Bantu-Kelani, you are still negating all the arguments I have brought forward. I told you before that even in anthropology there is not such a thing as a 'negro', I showed the words 'negroes' and 'negroid' have been used at random by white colonial anthropologists. And at the end of the day it was discovered that it even did'n't relate to a specific phenotype but that it merely related to peoples who had created no civilization. Those peoples were called 'negroes' by white anthropologists, and the 'civilized' Black Africans were named Hammites, semi-Hammites, Semites, Elongates, brown Mediterranean, Caucasoid, etc.! So 'negroes' ended up thinking they had never created no civilization, that all 'African' civilizations were created by all kinds of peoples except 'negroes'.

That 'negro' is a very arbitrary anthropological term showed when a certain white anthropologist had showed that only 20% of the population of ancient Egypt was (using certain perimeters)'negro' or 'negroid', but afterwards Cheikh Anta Diop showed that, using the same perimeters, 30% of the population of England could be classified as 'negro'. Which proves the phenotype doesn't even refer to a certain Black African phenotype. The truth is the colonial anthropologists have brought this designation into being to introduce confusion in the historical achievements of Black Africans. So if the word 'negro' has no meaning, and is being used at random, and in practise mostly refers to those Africans who created no civilization (according to the standards of the white man) we must get rid of it!

You still have not answered my question why it is so important to you to maintain a designation which does not relate to anything and has been imposed on you by the (former) slavemaster: the word doesn't even have a proper meaning! Not even in anthropology; scientist are as much in dispute over what a negro is as theologists are in dispute about who god is. So please stop contributing to this confusion. It doesn't serve no single course, except the course to save your ego. Because that's the only course you are fighting for at the moment.

I also brought forward that liberating ourselves from the designations that have been imposed on us and giving ourselves proper names is the starting point for our mental liberation, for the construction of our African paradigm, our African identity. How contradictary is it to uphold a designation which doesn't refer to nothing, does not give you any sense of identity when you are constructing an African paradigm, an African identity. Your name expresses your identity, so what do you express when you still except a desgnation that was imposed on you by the (former) slavemaster? Do you wanna show the world that you still wanna be his slave? Anyone who escapes from jail wants to get rid of the cloths he wore in jail as soon as possible, you don't want to stand-out as a convict, so as soon as you get the chance you choose your own cloths, cloths who suit you. Except for Bantu-Kelani, she wants to show the world that she still belongs in prison. So good luck.

The term 'negro' is always negative, no matter how you look at it. And again, before you come up with the fake argument that I hate hate, it is not a matter of hate, it just doesn't add up to talk about Black consciousness and calling African people 'negroes' and/or 'negroids' at the same time, it is very contradictory to me. It is like a policeman who is supposed to fight crime and calls himself a maffia godfather in public. That will bring mass confusion.

One Love!

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