“I just wanted to know why a person who otherwise brings good reasonings to our attention can at the same time show so much ignorance through using such a racist word like 'negro'.”

Well I believe Kelani has explained why she has used the term ‘negroid african’ to describe a particular African phenotype. She has said that no other word conjures up a widely recognizable image of the phenotype she described. As far as I can see that is an explanation. You have put forward other words but evidently she does not find them adequate for the description she seeks. We both agree that Kelani is a very well informed person and does bring good reasonings to the table here. She has also shown that she is clearly not unaware of the history of the word Negro. So then it would stand to reason that she is deliberately using the word to make a particular point that has not yet been addressed as far as I can tell. The phenotype she has described is that of a particular type of African that receives the brunt of racism through out history. That is simple fact. Any denial of this is beyond me. Note I have not said that all blacks to do bear racism to some degree, but if you look at the issues of colourism, of hair and poor self-image you will see that the image most absent from public consciousness as a symbol of beauty, acceptability and sophistication is this particular phenotype. Thus she felt a need to differentiate this African from others, some of whom may be more semetic/arabized in physical characteristics e.g. some north and east Africans, particularly many modern day Ethiopians, Egyptians, etc as well as mixed race Africans in the Diaspora. This is an issue that many Africans, especially many on this board, shy away from under the banner of ‘unity’.

Now back to the ‘N’ word. The history of it is known, it has been well explained by you and Ayinde and countless others. However what one may find offensive another may not and what one sees as a truth another may not. I think there is a deeper issue here that is not being responded to because of an emotional reaction.

“I raise the question again, why is it so important for her to uphold a designation which has been imposed on us by the (former) slavemaster? BECAUSE DOGS AND SLAVES GET A NAME FROM THEIR MASTER, FREE PEOPLE GIVE THEMSELVES A NAME!!!”

Well, maybe when the core issue of the post is addressed we may see the root of why the word has been used again and again. In my experience people do not respond well to accusations, browbeating or arrogant instructions to change their thinking. As for you assertion that she “uphold (s) a designation which has been imposed on us by the (former) slavemaster?” I can only present my opinion. The slave masters have not left, they in many ways are among our own ranks, as the African of the phenotype described is still viewed as a second class citizen by many so called Africans who make repeated calls for unity at the expense of honest reasoning on the multifaceted nature of racism. Using the word should FORCE us to confront this. We all know which Africans were initially described as Negroes and we all know what ‘negroid’ characteristics are. While the word does illicit legitimate emotional reactions we need to get past it and reason the issue at hand. Only when we PROPERLY ADDRESS the past and the present can it be put to bed. Any other order is lip service. Maybe many on this forum do not like addressing other serious aspects of racism, but the ongoing denial is the very reason that unity is illusive and why further changes are always necessary.