take hard drugs but ganja is a different case to them. They also excuse themselves for smoking it by claiming that it was and is the traditional part of the Rastafarian religious ceremonies. I personally feel that smoking grass (or the herb) is again a protest against the establishment and a way to entertain yourself with friends.
Trewor Dawkins has applied for a job in London and has encountered – as the Rastas would put it – a classic example of Babylon. This biblical town is a rasta metaphore for the confused and discriminating world of the white man who has dispersed blacks all around the world and so made them weaker. His establishment continues to exploit the black peoples the same way he did in the colonial past. This is why the Rastas should break the Babylon chains and gather all ”back” in Africa – their homeland and create a peaceful land there for all blacks, united by Ras Tafari – their Messiah Haile Selassie I, the emperor of Ethiopia. This part of the rastafarian philosophy is often critised for by both the blacks and the whites as being excesively racist, simplifying and populist. It must be mentioned that Rastas are often very racist and they treat all whites with contempt reasoning that all the whites are responsible and take part in the black race’s dicrimination. White people who have joined the Rasta movement are considered (as far as my knowledge goes) as somewhat more open than others but still white. The white Rastas do not usually take the teaching of Haile Selassie as seriously and it is the lifestyle and the protest against the traditional racist white culture what appeals to them more.
Back to our story… Trewor Dawkins was refused the driver job. Why? Well of course for his dreadlocks! His employer claimed they would put the customers off as people see them being unnatural and disgusting. He would have got the job if he cut them. Actually, our Rasta complained to the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). By doing so he caused a storm in anti-discrimination laws in Britain. The CRA found his employer’s behaviour discriminating both directly – job refusal – as well as indirectly as Trewor was a member of a warrantable ethnic group. This decision prooved most important as it was the first time in Britain ever that the Rastas were recognised an ethnic group.
We need to leave Trewor Dawkin’s case now to move to some legislation commentary. Lets look together at what makes a group an ethnic : recognised by most social scientists, there are two main and several subsidiary characteristics to distinguishing an ethnic group. The two main are :
This is to distinguish it from another group and for the group itself to feel ”different” from another group. This has been a point to argue on as some claim that the source of the movement is too diverse and even today it is not very clear. To disagree I must say that there are some elements in the diverse Rasta ethnic group that are common. These are to me: John Garvey’s back to Africa idea, continuity of the movement along its followers or strong group identification dating from the start of the movement.
This was an easy bit for the Commission, you can guess : dreadlocks, I-tal food, reaggae music, family arrangement and so on.
And the subsidiary are :
The majority of all Rastas come from Jamaica but Africa plays a role as well as it is the dream place for the Rastas.
In Jamaica they speak the Creole English and so special pronounciation and word stock is important for any Rasta – even the white Rastas use it.
On the Inernet you can find lots of literature written by Rastafarians – the most popular being the dub poetry of Benjamin Zephaniah and works of Levi Tafari.
This does not require commentary, I suppose.
Something we do not need to argue about as there is enough evidence to support.
The main characteristics are necessary to be fulfilled but only some of the subsidiary are crucial. We can, however, see that the Rastafarians fulfill them all and, therefore, it is a surprise to me that they were considered an ethnic group as late as in 1989. With this legislation passed, the Rastafarians have since enjoyed the same legal protection as for example the Gypsies, Jews or the Sikhs. We can call this a great victory for a multiethnic Britain as it always takes a long and painful time before the British change their traditional pespectives and move a step further. A just legislation is one of these. Trewor Dawkins, I imagine, was offered the job after all and can live happily ever after. Unfortunately, life is not always a fairy-tale. Actually today, just calling yourself a follower of the rasta movement in Britain means that you are protected by the same minority protection laws as eg. the Chinese or Sikhs – see where anti-discrimination laws can lead to.
Allow me to move to the United States where I would like to look into the way the Rastafarian culture has become a visible political body during the latter part of the last century, and thus showing some typical aspects and characteristics of the rasta movement. The Rastas have had some very distinct figures among them whom have made a significant impact. Impact… but on whom? John Garvey’s back to Africa plan has prooved unsuccessful in persuading blacks to emmigrate – only some hunderd people have made a decision upon the massive campaign. On the other hand, whenever you read a textbook about the Rastas you see this name as mentioned in the front lines. The result is that Garvey is surely known to any person researching the rasta ethnicity but not so important to the rastas themselves. They see him as the prophet of Ras Tafari but they do not admire as much what Garvey would probably have been proud of. Take another example. Samuel Brown was a charismatic Rasta speaker. He founded many rasta groups and initiated many activities. For the Rastas he is, after Garvey, one of their gurus. For the Americans, where he gave his speeches at the most famous universities and conferences – a Rasta politician who unsuccessfully attemted to win the national elections in Jamaica, a powerful speaker and a lobbyist for the Rasta people. It was Sam’s activities mainly that drew the American attention to the Rastas. At the beginning, the attention was mostly prooved by the police raids against rasta gatherings. With Samuel Brown’s death in the 80’s it has taken almost twenty years since to at least prevent people from seeing the Rastas as a criminal sub-culture. On the other hand, the Rastas themselves have failed (and this goes for all the rasta groups around the world) to get rid of some of the evil or discriminatory bits in their believes, eg. racism, sexism (with the hate of homosexuals and an amost total denial of female existence) and last but not least the boastful feelings towards other religions and ethnics. An exception would be the case of Bob Marley who is taken to be one of the symbols of rastafarianism by all. There needs to be much more research into the matter of relationships between the Rastas and the rest to exclude any dangerous clashes. The World Conference against Racism’s or the Minority Rights Group International’s (MRGI) reports are just some examples.
In the just above mentioned MRGI’s report – The Rastafarians, E. E. Cashmore has surprised me pleasantly. With a much pro – rastafarian, emotional introduction I thought I will not find much worth-while reading in the report. However, his ending is – I believe – worth mentioning. Cashmore could have gone on muttering about the British racists but he, in fact, presents a rational sounding picture of the future for the Rastafarians. I cannot but agree with his visions. What he sees as the most important is the way the young Rastas will react to their parents. Either they will protest, create their own culture by acceding to a particular part of their’s or they will remain rastafarians (probably more in the cultural than religious sense of the word). Cashmore has very well foreseen the possible problems that may arise : a new generation of a ”violent black culture” seemingly based on race or loss of cultural characteristics for the whole rastafarian movement.
The World Conference against Racism (WCAR) which was submitted a Position paper written by the Ichirouganaim Council for the Advancement of Rastafari (ICAR) from November 29, 2000 did not have an easy position. The paper is, not suprisingly, very much in favour of the Rastafarian claims. The author, ICAR, is the Secratariat for the Carribean Rastafari Organisation. They claim on the grounds of the WCAR the following five ponts to be adopted as measures or strategies:
It is altogether obvious that some of the points (1, 2) are far removed from reality. Not removing responsibility for some crimes of the past, experience and common sense teaches us that opening long forgotten scars is always for the worse, furthermore the actual price to be paid for them and by whom cannot be judged by anybody’s decision. We can also see that even the leading body of the rastafarian movement is showing racist characteristics (point 4). To me, the point 5 is something worth discussing.
In the one before last part of this writing, I would like to draw your attention to A. Class’s book called Antiracism, Culture and Social Justice in Education. It deals with a piece of research done in black masculinity and race at the British inner-city secondary schools. As I have experienced such a school while I lived in Britain the results seem to fit my limited experience. The research shows that the black masculinity is a cornerstone issue at the British schools because the blacks themselves value it as important and a way to scare the whites (racist behaviour) as well as to attract girls. The whites are mostly afraid of it so they become either very critical (racist) or try to adapt an behave the same way. According to the research and my experience too, the blacks look down on most of the whites as not being masculine enough or at all. On the other hand, much of the authorities in the schools see the black sub-culture as dangerous or unhealthy so they try hard to show them the better way. The result is discrimination on the one hand and further violence and overacting of masculinity on the other. Another issue connected with this is the so called ”phallocentrism” which means that male masculinity (well, having a penis basically) is central to all. This creates misogyny, compulsive heterosexuality and strong homophobia in the schools. Should a boy not fulfill the criteria, most kids would stop taking him seriously and the rest would take true pitty on this poor creature. This proves that it is not only racism that exists but also a strong feeling of group affiliation, despite the omnipresent stress on individualism. This gives the teachers a hard time, as most of the blacks and some whites simply would not take the teachers seriously. The kids mix race with many other issues like sexuality, ability of expression, manhood and culture. This would be somewhat the same as with the rastas. They have a strong feeling for self-expression and freedom. This is mingled with racism and feeling angry for the past discrimination. The self-pitifying effect is to me a very dangerous element which may make some rastas feel that they have a fundamental right to hate all whites and take revenge on them. Anytime the human race wixes two things together (and we do it far too often), things are bound to go wrong. This is a simple warning.
Finally, I would like to add a finishing paragraph to the Rastafarian discrimination. You may find very surprising that one of the majors in rasta dsicrimination is a part of their culture we see as their strongest – reggae music. Bob Marley, Black Uhuru, Bushman or Dub Syndicate are just a few names of the many worldwide known reggae groups or singers. They are sold all over the worls and they have their supporters in all cultures. Selling and producing reggae music is BIG BIZZ! The jamaican and other rasta groups must have loads of money from this, musn’t they? WRONG! The majority of this business is owned by the major world producing companies and therefore Rastafarians have very little to say on this. Even if you walk to a reaggae shop in, say, London a two Rastas sell you the best bits of ”their” music, their boss is probably a white male who knows about the Rastas as much as that their music sells well. Does this sound too one-sided to you? Imagine then that all European classical music production was owned by, say, Latin American businessmen who would employ ”good and interesting looking” whites to work in their shops. Funny? Maybe…
In this writing, I tried to show some examples of the ways Rastafarians are discriminated against in contrast to the ways they see the world. It is clear that this ethnic group has undergone some serious discrimination and humiliation all throughout its history. Let me just remind you of the police raids in Jamaica, USA and Britain, or discrimination at work, in housing and so on. Legally speaking, the society has been unjust to them. On the other hand, there are some elements in the rasta religion and culture which put a threat to democracy and multicultural world. These are the mentioned racist and sexist principles, for example. The way some ideological stones in the pavement of the rasta path (as a Rasta would have written) are arranged or made up in such a way that they cannot have their place in a democratic society. The Rastas have prooved to be a very influential lobby group what can be seen from the ICR position paper’s language and significance. Is that a reasin to be careful with them or is there a reason to protect them? Hard to say.
Literature and Internet sources :