Bantu Kelani, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the term 'negro' has been imposed on us. There were no so called 'negroes'in Africa before: there were Asante, Mandingo, Hausa, Nuba, Yoruba, etc., but there was no etnic group in Africa called 'negro'.

One only became a so called 'negro' when one was packed together in a slaveship, or in other words: there are swimming different fishes in the sea with different names, but when they are packed together in a tin they are called sardines.

In the middele ages African people were called Moors by the Europeans, and history tells us that these Moors dominated southern Europe for hundreds of years and rescued Europe from its middle ages, gave Europe science, maths, literature, navigation, you name it!

But by the time these Moors were defeated by the Europeans they received new names like morisco (little Moor), Mudejar (tamed one), and 'negro'. At the same time the Moorish empire was on its way out in Europe, the Portugese first started to trade in West-African slaves, as early as 1442, and in a document called "The Discovery and Conquest of Guinea" we can for the first time be witness of the term 'negro'.

So 'negro' is an objectified term to designate slaves, an adjective had been turned into a noun. So we must make a sharp distinction between the term 'negro' as a color designation (negro= Portuguese for black) and the term 'negro' to designate slaves. A human being robbed of his land, his heritage, his language, robbed of averything from which he could have derived an identity, a feeling of slefworth, so he had no other choice but to adopt the identity of the slavemaster and to look at his condition and himself through the slavemaster's eyes, so his own oppression is legitimate even in his 'own' eyes so he has no other choice but to deposit with his destiny.

And if we look at anthropology we know that only those etnic groups who have never created a civilization (according to the white man's standard) which can be respected. So there are pitch black people in Africa and Asia who are not being called 'negroes' by white scholars, for obvious reasons. People like the Ethiopians were not 'negroes' according to white scholars, they were whites! Another 'white' group were the Tutsi's, etc., the result was etnic strive and mass murdering in Africa as we know, and another result is that you as a negro cannot trace your history, because, like I have just shown, the 'negroe' has no history, because only the darkskinned peoples of Africa who are not advanced according to them are negroes, and the advanced ones have recieved names like Hammatic, Semetic, Mediterreanean, and even Caucasoid! So if you are looking for 'negro' history in the library you will get confused to the limit! So besically, it is about the concept 'negro', the concept of uprootage.

One Love!

It's gona take bravery to stop (mental) slavery!