GA: Which may also account for I 10 brothers and sisters
Yes, it's probably more typical of Jamaican lineage. My father had to take a year or two out of school just to help feed his 5 brothers and 4 sisters. His father died when he was young.
GA: It is important to know if ones are reasoning from a generalist standpoint or from an I who professes RASTAFARI
Why? I'm arguing from a standpoint of nature. Rasta arguments aren't necessarily that. That is an assumption that Rastas make because the bible creates a foundation, telling them what is "natural". But what is natural is what is observed in nature. Where feelings about slavery evolved over time, including in the bible, what is natural is always reflected in nature and natural law.
If I didn't pose arguments/reasoning that sometimes contradict Rasta beliefs it would be a disservice because this would simply create an echo chamber of conservative views. Rather, if those views hold against time and progress then they should still stand after the challenge of science and more information. In other words, many people find value in that which is set in stone because it gives them confidence. But things that are set in stone are inflexible and cannot grow. Nature, on the other hand, grows and changes. It adapts.
quote: Clownfish, wrasses, moray eels, gobies and other fish species are known to change sex, including reproductive functions. A school of clownfish is always built into a hierarchy with a female fish at the top. When she dies, the most dominant male changes sex and takes her place.
The very notion of sexual reproduction comes from nature, not the bible. The bible was only written with opinions that were based on man's observations of natural law/order (at the time). They knew about sexual reproduction but they didn't have microscopes and didn't know relatively anything about single-celled organisms and microbiology.
If they had access to this information then they may have understood that asexual reproduction was a part of nature too and that gender wasn't something sacred. But then again, there is a political justification for them to ignore any such information. It was a patriarchal society. Women were often demonized and blamed for men making the wrong decisions (Adam, Noah, Samson, Jacob, David, etc.)
At the same time, culturally, the men were more affectionate towards other men. How many times have biblical apologists had to defend David against allegations of homo or bisexuality because of his close relationship with Jonathan? Culture is relative and it changes and evolves. What's an abomination today can be accepted tomorrow and vice versa. And what I'm arguing (perhaps unsuccessfully but that's okay too) is that nature plays a role in the evolution of culture because culture is created and evolved by people. And so there is a power dynamic that exists between the majority and the minority. You may not like the comparisons (just as I don't) but there are comparisons to make between blackness and gayness in how both are treated by society.
The power dynamic between sides is what creates political parties. Both sides figure out how much they need and don't need to compromise because of the population. Homosexuals are a minority of the population. But they are a large population. The white majority equated black men, especially with being savages, wicked, don't leave us around your white daughters, and often those daughters would lie and say they were raped and it would cause lynchings and murders or worse. It led to a riot in Tulsa. And it's all because black people weren't treated as people, more like animals, more like abominations.
But that idea... the aversions to the things that the minority does... comes from being part of the majority. It's like each person's idea has weight and validity equal to their own individual value and worth and influence on society. Rarely does one person's 'weight' equal that of several people. And it is nearly impossible for one person's weight to dictate their own will to the masses in a way that gets the majority to accept a minority perspective. This is why the leaders of tribes and nations often utilized the names and the 'word' of different gods. And the Hebrews were no exception. By saying "thus saith Jah" Moses was able to substitute the weight of everyone's belief in the God of their ancestors for his own weight. And any dissent was punished.
If you, as an Israelite, didn't believe Moses (didn't believe Moses spoke for Jah and therefore had the authority to command them and dictate to them how they should live, if you didn't accept Moses then Moses would have you killed/murdered. As long as enough people, forming the masses, believed, Moses's authority was secure and thus so also was his source of $$$. Because dissent represented a threat to his regime he didn't tolerate it; didn't tolerate new ideas. He ruled out of fear. He needed the majority to be on his side. He also needed more people, more numbers, and babies, because his policies got many of them killed and they constantly needed to replace their numbers even if it meant taking foreign women as the spoils of war. Did they rape them? Of course, the bible leaves this to your imagination. But in order to even create this society of bible believers, Moses had to commit genocide and remove everyone who would speak out against him because he couldn't afford bravery in his sheep. I wouldn't have survived Moses because I mon a rebel by nature. And I'm fighting for freedom and prosperity for all my people.
I consider rape and genocide very much unnatural. So it's interesting that we're on different sides in this debate and I choose to defend the freedom of choice and self-determination whereas the bible was literally created out of genocide and corruption. Rastafari does not need such as a foundation. That is how it was and is but not how it forever needs to be.
Moses profited greatly from genocide by enshrining in law that his brother Aaron would be a priest forever along with his Levitical bloodline; his bloodline. And they would never have to work again. Everyone else would simply bring them food as offerings. And they would take offerings (bribes) to pardon people's sins. And that got corrupt because people didn't stop sinning. They just spent more money on paying off the priests. They failed. They failed as a whole society. And whether a Rasta chooses to believe in Jah or not, Yisrael was allowed to be ruled by Rome and could not free herself.