Freespirit, to me the word African is excellent, but Bantu-Kelani wanted to specify a certain type of African which possesses certain broad features, because according to her that specific type of African is discriminated against the most, even by fellow Africans.

But unfortunately the word she uses to describe this type of African is the word 'negro' or 'negroid' (negro-like) which is the most racist word that has ever been created, a designation that has been imposed on the African by the (former) white slavemaster to rip the African of his identity.

So we politely asked her to please not use that word again, but use words like Congoid, central African, classical African, etc. to describe this specific type of African, and to abandon this racist colonial slavemaster terminology. But Bantu-Kelani refused to do that, because according to her there is no alternative to the slavemaster's terminology, she refuses to overstand that we must liberate ourselves from those designations that the slavemaster has imposed on us.

That's why I quoted from the great scholar John G. Jackson to show her that there are (several) good alternatives for the slavemaster's designation.

Another thing sister Bantu-Kelani failed to overstand, and another facet of the racist character of the designation 'negro' is that it is being used by white anthropologist to take away the African's history: 'negro' is supposed to mean 'black', but in reality there are jetblack ethnic groups in Africa and Asia who are not labeled 'negro' by white anthroplogists, and when we take a closer look we will find out that most of the African people who have never created no civilization (to the white man's standard) have got the stamp of 'negro' and the others, who are equally black and woolly haired, have received names like Hammites, semi-Hammites, Elongates, brown Mediterranean, and even Caucasoids! In other words, the negro has created no civilizaton and has no history, pick up on that.

It has been shown that colonial anthroplogists use designations like 'negro' and 'negroid' at random, just to bring confusion, so the African (or so called negro) will never find out that his Ancestors created all the major civilizations anywere in the world, as a matter of fact, he ends up believing that he has no history and his ancestors have always been the slaves of the Hammites, Semites, semi-Hammites, Elongateds, brown Mediterraneans, Caucasoids, etc.

So certain colonial anthroplogists had shown that only 20% of the population of ancient Egypt was 'negro' or 'negroid', but the great Cheikh Anta Diop showed that 30% of the contemporary population of England could be classified as 'negro' using the same perimeters! So the designation doesn't even refer to a certain phenotype, which again shows how racist the designation actually is.

There are 6 to 7 types of Afrcans with dark skin and woolly hair, and the fast majority could not be classified as 'negro', even if we adopt the idea held by Bantu-Kelani that 'negroes' are those Africans with the broad features, W.E.B. Dubois reminded us that they are even among the black races of Africa a tiny minority. So I would prefer the name African as well, and for a lot more reasons which I won't be able to state in one single posting.

Because dogs and slaves get a designation from their masters, free people name themselves.

One Love!

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