Leonard Percival Howell & the Genesis of Rastafari

Contents

Illustrations

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Part 1. Analysing Leonard Howell

Leonard Howell Announcing God: The Conditions That Gave Birth to Rastafari in Jamaica

Clinton A. Hutton

Interrogating Leonard Howell as the First Rasta

Michael A. Barnett

That Vagabond George Stewart of England: Leonard Howell’s Seditious Sermons, 1933–1941

James Robertson

Leonard P. Howell’s Leadership of the Rastafari Movement and : His Missing Years

D.A. Dunkley

Leonard Howell’s Philosophy of Rastafari Manhood

Jahlani A.H. Niaah

The Process of Becoming Black: Leonard Howell and the Manifestation of Rastafari

Christopher A.D. Charles

Reorienting Rasta: Tracing Rastafari’s Visual Roots

Petrine Archer

Social Entrepreneurship and Rastafari Livety: Pinnacle as a Successful Social Enterprise

K’adamawe A.H.N. K’nIfe, Edward Dixon and Allan Bernard

Bibliographical Essay: Howell in the Studies on Rastafari

Louis E.A. Moyston

Part 2. Remembering Leonard Howell

Growing Up in Pinnacle: AnInterview with Monty and Billbert Howell

Clinton A. Hutton

Leonard Howell versus Robert William Lyall-Grant

Miguel Lorne

Leonard P. Howell: A Portrait

Louis E.A. Moyston

Epilogue: The Necessity to Never Forsake or Forget Gangunguru Maragh

I-Nation

Bibliography

Contributors

Illustrations

Figures

Acknowledgements

We, the editors, would like to express special thanks to the Office of the Principal and the Special New Initiatives Grant Committee of the University of the West Indies, Mona, for providing the necessary funds to produce this ground-breaking volume. We would like to thank the Howell family and the Howellites for their support of this project. Thanks must also go to Yvonne Young-Wallace, Kadine Nickole Ferguson and Irica Grant, who helped in the preparation and assemblage of the manuscript. Lastly, we would like to sincerely thank all the contributors to this volume. Without their contributions, this book would not have materialized.

Introduction

The arrival of this cross-disciplinary volume on Leonard Howell and the early years of the Rastafari movement is a welcome addition to the growing literature on Rastafari studies. Robert Hill’s 1981 article was the first academic study on Howell to be published; it was republished in 1983 in the Jamaica Journal and has been available since 2001 as a short monograph, Dread History: Leonard P. Howell and Millenarian Visions in the Early Rastafarian Religion . ¹

Other studies since then include the works written by Michael Hoenisch and Frank Jan van Dijk, published in the Massachusetts Review and New West Indian Guide, respectively.² In Rastafari: Roots and Ideology, Barry Chevannes, the noted Rastafari scholar, included a chapter, Early Leaders and Organizations, in which, among other things, he gave sketches of the personalities and leadership and organizational styles of Leonard Howell, Joseph Hibbert, Archibald Dunkley and Robert Hinds, founders of the Rastafari movement.³ The book Chanting Down Babylon: The Rastafari Reader also has a chapter titled "The First Chant: Leonard Howell’s The Promised Key", with commentary by William David Spencer.⁴

Louis E.A. Moyston has also been publishing newspaper and online articles on Howell since the 1980s. In addition, Hélène Lee’s book, the only published biography of Howell, entitled The First Rasta: Leonard Howell and the Rise of Rastafarianism, was originally a 1999 French publication that was republished in English in 2003.⁵ These studies shed light on Howell’s role as a foundational Rastafari leader and his persecution by the colonial and postcolonial states.

The next generation of studies on Howell and early Rastafari was inspired by the 2011 University of the West Indies symposium on Leonard Percival Howell to commemorate the 113th year of his birth. It is within this context that D.A. Dunkley published two articles, one in Caribbean Quarterly and the other in New West Indian Guide.⁶ The articles and other contributions in the present volume seek not only to build on this body of work, but also to provide a diverse collection of opinions about Howell published in one place.

Importantly, not only does the array of contributions – speeches, essays and an interview with Howell’s sons – that has been compiled for this volume provide provocative perspectives on Leonard Howell, but it also gives us a fairly detailed glimpse of the early years of the Rastafari movement, an area in need of more attention in Rastafari studies. The present volume is therefore the product of interest in Howell and the genesis of the Rastafari movement. Also worth noting is that the volume was conceived and compiled by Rastafari scholars (three of whom are Rastafari practitioners) from a range of disciplines including politics, philosophy, sociology, history and cultural studies, thus assuring that the volume stands as an authentic representation of the Rastafari family and a cross-disciplinary contribution to Rastafari scholarship.

The volume grew out of the idea (which was broached by Michael Boyd to Clinton Hutton) of celebrating the one hundred and thirteenth anniversary of Leonard Howell’s birth in a significant manner. This idea led to the planning of an elaborate symposium, the inaugural Leonard Howell Symposium, convened at the University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica, on 17 and 18 June 2011. This symposium was effectively the university’s contribution to the celebration of the anniversary of Howell’s birthday, but there were other notable activities to observe the occasion, such as a cultural celebration at the Tredegar Park School in Spanish Town on 16 June 2011. The support from within and outside of the Rastafari community for the inaugural Leonard Howell Symposium was tremendous. This particular event, which was conceptualized by Clinton Hutton, became the product of collaboration between the Faculty of Social Sciences, the Rastafari Studies Unit at the University of the West Indies, Mona, and the Leonard P. Howell Foundation. The presence of members of Howell’s family was a welcome and notable addition to the symposium.

The first chapter of this volume, written by political scientist and philosopher Clinton Hutton, explores the genesis of Rastafari through the prism of Garveyism, Revivalism/Myalism, Kumina and other expressions of African Caribbean spirituality. Additional influences for this essay are the philosophy of the Morant Bay Rebellion, the knowledge system of the Haitian Revolution and the creative ethos of the African diaspora (which includes the cosmological roots of Caribbean arts, aesthetics and modes of creativity). In this chapter, Hutton positions the praxis of Leonard Howell within the trajectory of the New World’s ontology of resistance. He makes the argument that Howell’s ability to announce His Imperial Majesty, Haile Selassie I, as God was rooted in the ethos of the African understanding of how God is incarnated, assessed and embodied. In doing this, Hutton presents a compelling framework for the method, mode and meaning of the inner logic of the Rastafari movement at the point of its inception.

In the second chapter, sociologist Michael Barnett takes us on a departure from the notion of Howell as the first Rastafari leader. Barnett interrogates the claim that Howell was the first man in Jamaica to pronounce Haile Selassie I as God. However, Barnett does emphasize that Howell was the most influential of the early Rastafari leaders.

James Robertson’s essay in chapter 3 brings readers to the Jamaica Archives in Spanish Town, St Catherine. Robertson, a historian, uses primary documents to examine Howell’s proselytizing work, and shows Howell’s endeavours as seen through the eyes of the colonial regime between 1933 and 1941. It was during the latter year that the state authorized the police to embark on the first of three major incursions on Howell’s community, known as Pinnacle.

Historian D.A. Dunkley continues this discussion in chapter 4, presenting an analysis of Howell’s leadership as a promotion of black nationalism in late colonial Jamaica. Dunkley outlines how the suppression attempts changed over the course of Howell’s life, and debunks the view that Howell retreated because of these attacks on his leadership and movement.

Chapters 5 through 8 are analyses of the impact of Howell’s leadership within and outside the early Rastafari movement. In the first of these chapters, cultural theorist Jahlani Niaah examines Howell’s concept of black manhood as a departure from colonial characterizations. In this way, we are given an evaluation of Howell within the context of social philosophy. Niaah aims to illustrate Howell’s reinvention of the black male as a father and provider, who erases the damage caused by white supremacy and offers religious, economic and political guidance.

In chapter 6, psychologist Christopher Charles looks at the production of blackness by using Howell’s transition from colonial subject to anti-colonial Rastafari warrior. In this examination, Charles uses Howell’s experiences and sense of self to demonstrate how in becoming a Rastafari, he was able to liberate himself and embark upon the task of helping other African Jamaicans to initiate their own redemptive processes.

Chapter 7, written by the late art historian Petrine Archer, engages with Howell’s use of East Indian visual symbolism to create at least two drawings. These drawings were seized from Howell’s headquarters in Port Morant in the parish of St Thomas, Jamaica, in 1937 and captioned by the Daily Gleaner of 18 January 1937 as cultists’ interpretation of a dream of what houses in future Abyssinia will look like. Archer, using cultural artefacts and art, argues that the Rastafari movement, through Howell’s leadership, represents the creolization process through which many other aspects of Jamaican and Caribbean cultural identity have evolved.

In chapter 8, K’adamawe A.H.N. K’nIfe, Edward Dixon and Allan Bernard write from the perspectives of management and economics to consider Howell’s Pinnacle community as a model of a successful social enterprise. This essay uses the framework of social entrepreneurship to show that Pinnacle became an example of an independent and self-sustaining black community. It also explains the rapid growth of the population at Pinnacle and the decision to use the police to bring about its destruction.

Chapter 9, the last chapter of part 1, is a bibliographical essay written by independent researcher Louis E.A. Moyston. The essay provides a synopsis of the scholarship on Leonard Howell that has been done within the context of Rastafari studies. Moyston’s goal is to observe the treatment that Howell has received by scholars, and he implicates some of this scholarship in the undermining mission against Leonard Howell.

Chapter 10 commences part 2 of the book, with an interview with Monty and Billbert Howell, done by Clinton Hutton. Hutton conducted the interview in 2010 at his office in the Department of Government at the University of the West Indies, Mona, and it takes us through the disturbing events experienced by Howell, his family and his followers. The revelations are based on the recollections of Howell’s sons – an interview filled with accounts of cruelty and trauma, but which will help us to gain first-hand knowledge of the campaign against Howell that took place during the colonial and postcolonial periods.

For chapter 11, Rastafari practitioner and attorney-at-law Miguel Lorne contributes a commentary on the 1934 trial of Leonard Howell at the Morant Bay courthouse in the parish of St Thomas. At this trial, Howell faced the serious charge of sedition and at its conclusion was sentenced to two years at hard labour. His compatriot, Robert Hinds, was also tried. He, however, was sentenced to one year at hard labour. Lorne observes that the trial represented the first public attempt by the colonial regime to undermine the Rastafari movement. The charges brought to light at the trial are vital to showing the determination of the state to destabilize Rastafari’s early leadership, but they also reveal the confidence and mental agility displayed by Howell and Hinds in defending their struggle against white oppression.

Chapter 12 is adapted from a presentation given by Moyston at the second annual Leonard Howell Symposium in 2012. Moyston considers Howell’s sense of purpose and vision, and goes on to describe the Rastafari leader using an optic that encourages us to view him as someone with a sociological and anthropological understanding of the fight for black liberation.

The final chapter is a short commentary written in Rasta talk, reminding readers of Howell’s importance to Jamaica and the world. It is written by a Rastafari practitioner, Kirk Scarlett, who has appropriated the name I-Nation, which exemplifies his argument that there is power in Leonard Howell’s message. Scarlett’s decision in choosing his name is a reflection of his identification with Howell and the Rastafari movement as a whole.

Ultimately, the intention of this edited volume is to balance the scales by examining Howell as a key contributor to the genesis of the Rastafari movement and to modern Jamaica, and thus to black consciousness and African modality in Jamaica and the wider African diaspora. While this volume does not offer an exhaustive treatment of Leonard Howell, it does provide important and insightful material that should stimulate discussion and further research on Howell, not only as a father and patriarch of the Rastafari movement, but also in terms of his vision and his legacy.

The editors, September 2014

Notes

1. Robert A. Hill, Dread History: Leonard P. Howell and Millenarian Visions in Early Rastafari Religion in Jamaica, Epoché: Journal of the History of Religions 9 (1981): 30–71; Robert A. Hill, Leonard P. Howell and Millenarian Visions in Early Rastafari Religion in Jamaica, Jamaica Journal 16, no. 1 (February 1983): 24–39; Robert A. Hill, Dread History: Leonard P. Howell and Millenarian Visions in the Early Rastafarian Religion (Chicago: Research Associates School Times Publications and Frontline Distribution International, 2001).

2. Michael Hoenisch, Symbolic Politics: Perceptions of the Early Rastafari Movement, Massachusetts Review 29, no. 3 (Fall 1988): 432–49; Frank Jan van Dijk, Jahmaica: Rastafari and Jamaican Society, 1930–1990 (Utrecht: ISOR, 1993); Frank Jan van Dijk, Sociological Means: Colonial Reactions to the Radicalization of Rastafari in Jamaica, 1956–1959, New West Indian Guide 69, nos. 1–2 (1995): 67–101.

3. Barry Chevannes, Rastafari: Roots and Ideology (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1995).

4. Nathaniel Samuel Murrell, William David Spencer and Adrian Anthony McFarlane, eds., Chanting Down Babylon: The Rastafari Reader (Kingston: Ian Randle, 1998).

5. Hélène Lee, The First Rasta: Leonard Howell and the Rise of Rastafarianism (Chicago: Lawrence Hill, 2003).

6. D.A. Dunkley, Leonard P. Howell’s Leadership of the Rastafari Movement and His ‘Missing Years’ , Caribbean Quarterly 58, no. 4 (December 2012): 1–24; D.A. Dunkley, The Suppression of Leonard Howell in Late Colonial Jamaica, 1932–1954, New West Indian Guide 87, nos. 1–2 (January 2013): 62–93.

Part 1

Analysing Leonard Howell

1

Leonard Howell Announcing God

The Conditions That Gave Birth to Rastafari in Jamaica

Clinton A. Hutton

God lives within I and I live within God.

–Herman Woody King, Rastafari elder

Ethiopia is the Succeeding Kingdom of the Angl[o] Saxon Kingdom.

Our philosopher is the Angl[o] Saxon Philosopher’s (Successor), a wide awake Universal Master Mind.

–Reverend Fitz Balintine Pettersburgh, The Royal Parchment Scroll of Black Supremacy

On 2 November 1930, Ras Tafari Makonnen was crowned Haile Selassie I, emperor of Ethiopia, with titles such as King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Light of Saba, the Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah. This was witnessed by world leaders or their representatives and stirred the ontological and imaginative strivings and hopes of people of African descent the world over, for freedom, justice, sovereignty and redemption with catalytic agential force. In Jamaica, the response to the coronation was unique. It led to the birth of an anti-colonial pan-Africanist movement centred on the divination of Emperor Haile Selassie I.

Leonard Howell Announcing God

Figure 1.1. Leonard Percival Howell. Courtesy of the Gleaner.

The first recorded public expression of the deification of Haile Selassie occurred in January 1933, according to Leonard Percival Howell, who initiated this public display of divination in Kingston, Jamaica.¹ Howell had lived abroad some twenty years, having migrated to Panama and the United States, and returned home from the latter in December 1932. The first public expression of deification, at Redemption Ground in Kingston, was described by P.A. Thompson, one of the attendees, as Howell’s first meeting.² In any event, Howell’s Kingston meeting was not successful, and in February, he took his Ras Tafari meeting to the southeastern parish of St Thomas. On 18 April 1933, Howell addressed some two hundred persons at a meeting in Trinity Ville, St Thomas. The police who were present took notes and later submitted a report to the clerk of the courts of statements allegedly made by Howell, which they considered to be of a seditious nature. According to one of the police corporals,

I heard Leonard Howell, the speaker, said [sic] to the hearers: "The Lion of Judah has broken the chain, and we of the black race are now free. George the Fifth is no more our King. George the Fifth has sent his third son down to Africa in 1928 [sic] to bow down to our new King Ras Tafair. Ras Tafair is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The Black people must not look to George the Fifth as their King anymore – Ras Tafair is their king. . . . He said The negro is now free and the white people will have to bow to the Negro Race. At the end of the meeting, he said You must sing the National Anthem, but before you start, you must remember that you are not singing it for King George the Fifth, but for Ras Tafair our new king."³

As sympathetic as the crown solicitor and the attorney general might have been with pressing charges of sedition against Howell, they were concerned that taking such a measure would prove beneficial to a ranter who would revel in the advertisement of a prosecution.⁴ The prosecutor’s method of suppressing Howell might not be prudent, stated a police report. It would be better, perhaps, if he were guided on a path to the Lunatic Asylum.⁵ Support for the lunatic asylum model for suppressing Howell was implied in the crown solicitor’s statement: The man is a stupid ranter who puts forward an imaginary being or person who he calls ‘Ras Tafari’ and whom he describes as Christ as well as King of Ethiopians. I think we can leave Howell unadvertised so far as the annex statements are concerned.⁶

The attorney general was on the same page: I should treat those statements as his ravings [and let them] go unnoticed.⁷ The preferred method of dealing with Howell in the meantime was to spy on him or to keep a strict eye on him, as directed by the inspector general of police to the island’s constabulary in a memo.⁸ At a meeting at Port Morant, St Thomas, on 13 September 1933, the police from the area whom Howell had invited to attend reported that his meeting was opened with the singing of hymns. He amused himself by taunting the clergymen of different denominations and told people not to go to church because the ministers were liars.⁹ The police also reported that Howell talked about slavery and how the White man stole Africa from Africans, and that Black people should think that Africa is their home, not Jamaica.¹⁰ On 8 October 1933, Howell made another speech at a public meeting in Port Morant, where it was noted that

he chiefly in his speeches abuses the Parsons by calling them thieves and robbers and that they should be driven out of the Churches and the Churches locked up. He also abuses the white men calling them rascals and scoundrels and that they are robbing the people and keeping them down, but their eyes are now opened to everything and that they can live independently without white men. He urges to support his movement for the Negro King Ras ta Fari is doing great things for them and they will be taken to Africa next year August by ships provided for the purpose.¹¹

On 10 December 1933, Leonard Howell and Robert Hinds addressed a public gathering of some three hundred at Seaforth, St Thomas. One month later, Howell and Hinds were arrested and charged for sedition because of speeches they had made at that meeting. Rasta had now entered the first stage of the suppression of its leaders by the state. It had begun with Robert Hinds and three others, who were arrested for sedition on 13 November 1933 while they were having a public meeting in a cane field in Stokes Hall.¹² On 16 December 1933, six days after the 10 December meeting which eventually led to the arrest of Leonard Howell, Hinds was again arrested for disorderly conduct at a public meeting in Trinity Ville. Joseph Hibbert, another pioneering leader of the Rastafari movement, who was present at that meeting along with others, freed Hinds from the police. However, John Ross, a vigilante plantocrat – who had mobilized to his cause the Reverend M.C. Surgeon, a Methodist minister of Morant Bay and Seaforth; Ronald Robinson, justice of the peace from Port Morant; and Thomas Warfinger of the Port Morant branch of the Jamaica Producers Association – joined forces with the police and rearrested Hinds, along with Hibbert and six of their supporters.¹³ At Howell’s trial for sedition at the Morant Bay courthouse on 13 March 1934, the Daily Gleaner noted that

the small courtroom was packed with anxious spectators when Leonard Howell was called up to answer charges of sedition preferred against him. He pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging him with uttering, on the 10th of December last year, in the presence of H.M.’s liege subjects a seditious speech, in which he abused the Sovereign, the Queen, Queen Victoria, the Governor of Jamaica and both the governments of Great Britain and this island, thereby intending to excite hatred and contempt for His Majesty the King, and of those responsible for the Government of this island, and to create disaffection among the subjects of His Majesty in this island and to disturb the public peace and tranquillity of this island.¹⁴

The Daily Gleaner reported that [Howell,] an athletic figure in black, with a beard not dissimilar to that worn by the King of Abyssinia, whose photograph and name figured largely in the evidence, was undefended by council. Howell defended himself. The newspaper report further noted that Howell wore a rosette of yellow, green and black similar to that worn by a large number of men and women who accompanied him to court. Howell, according to the Daily Gleaner, took with him into the dock sheaths of documents and a few books of unusual proportions.¹⁵

Howell Defends Haile Selassie as God in the Colonial Court

Leonard Howell made history in the Morant Bay courthouse, the historical and symbolic site of elite power and the battle site of the Morant Bay Rebellion of 1865, by becoming the first to declare and defend in the court of British colonialism that Ras Tafari was the Messiah returned to earth. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for sedition by the chief justice of Jamaica, Robert William Lyall-Grant. The Daily Gleaner of 17 March 1934 announced the news thus: DENOUNCED as a fraud by the Chief Justice, Leonard Howell, self-made disciple of Ras Tafari, King of Abyssinia, and exponent of the doctrine that Ras Tafari is The Messiah returned to earth, was given a two-year term of imprisonment yesterday in the St Thomas Circuit Court at Morant Bay.¹⁶

Between 18 April and 16 December 1933, an average of one Rastafari meeting was held per month, mostly in the parish of St Thomas. Most of them were addressed by Leonard Howell. But this stupid ranter who puts forward an imaginary being or person whom he calls ‘Ras Tafari’ [the] Christ, as the crown solicitor contemptuously termed Howell and his thoughts, was meeting with much success in St Thomas.¹⁷ The idea of Rastafari as an anti-colonial alternative became popular in that parish and frightened the ruling local elites to their core. Howell, for them, was inciting the black masses to rebel in a parish which had been the location of the Morant Bay uprising sixty-eight years before. The Morant Bay Rebellion became an enduring spectre in the imagination of the elite classes, especially those in St Thomas.

From the beginning, persons such as John Ross insisted that Howell should be stopped and that those who were susceptible to the terrible ideas of Rastafari should be quarantined. It was the activism of the elite classes and their allies that helped the authorities to move from their policy to leave Howell unadvertised, to deny him any means of revelling in the advertisement of a prosecution, to charging him for sedition and sending him to prison.¹⁸ Indeed, the chief justice himself, Lyall-Grant, left his jurisdiction in Kingston and travelled to Morant Bay to prosecute the case against Howell and Hinds to ensure that they were imprisoned. Lyall-Grant’s presence as prosecutor in the case was an indication of the serious political importance that the colonial authorities attached to the threat of Rastafari and their determination to kill it in its infancy. But the die was already cast. While in prison, Leonard Howell put down his thoughts about the existential dimension and role of Haile Selassie in Rasta’s first tract, The Promised Key. With respect to the news of the coronation of Ras Tafari, Howell interpreted it to mean that the glory that was Solomon greater still reigns in Ethiopia. We can see all the Kings of the earth surrendering their crowns to His Majesty Ras Tafari the King of Kings and Lord of Lords Earth’s Rightful Ruler to reign forever and ever.¹⁹

This being the case, there was no need to obey the authority of the British monarchy in Jamaica, since the British king, like all other kings, surrendered his crown to the emperor. In this context, the British monarch had no authority, for upon His Majesty Ras Tafari’s head are many diadems, including that of George V.²⁰ Moreover, in Haile Selassie’s existential dimension, he was not just the Elect of God or the Messiah returned; he was God Almighty Himself, the Mighty Redeemer and the Mighty Liberator: His Majesty Ras Tafari is the head over all men for He is the Supreme God. His body is the fullness in all. Now my dear people let this be our goal, forward to the King of Kings must be the cry of our social hope. Forward to the King of Kings to purify our social standards and our way of living and rebuild and inspire our character.²¹

The black prophetic metaphorical destruction of the power, authority and legitimacy of the British Empire in particular, and global white supremacy in general, what Anthony Bogues called the successful challenge of the colonial symbolic order, had real existential meaning for identity, agency and socio­political mobilization in Jamaica and beyond.²² The year 1933 – the first year that Howell announced the emperor to be the returned Messiah to receptive ears and minds in public meetings across St Thomas – was a crowning success for the nascent Rastafari movement, despite the determined efforts by elite forces in the media, church and state to destroy it.

African Diasporic Artistic Methods of Creating Rastafari

What conditions and permissive contexts could have conspired to produce the gestational materials and creative process that would become ontological flesh in constituting an anti-colonial pan-Africanist movement centred on the deification of Ras Tafari as earth’s rightful ruler? The understanding of this creative process and of the ethos which in the space of one year overthrew the epistemic, ontological and psychological culture of a critical core of black peasant-labourers is key in making sense of this rare response to the coronation of Ras Tafari. The ontological construction of such a movement organized around the deification of Ras Tafari and the inversion of European imperial power is captured in an insightful essay by Robert Hill. This essay, Leonard Howell and Millenarian Visions in Early Rastafari, was published in Jamaica Journal in February 1983. This truly cornerstone narrative of the cosmological roots of Rastafari was republished in 2001 as a monograph called Dread History: Leonard P. Howell and Millenarian Visions in the Early Rastafarian Religion. The present chapter seeks to extend Hill’s article with a conceptual and methodological mode of probing, analysing and constructing meanings rooted in the cultural, aesthetic and creative agential traditions of the African diaspora. The rationale is the construction of a conceptual and methodological frame of reference in which to locate and probe Howell. This is congruent with an African diasporic mode of thought and creation, rooted in the aesthetic culture and agency of the artist.

I have taken this approach for a number of reasons: first, the African diasporic artistic traditions were critical to enslaved Africans and their descendants coping with slavery, resisting it and creating diasporic communities;²³ second, the cosmological roots of African diasporic art are the same as those of African diasporic spirituality and freedom;²⁴ third, artistic traditions have often invoked expressions, such as spirit possession, which were or are deemed to be artistic expressions and are articulated as such in African diasporic cosmology and culture;²⁵ fourth, the act of putting back together or reconfiguring shattered lives, cultures, epistemologies, ontologies and communities, as Howell was endeavouring to do in consequence of slavery and colonialism, must necessarily be an act of recreation, resurrection and redemption, or as Prince Buster puts it in his song Creation, It takes creation to build a nation;²⁶ and fifth, there is a rich culture of the creative arts, their methodologies and modes of creative thinking in the African diaspora that we can use to help us to explain the making of Rastafari in Jamaica in the 1930s.

There is also a sixth reason for my approach. This has to do with my own experience as a visual artist and as a person who has studied the creative methods of LeRoy Clarke, Trinidad and Tobago’s