#InTheBrightestRed

#InTheBrightestRed (For Pompasette Magazine) Monday November 24^th, 2014, a grand jury does not indict police officer, Darren Wilson, in the shooting death of 18 year old Michael Brown in August 2014. The decision, unsurprising to many, stirred the emotions of people across the US, and the international community, sparking protests and even riots. Barbadians took to social media, as did the world, to follow the situation and voice opinion on it. #JusticeforMikeBrown and #Ferguson were popular hashtags on my timeline and newsfeed that night. Last year, Skittles, iced tea, hoodies and blacked out profile photos signified solidarity with Trayvon Martin. Sadly though, I cannot recall this level of solidarity with, or outcry for, I’Akobi Maloney, or indeed anyone that may have suffered similar injustices in Barbados.
Why is there this disparity in responses? Why are we so vocal and active, online at least, about the tragedies and injustices in America, but so muted – indifferent even – to local injustices that are similar?

To begin, it is always easier to judge the faults of others and avoid your own. The bigger the fault, the more we judge. The more we expect from the party at fault, the more intensely we react. The USA has painted itself as the defender of freedom and democracy in the world. The President of the United States is often referred to as “The Leader of the Free World”, so terrible events like Mike Brown occurring on their soil create an opening for foreign critics, giving license to cast a self-righteous side-eye in their direction. However, to turn that critical eye inward is not an easy nor desirable task. The required introspection makes us uncomfortable and admitting that we too can be host to great injustices is a confession that we may not be quite ready to make. #sipstea

I’Akobi’s case did not experience the same level of media attention as the Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown cases did. This is not to say that it was not covered by the local media, it was, but we live in a time when the lion’s share of media consumption by Barbadians, especially by the social media generation, is American. Trayvon and Michael received coverage on CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, Comedy Central, in The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and a host of other television, radio, print and online media outlets, all of which have huge social media presences and followings. How does this affect Barbadian sentiment and response? The listed media outlets are constant and consistent with their output. They take, or create, trending topics and have hours of time dedicated to them specifically. Interviews with experts and officials, family members and friends, animated charts and graphs; these things and more come with this “American media package.” The result of this bombardment is that issues are always in your face, you become increasingly engaged, meaning, more tweets, more statuses, ie. a greater response. I’Akobi did not have the benefit of this. By contrast, I’Akobi was covered by the two local print newspapers, the one television station’s news hour, and a few popular local blogs.
They went beyond viral, I’Akobi did not.

Spoken word artist, Adrian Green, in a piece titled “Too Small” notes that the size of Barbados, and the intimate nature of Bajan life is a factor in the differences in reactions to the Trayvon and I’Akobi incidents. It is a valid observation. I did not know I’Akobi personally, but I know his brother, and many people that were close to him. I was awoken by a phone call from a friend, on the night he died, who was so distraught that she could not speak clearly. On the flip, I know police officers, and I know people that know officers involved in the incident. The intimacy and connectedness of small societies can be very intimidating for people, and this can inhibit even the most passive forms of protest against perceived injustices. We feel less afraid of personal repercussions when engaging international topics, but are much more self-aware and self-censoring when approaching local topics. Within the confines of 166 square miles there is the very real chance of actually coming face to face with the person(s) that you are protesting against, and that is an uneasy thought for most of us.

Finally, being a population of mostly black people, able to identify with the racial history and dynamic of the US, it is easy to identify with Mike and Trayvon because #itcouldhavebeenme. For this same reason it is a bit harder for most to identify with I’Akobi. There is no clear racial element to make I’Akobi’s cause “trendy.” Consider this though, just as most white Americans will be unable to understand what it is like to be #livingwhileblack in America, most Barbadians will not understand what it is like to be a Rasta living in Barbados; draw your parallels.

*As written for, and submitted to Pompasette Magazine.


Click here for the trailer to the documentary,  "The I'Akobi Conspiracy: From a Mother's Perspective"

Free-Dumb

Slaves no more!
we are free!
Free!
Free?
Are we? - Carson Howard

Is there any justification for believing that human beings are free? Will sweet freedom come my way?

Donkey before the cart, first things first, before attempting to find justification for human beings being free, if there is any justification to be found, we are going to have to sort out what we mean by ‘free human being.’ We will define such a human being as one who possesses free will, and, just to cover all bases, free will will be defined as the ability to consciously and independently make choices, decisions and commit actions without prior cause, coercion and/or divine intervention, in other words do as you please without being told, otherwise prompted, the divine intervention of God/god(s) or without some thing in late or recent, social or personal, history influencing the action/deed.

 T_*

Free will is a topic which has plagued the minds of man from time immemorial across many disciplines: philosophy, theology, physics (theoretical) and more. What is it about freedom and by extension the free will of human beings that has caused such constant rumination and discussion?

The essence of human freedom is the fundamental problem of philosophy and therefore the question about human beings being free is the fundamental question of philosophy.¹ - Martin Heidegger

Being an amateur philosophe I will (try to) get all philosophical and shit. When speaking about free will one will inevitably hear about Determinism and determinist, if not by that fancy academic term, by the points of their arguments and the tenets beliefs which are, the actions and thoughts of a person are not freely created or committed but are predetermined by various factors ranging from that persons socialisation, their genetic inheritance or socio-biological makeup and environment and education, and politics, etc. There are two types of these determinist people; hard determinist, who believe completely in predestination and that no person can therefore be held morally accountable for any deeds he or she commits, good or bad. The second type are the soft determinist who believe that there is some compatibility with determinism and free will, manifested in acts of compulsion, consent and intent < which I think is like those choose-your-ending type books that were popular sometime ago, the story is written your choices are limited to a set of predetermined outcomes ( I could be wrong; never read one of those books).

There is no doubt that the average human being believes in free will, our belief in our own free will is necessary to our very (structured and defined social paradigm of an) existence; this is what we have been led to believe, here in the “civilised west”. From the liberal, anti-establishment, rebels (Occupy this and that) to the most traditional and conservative of persons are firmly rooted in the free-will paradigm. Capitalism, and democracy are based on human beings having free will; they need it to function really. The ‘American Dream’, one of the most powerful driving forces of the American way of life, is based on the concept of human free will. Democracy, the socio-political system wherein each individual is allowed to offer themselves to lead their country, the system wherein each individual has the choice to choose whom among those, who, by choice, offered themselves, should be allowed to govern over them and their country. Democratic countries are the ones where there is freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association and the list of “freedoms” goes on. Freedom and choice are the core components of democracy, therefore the free will of its citizens is not just accepted as existent but a right inherently granted (btw if something is granted to you, it can be taken from you - just saying).

Even cultures/religions with predestination as a main philosophical tenet free will still manages to somehow creep in. Indian culture and the philosophy karma is an example of this. Karma is the idea that actions or deeds committed and their effects create the experiences of the future, present and the past, basically it is a cause and effect situation. The concept of karma found in Indian religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism, makes room for the modifying of one’s karma by deeds one commits and therefore one can freely will to change one’s karma and change one’s destiny. So free will is all over the place, but is it a justifiable belief?

As we said earlier, determinist arguments for predestination include a person’s upbringing and socialisation and genetic inheritance as a type of mold or foundation for the type of person that that person will eventually develop into.

“At the point where you can predict my acts directly from my state of health or my social conditioning or what I have just eaten, you can stop treating me as a free being. And if you choose to predict them in this way, rather than trying to make sense of my point of view, then you are choosing to not treat me as free. You are merely regarding me as a thing, that is, as part of the surrounding process.”² -Mary Midgley

Predictions are made all of the time about human behaviour. Poor and underprivileged people will usually be the ones most likely to turn to a life of crime. The probability of an African American male from a poor, urban background ending up, undereducated and incarcerated in the American penal system is higher than that of an African American from a middle class, suburban background and is definitely higher than those for white Americans from any social bracket. You always hear about the child who accidentally killed or seriously injured his/her, usually his, friend after trying out some wrestling technique that they would have witnessed on television. It would seem then that certain factors, once in place would lead to a predictable outcome. From this angle life seems like a mango seed; plant the mango seed and you will get a mango tree, no matter how much you wish for mahogany, mango will bear.

So what about those folks who appear to react differently to those in similar environs or develop differently to those with a similar socialisation like the person who gets out of the ghetto and gets some money and moves into the suburbs, or the person raised among thieves but develops into a pious person, is this where free will comes into play? Soft determinist would claim yes and that this exemplifies the free will of human beings. Where one makes the conscious choice to do something one is not expected to do is the execution of free will. The hard determinist however will continue to say no and to argue that there was something in this person’s life, other than the visibly obvious, that would have determined their change. They would claim that while yes the person was raised by thieves that their social interaction outside of the thieves that raised them would have lead to their religious development or that maybe by seeing the negative effects of thieving on the people who raised them constantly hiding from authorities or constantly being arrested would have lead them to act differently. This argument by the hard determinist does however present room for a choice to be made by that person; whether to grow into a thief or to move away from it because of what they would have seen or experienced elsewhere. Even within Capitalism, where competition and freedom of choice for the consumer is needed, there is an element of predictability. The way products are marketed, the location of product sources like stores, are all dependent on the predictability of human behaviour.


In religion [read Christianity], the concept of seeking God and the kingdom of God is one which requires human freedom. According to Heidegger, freedom is independence from nature, meaning that human action is not caused primarily by the natural process. Heidegger also goes on to say that since freedom is independence from nature then it must also be independence from God and autonomy in relation to God. In this autonomy one can then develop a relationship with God, wherein one seeks God and acknowledges God.³


Is there any justification for human beings being free? Yes. On an average day, for the average person what determines what we eat? What makes us change our minds in the canteen line to have rice as opposed to the pie we were craving, there are no health issues for this person, no dietary problems, no bio-physical problems like stomach gas or anything to initiate that change from pie to rice, nothing except our own free will to choose, our compulsion. “I do not feel like going to the gym today.” Why not? There is no fatigue, no work to be done, no reason for not wanting to go to the gym other than because I do not feel the need to go. Modern human civilizations are based on the concept of free will and its existence, especially western, "developed" (that is another story) countries like the USA. The American dream was mentioned earlier and the American dream is the belief in a freedom that allows a person to achieve what they want to by hard work, by luck, by ‘being all that they can be”, regardless of one’s disposition at birth. The American dream is the idea that one can better one’s self and those around you if you try hard enough to; simply put the American dream is Hope. Hope is the belief in a positive outcome to the unlikeliest of circumstances moderated by the realization that nothing is certain.⁴ The democratic nations and institutions across the world offer hope, hope that one can be part of something bigger, hope that one can participate in the governance of one’s country, i.e. one can make the rules for him or herself. The poor, underprivileged, the oppressed, the minorities of a country are all promised hope and this hope is manifested in their choices, in their will to want better and to live above the expectations/predictions their society prescribes for them. Free will is justified because it is the core of civilisation as we currently know it, even the Buddhist can change their karma by good deeds.


So yeh free will justifiably exists, but it sure is not independent to predestination. Most human actions are the reactions to actions previously committed or events gone before, free will manifests itself when the course of action is not clearly defined or more than one course of action presents itself like the person raised by thieves but experienced a way of life outside of their upbringing. While free will exists and is justifiable, the question as to human freedom remains. For example, while people are “free” to choose a leader for their country, the felon has no such freedom, and while democracy promises a plethora of freedoms, like the freedom of speech, one is not free to slander a person. Any time you compromise these freedoms in the manners stated you are liable to be giving up your freedom within society to be punished ranging from fines and services, to incarceration and execution. So, yes it is justifiable to believe in human freedom, but as for it actually existing I beg to differ. As I commented to a friend sometime back, a dog on a plantation is no freer than a dog restricted to an apartment, it is just less restricted. Freedom within a parameter is not freedom. I would be so bold to even question if freedom exists at all? From a Kantian perspective even God, whom or whatever it may be, is duty bound to maintain this world and the natural order of things; what ever that is and if you believe in that sort of thing.





1. Martin Heidegger, The essence of human freedom: an introduction to philosophy (London. New York: Continuum, 2002)203.

2. Mary Midgley, The Ethical Primate; Humans, Freedom and Morality (London. New York: Routledge, 1994)164.

3. Martin Heidegger (2002) 4-5

4. David Straker, http://changingminds.org/explanations/emotions/hope.htm (Syque, 2002-2008).

StrangeRasta is now on twitter so look up there above the toolbar ^ and follow me on twitter. New blogs will now be posted via Twitter along with Facebook and Blogger. More ways to connect with the strange one. A Facebook page soon to come so look out. The Facebook page is here! http://www.facebook.com/StrangeRasta

Jack and Jill went up to Hill, but had to cut their hair.

Had to leave home and venture to the internet cafe/ gaming arcade to put this together (my system is still not working properly).

There are certain naturally occurring things that can be detrimental to our personal and social growth and development. For example the naturally occurring phenomenon which takes place across the human body but is concentrated in the armpits can lead to social rejection, scorn and ultimately pariah status. This occurrence, called body odour or, when one can say of one's self, to quote Doddy from Azman "I smell like get from round me", is a serious thing but over time humanity has deal with this offensive scourge by bathing and the application of potent aromatics to the body which over power the natural stink with pleasant, and/or neutralising scents, in the form of deodorants, colognes and perfumes. Another naturally occurring condition which is even more serious and detrimental to ones personal and social growth and development is nakedness. The very core of one's being, the very manner in which one comes into this world is a terrible plague and without the safe cover of clothing one might suffer the scorned eye of society and the negativity of its wretched tongue. Beware of those who bare themselves disrobed in public, they are a vile and nasty creature, lost of morality and sanity. Trust me the sight of a naked man or woman walking down the street will scare you, especially if the man or woman is not within the social paradigm known as "attractive".

There are many more vile natural occurrences and states of being that offend the social order and hinder personal advancement. Being born black in a post Atlantic Slavery socio-politcal paradigm for example does provide one with a series of challenges automatically, another is being born on any of these god-forsaken back water, banana republic, third world small islands, and another is not cutting one's hair. Ok, maybe the location of one's birth is not a naturally occurring thing, but it is something over which one has no control. Anyways you might be wondering about the last of the three things mentioned just now in what you probably thought was my departure from the humours and shift towards the serious. You are probably wondering why has the strangest rastaman included not cutting one's hair to the list of naturally occurring, socially detracting features of society. Well we rastafari already know how hair in its natural state can detract from one's social progression and add to one's social alienation and stereotyping. In fact most women who have let their hair grow out naturally have encountered some form of "what you do that for?", "why you don't straighten it?", "how long you leaving it so?" and other questions about the hair's natural state.

Body odour, left to run rampant, can be quite an unpleasant thing. The naked human body, minus its obvious distracting potential (especially since it is such a taboo) does benefit from the protection of clothing. Hair, grown into dreadlocks, benefits from being cut; how? I fail to see how the removal of hair from one's head can positively change one's life, except in a world where having it grow is wrong. Ok fine I have defeated my own argument because we do live in a world where having it grow is wrong. And it is wrong for two very good reasons: firstly because it just is, and secondly because they said so.

Not good reasons? Are you sure? Because when I was younger a lot of the things that I had done wrong were met with the justice of "because I said so", and a lot of teachers told me that somethings are the way they are because that is just the way it is. For example "Why is the sky blue?" "Because it just is"

You cannot go to the Hill Top Preparatory School with locs, because that is how it is. Well there was the case of some people who went with locs, but that is how it was then, but you cannot go there with them now because that is how it is now. (confused? I am) There was this one kid who went to Hill Top Preparatory School with locs, but then he/she felt weird a few weeks into the term and wanted to cut them and this was confusing for all involved. (not sure how so, but again this is the way it is) Locs, or the state one's hair will enter if left uncombed for an extended period of time, and popularised by those terrible rasta people here in the Caribbean, are a no go currently at the Hill Top Preparatory School.

It is a scientifically known fact that people with locs cannot learn as quickly as their trimmed contemporaries. It is also a scientifically proven fact that, in addition to their reduced learning aptitude, persons with locs also decelerate the learning process of those in their immediate surroundings and environs. It is therefore best to keep those dreads out of regular schools and let them be schooled together (probably to cut coconuts and say irie mon to tourists), if we let them learn at all.

Atiba, the boy who was rejected because of his hair.

Look at that little tyrant to the left, he will surely render the entire student body stupid with those dangling dread-ful locs.

All jokes and sarcasm aside. The issue is this, a mother and a father looked to get their son into the school closest to where he lives, and long story (click for the long story) made short, when the child and his father went to the school to be oriented, the principal informed them, well informed the father; she had not paid any mind to the child, that the child's fancy haircut was not going to allowed at the institution. Yes, a private school has the right to decide whom it lets enroll in its classes, but this is a case of discrimination at a high level, and not only that but it is also a lesson in "them and us" to the younger generation. This child, the one pictured above, now has to realise that while mummy and daddy, and his family, biological and otherwise, love him regardless of his appearance, there are those out there who will not get to love him because they have decided in their minds that the hair on his head, in the dreadlocks, is unwanted/ to be frowned upon. The other youngsters, four and five years old who may have seen the interaction, now have a social equation in their heads; boy + locs = undesirable.
How can a country in 2011, boasting of all manner of good social features be caught refusing a child an education because of the hair on his head? Did not the incident at the Samuel Jackman Prescod Polytechnic a few years ago show that discrimination based on hair is a stupid endeavour? Even in that instance the position of the faculty had some sort of "logical" rationale behind their position, claiming that it was a safety issue and they did not want the students potentially harmed by having their hair caught in the moving parts of the machinery. Simple solution cover and restrict the hair. How can Hill Top Preparatory School really want to dismiss this family, did they not read about one Kevyn Callender, who was unable to work for a certain airline at the airport (where had worked before mind you) for no reason other than because he had locs? (well maintained and styled locs by the way).

It might be because I am a rastaman that this irks me, but I cannot be, and I know that I am not, alone in feeling that this is wrong.

Black woman and child, for you I have so much love...

The detriment is to the school, not to the child nor his family. The school is stuck somewhere in the middle of the last century and should really examine its policies and open itself to the world as it is and should be.

Honestly, foolishness is foolishness, and while Hill Top Preparatory School has the right to admit whomever it desires, it should not be allowed to do so in a discriminatory fashion to the detriment of a child and a family for something as trivial as locs. I would love to organise some sort of protest. I have already suggested that sympathetic parents of the students at the same school and other schools purchase those "tourist tams" that come with the fake locs and send their children to school in them as a sign of protest, peaceful but to the point. I would love to see this happen, so if there is anyone interested hit me up in the comment section below or email me at enam.idrissa@gmail.com. Might just be wasting my time, but I think it is worthwhile and needed.

Check out this blog as well, but it will cost you, so get your money ready, it is merely a Penny for her thoughts.
Video blog about the topic found here as well: Barbados wunna still with this in 2011?
Click here for the mother's story.

"They say I'm crazy for choosing rasta, but I stay natty, I love my culture..."

 

StrangeRasta is now on twitter so look up there above the toolbar ^ and follow me on twitter. New blogs will now be posted via Twitter along with Facebook and Blogger. More ways to connect with the strange one.

I'm a bastard, but my parents are married now.

The one called Rev. Morris, controversial Christian minister, had the television, print media and internet all abuzz with his latest controversial biblical interpretations. The good reverend said something to the extent that the bible does not explicitly speak against premarital sex. With that said there is not much need to really get into what the traditionally "very religious" Barbadian society was saying on the airwaves and world wide web, but its opinions of Rev. Morris and his views were, in some instances, unpleasant, especially those views expressed in the colourful Bajan vernacular. There were calls for him to leave the clergy, calls for the clergy to part ways with him, calls for him to apologise to the Barbadian public and its impressionable youth (what for I'm not sure), all coming from a very hypocritical society. LBAR.
This is like the people who go to shows (Macy Gray) and are suprised when artists curse during performances, yet down in the rum shop or at the hair dresser every topic of conversation bout brass bowls and the ever growing population of female rabbits in the country. "Yuh Cunt."

Back to the issue of sex, or rather, premarital sex and its rightness or wrongness. I'll keep within the biblical framework for the time being since the issue of sex before marriage and the ethical and moral issues surrounding it arise from the bible, or any other Judeo-Christian religious text. A couple thousand years ago, when a marriage was not so much a written and signed legal contract, as it was an unwritten understanding between two people or in many cases, two families/tribes, and the wedding ceremony was as official as things got (had to clears it with the Lord) the bride was, in most cases, required to be a virgin, to signify purity and good will and good faith ( I think the men just wanted something fresh) so premarital sex was frowned upon. Also keep in mind that this whole business of premarital sex was devised by men in a time far more patriarchal than today, and that it also comes from a time when polygyny was practised much more heavily than today. (though with the amount of aunts and uncles and cousins I got...hmm) The point is that over those thousands of years the institution of marriage has undergone some changes: philosophically, socially and legally. The understanding of what a marriage was during the biblical era, is not what that understanding is today, what constituted a marriage then would not constitute one today, so to try to apply something written in and for a completely different social, philosophical and legal context and audience to another one eons later will lead to problems. As a friend of mine said, people are trying to run Microsoft Office 2010 on Windows 95, and surprised that a few things are going wrong.
Sex being the social taboo it is, is taken a bit more seriously or cautiously, at least in discussion, than some of the other antiquities in the bible, like the outlawed fabric mixes we so comfortably wear to church these days, but it really should not be analysed any differently than these fabric mixes, its biblical references with respect to its premarital protocol are just as antiquated.

One of the arguments that people love to bring when premarital sex comes up is STD's and STI's (not Subarus) as if premarital sex is the same thing as irresponsible sexual intercourse, or unprotected sexual intercourse. It is more likely that unmarried people will have more sexual partners than married ones and therefore have a higher probability of contracting and spreading STDs and STIs, but again this is not so much a result of their marital status, but of their sexual responsibility and ethical and moral standpoint. (I got nuff aunts and uncles and cousins, and my parents got half brothers and half sisters ages mixed up with full brothers and sisters, grandparents were married...just saying). There is this notion that with marriage comes sexual responsibility, which would come as a result of monogamy, which is made certain in the lines of most wedding vows and the law, and this is all written in unicorn blood on the back of a white elephant.


Back on the good reverend again. The comment that he made that really got to the public was when he so eloquently compared the premarital sex to trying on shoes, with the rationale that no one wants to be stuck with a pair of uncomfortable shoes. Some considered it crude, some thought it tasteless, but one cannot argue as to the accuracy of the analogy. Sex is an important part of marriage, or at least this is what people say, I'm not married so I'm not sure, but what I do know is that unsatisfying sexual relationships are chief among the reasons for infidelity in marriages. Some people are just not sexually compatible; love your smile, love your personality, love your family love you, but 20 toes just not wiggling right. I'm no expert, but if sex is a significant part of the marital relationship, and two people are just not connecting on that level, some issues will arise, and I'm not even talking about the issue of infidelity. More potentially devastating and long term problems can and are likely to arise. Sex has with it, anticipation and expectation, which is to be fulfilled by the intercourse and the climax, and if the anticipation and expectations are not met constantly and consistently then at best you can expect a general disinterest to develop, but more likely resentment and an animosity will develop. The 20 toes that cannot wiggle, now start to affect the "I love your smile" and the "I love your personality" parts of the relationship and the marriage suffers. Not saying to go and sex down the country, but explore your options responsibly and with persons that you would seriously consider marrying, ie. people in meaningful relationships.

Instead of trying to apply outdated doctrines to modern and contemporary societies exactly as they were practised in antiquity, maybe we should try to take the values, the general essence, of these doctrines and teachings and adapt them to work within the world as it is today, and where they cannot be applied because they are totally outdated (like polyester being a sinful garment) dash it weh and move on, this is called development and advancement. The idea of trying to live simultaneously in the past and the present, which is what a lot of people are trying to do, will not work, life is not a Renaissance Fair. What needs to happen is for people to start advocating responsibility, start teaching people about respect and love, develop a culture of respect and love, because there are a lot of loveless marriages out there and a lot of divorces to prove it and many more Jim and Jane Schreechies running around.

As for the Barbadian public, stop being so damned hypocritical. As I might have mentioned, I have a lot of uncles and aunts and cousins, my parents have some half brothers and half sisters, and this is so common that it is a feature of many Barbadian family trees. But I think I may have discovered the loophole. My grandparents, and many people from that generation did wait till marriage to have sex, so there was no premarital sex, a lot of extramarital sex, but not so much premarital. LBAR
Good thing the reverend did not speak about that, but then again he would not have to, the bible is pretty clear on that one, and everyone knows.

Basically people are focused on the wrong thing, that is what I think. Actually that is what I know.

"If she cannot excite, man the marriage brek up tonight!" Mac Fingall - Sex Before Marriage. Click to listen.

Have some Stromae to vibe to: Click here for lyrics translated into English.

Relevance of this song to the topic? None. This is my mindset right now, I'm going to dance and sing away my problems for a bit. Alors on danse! lalalalala lalalalalalala

StrangeRasta is now on twitter so look up there above the toolbar ^ and follow me on twitter. New blogs will now be posted via Twitter along with Facebook and Blogger. More ways to connect with the strange one.

Help Temple Yard and the Rastafari Community

 

SPECIAL POST. TEMPLE YARD FIRE RELIEF FUND.

Next regular post coming this weekend. Look out for it.

Almost a month ago, on Saturday 9th of April 2011, the Rastafari business community known as Temple Yard was affected by a fire. This fire destroyed 10 shops, but had and continues to have an effect on the entire community, both from a business point of view and also from a personal/emotional level. 

Some of the nation's treasures, in the forms of sculptures and other art works, have been damaged and lost in this blaze. There will be donation boxes and sponsor sheets in the public circle from next week so keep an eye out for them. I ask that we try to make donations to this community which is not just a part of Rastafari life, but Barbadian life as well.

Temple Yard has had a trying past, from the days at Rockers Alley through all the re-locations to its current location at the edge of Bridgetown. This fire is just another chapter in this history, with help from the general public Temple Yard can overcome this latest setback and get back on track.

I give thanks in the early for any help given to Temple Yard in this time.

For more information keep checking Our Afrikan Heritage Magazine on their Facebook page, or on their website.
Ras ILive can be contacted at 232-1222