Why Negro
Back Up Next


Why Negro, Caucasian And American Are Best

January 25, 1996

Given the fact that race relations are going from bad to worse, it is obvious our society is on the wrong path. The wrong path is dividing and creating tension. The wrong path is one of "black/white" (and any shade in between) naming of people and/or the overemphasis of remote national backgrounds. Basically, if "black/white" naming is acceptable or remote national naming is acceptable, there is no common ground. By such self-defining there is nothing to do but be different! Black/white naming and remote national naming are dividing and creating more tension.

In the United States our race is American with or without a secondary ethnic qualification. An ethnic subgroup is the only qualifier appropriate to use. Italian-American, Irish-American, Ethiopian-American, for examples. If one wants to be more general or does not know one's specific secondary ethnic qualification, then one can use the standard designations for the five generic races of Mongoloid, Australoid, Congoid, Capoid or Caucasian. Or one can use the standard names for the nine geohistorical races: American Indian, Asian, Australian, Melanesian, Micronesian, Polynesian, African, Indian (South Asian) and European as secondary qualification.

 The American race is defined ideally as that group seeking assimilation by overlooking biological differences with an allegiance to the Declaration of Independence. That is the American race. And it can be qualified by secondary use of remote nationality or ethnic subgroup, but not by color, race, religion or creed.

What's Wrong With African/European or National Backgrounds or Ethnic Subgroups First?

 1.   It is self-defeating. One cannot be part of America by exalting one's remote background and/or one's ethnic subgroup.

2.    It is not true: One more often than not would not be accepted back at the "other" nation as "one of them" anyway. I challenge anyone born and raised in the United States who claims to be African, Italian, English, Irish, etc. to return to his named country and be called anything but "American" over there. Another example of the error is that these subgrouping can be misleading and imprecise. Examples are students who apply to United States schools, rightfully checked "African" on the application form, but there were many problems when they arrived at the schools because none were "black" as expected. One was from Egypt; one was from South Africa; and another had been born and raised in Tanzania; but all were "African."

3.    It is self-alienating: To proclaim oneself as African or Italian first is to define oneself as an alien . . . an unassimilated immigrant. It is a self-Apartheid, a self-enslavement, a self-confinement.

4.    It fosters greater anti-human divisiveness because every and any group can rationally demand the same self-destructive, selfish aggrandizement to the detriment of the American race.

 5.    Finally, if one does not want to be an American, then in all honor one should leave and recognize that any problems occurring are mostly one's own fault because of one's emphasis on remote background prevents adaptation to the place of one's insertion in the universe (one's own real race).

Negro is an American ethnic group. Negro-American is accurate and precise. And it has none of the detrimental negative implications or inaccuracies as with "African" or with "black."

As James Baldwin wrote:

The Negro has been formed by this nation, for better or worse, and does not belong to any other -- not to Africa, and certainly not to Islam."

The Negro is a specific American ethnic group.

What About "Afrikan" And Afrocentrism?

 1. The Afrocentric phenomenon is self-defeating because it is misleading and imprecise. It actually is theatre more than history. And most theatre is fiction. Therefore, it is acting and not living! As one fancies himself to be African, it should be obvious that the continent is too big and diverse to have any specific meanings -- from Caucasian-Egyptians to European-South Africans -- and all are appropriately called "African." What becomes obvious is that Afrocentric scholars are really trying to say "black" without saying it because they don't want to include anybody from Africa who is not "black."

2. It is not true. More often than not, Afrocentrism is bogus. The claims are unsubstantiated and an example of sociological appropriation reminiscent of the Cold War Russians claiming to have invented baseball.

3. It is self-alienating. Negro scholars of the highest quality must sabotage themselves from any crediting of others especial,y "Eurocentrism" by using argumentum ad hominen as erudition. Furthermore, logic is stood on its head by an impudent shifting the burden of proof from "he who asserts must prove" to "we assert it until you prove us wrong." Indeed, telling lies to feel good about oneself does not work in the long run. As Arthur Ashe said in so many words: "Never lie because you cannot tell just one lie." Lying . . . one cannot get more inferior than that.

4. It is a symptom of inferiority. Much of Afrocentrism is nothing more than flagrant inferiority compensated for by an uncriticized dogma of paranoid grandiosities which are untrue, pathological and harmful. It is inferiority run amok and therefore unconsciously demoralizing.

5. It is a business more than a finding of one's roots. Truly, Elijah Muhammed's Message to the Black Man in America is the equal to Hernstein and Murray's The Bell Curve. Just sell whatever has been thought up, and "moneymaking" demands one be true to what sells.

Afrocentrism by Uhuru, Kwanzaa, Afrikan, or whatever, when fabricated are exploitations and refusals to assimilate. When against assimilation (as compared to positive identity memorializations), it is anti-American for any group to set itself up in such an antagonistic, grudge-carrying, oppositional and anti-diverse manner.

This is Black Supremacism -- which includes a whitewash of The Million Man March and of other anti-American self-destructive activities.

 What's Wrong With Color First?

1. It is self-defeating: One cannot be fully human by focusing on a biological characteristic of whatever nature (eye color, visual acuity, shoe size, baldness, hair color or skin color). Culture is more important.

2. It is not true: No one IS the color they think they are. I do not think I have ever met a completely black, white, yellow or red man. I do not think the reader has either. One is NOT one's color. (And Malcolm X was not black. I saw his picture.) Color must be ignored and it cannot be ignored if one believes one IS a color.

3. It is self-defeating: To proclaim oneself as black, white, red or yellow is to define oneself as an alien . . . an unassimilatable immigrant. It is a self-Apartheid, a self-enslavement, a self-confinement. Color must be ignored and it cannot be ignored if it is mentioned all the time.

4. It fosters greater anti-human divisiveness because people of every color can rightfully demand the same self-destructive selfish aggrandizement to the detriment of the American race. White groups are entitled to demand whatever black groups demand, and so on. So are brown, light brown, and albino. In fact, color applied fairly does not work. Color must be ignored and it cannot be ignored if it is a means of manipulation.

5. Finally, if one does not want to be an American, then in all honor one should leave and, if not, then recognize that any problems occurring are mainly one's own fault because of one's own emphasis on color which constricts and deforms one's being.

Indeed, if racism is to be maintained, then words of color should continue to be used. Words of color automatically make it worse and perpetuate it.

To the extent that color is used or needed to be used, then to that extent "racism" is disingenuously misused as a term to manipulate others or to ingratiate oneself by an unfair, self-serving, transparent appeal to unjustifiable guilt for people now existing. No one is benefitted by this. And there is nothing honorable about any of this unless it is in those who refuse to go along with it.

But the persistent use of "black" means that a group has defined itself as a color and must live it that way. When a black [sic] male is trying to be "black," he is ruining himself (and this accounts for the finding that 25% of young adult black [sic] males are in prison, on probation, or on parole as of this writing). If one is being "black," then one does not know what is wanted and one does not know what in the hell he is supposed to do! This is incredibly self-defeating. Sadly, it fits very well those who need to manipulate and control people -- people who use color (black) NEED young black men to be in trouble -- so they can continue to fulfill what is turning out to be a victimhood scam detrimental to all parties except those who maintain a semblance of "power" pretending to be rescuer.

Afrocentrists and other Black Supremacists need (Yes!) failing and ruined Negro males because if these males make it in America, they are not going to be Afrocentrists or "black!" And the Black Supremacists will no longer have an audience of slaves to manipulate.

"Black" (or any color emphasized) needs victims to maintain the pretension of continued abuse, a fact relied on by both black power and white power supremists. But truly, Negro youth is getting the worst of it, unconsciously manipulated into the dead end of blackness at which time special help is called forth and then rage is used as an excuse for anything. And never has it been more true that "revolutions eat their children," especially Negro boys and Negro men floundering about trying to figure out who they are because they have been deprived of genuine Negro history and identity.

The impostors of rescue are those individuals who rely on "black" sensitivity to cause disengagement from that which is "not black" even though it may elevate and foster development. This, quite frankly, is a form of stupidity -- perhaps proving inferiority is ingrained? Such blocks the cultural identity of America, and it blocks "Negro" as an ethnic group in America.

Marian Wright Edelman has written:

It is utterly exhausting being black in America -- psychologically, mentally, and emotionally. There is no respite or escape for your badge of color. (Both emphases added.)

Three comments in reference to the quote:

(1) Of course it is exhausting being "black." No one knows how to BE black -- it is a Sissypean chore.

(2) One ought to give up being "black."

(3) And in regards to the "badge of color" one ought to drop it for a badge of ethnicity: Negro-American ethnicity.

In summary, color is not an ethnic group, a race or a culture. With color, all one can do is be confused, get mad, or both.

Affirmative Reparation

Affirmative action and reparation for slavery ought to be combined into "affirmative reparation." It is really impossible to separate the two. In a real sense, they are different sides of the same coin.

1. Affirmative reparation is self-defeating. It means that one has already admitted defeat and that one cannot do it by oneself. Of course, there are times when one needs extra help, but it cannot be permanent or demanding.

2. Affirmative reparation is not true. There are few places outside the United States which are better places to be, to raise a family or to live. As W.E.B. Dubois said: "If you cannot make it here, you cannot make it over there."

3. Affirmative reparation is self-alienating. This is because one cannot fully like oneself if relying on a manipulation or pleading for special treatment. It sets up a subtle disturbance of self-image and esteem. Affirmative reparation people know what they are doing, and they must overcompensate by enhancing themselves through the fictions of Afrocentrism.

4. Affirmative reparation is hostile. It can be seen as a form of a shakedown of others by intimidation, unfair guilt, excessive reliance on history, and dancing on one's own relatives' graves. This kind of transparent victimhood phenomenon to ingratiate and obtain what is not justifiably earned individually is divisive, destructive and hostile. Really: Demanding diversity while in a group which is not diverse at all is hostility.

5. Affirmative reparation is superficial. It overlooks the fact that one is extremely fortunate and lucky to be in the United States no matter how one got here. People are trying to get in from all over. However one got here, one is lucky. However you got here by hook or crook, it can turn out for one's BEST. No one should pay you -- but you should be paying everybody else. Actually, someone else paid for you being here, and no one else owes you a thing. But you owe it to this society to pay your own way as best you can. That is what is owed to yourself and to those in America.

Nitty Gritty

The most basic problem and fundamental struggle is one of IDENTITY because without an identity one is almost nothing. All people want and need an identity: first as a human being; second as a member of his national culture; third as an ethnic subgroup of one's nationhood background; and fourth as biological background.

Youth wants and needs a valid identity based on a real history: origin, family, community, struggles, successes and survival. But this history must be true and real or it is inefficient resulting in youth ending up with nothing substantial except wondering "what happened?"

Unfortunately, youth is at the mercy of that to which they are exposed:

1. Afrocentrism, black or color as identity. Some have political goals and want to manipulate identity to control others for group gain. These are the Lemming Leaders who foist lies and self-esteem feel-good propaganda, none of which is a real identity. Furthermore, the vapid pseudo-identity given disturbs family and social life so youth ends up either alone or in the Lemming Leaders' lairs.

Those seduced are prevented thereby from being members of their own race (American!) and even talk about starting their own country and nation, which is an incredible puff to which they ought to be told:

"Go ahead, but not here. You think it is easy to start a nation, so go ahead. Go back. Go wherever. In fact, if you stay here you should pay us! We owe you nothing. You are lucky to be here. Just go ahead and imagine you have been born somewhere else and go start your own country. Don't wait. Just go!"

Next, the Lemming Leaders will, for personal political enhancement (the worst tyranny of politicians, by the way), mutter "we will save you" at the same time destroying Negro history leaving a group of bewildered, poorly educated, nonfunctional, loud, uncivilized, nonfamily, self-pitying, self-excluding, paralyzed people all trying to be African and/or black, neither of which they can ever be. Indeed, nothing emasculates or enslaves like Afrocentrism or color.

Finally, these youths having fraudulent and deprived of real family, broad community values and their own American identity, end up in low-accomplishment or anti-social activities providing victimhood fodder for Lemming Leaders' political scheming. Then by saying "see what they did to you -- you really need us to save you" a new supply of slaves has been caught unawares by these melanomaniacs who have been able, under the guise of Afrocentrism and blackness, done what no other slaver ever did: destroy Negro identity.

The whole Afrocentrist, black, or color as identity scheme is a vicious circle outside the American race. Indeed, Afrocentrism, the supremacy of any ethnic subgroup and blackness or color are not in anyone's best interest.

2. Negro as identity. Others have no political goal for what individual identity for youth essential to personal worth and development in the human race and American culture.

These leaders want youth to know an identity that works and that is a real identity with a real history, a real work ethic of human beingness, and a real understanding of and participation in the American race.

These leaders know that "Negro" as identity has an origin, a family life, a community, struggles, successes and survival based on reality. In a real sense, one cannot be a victim as a Negro (while with Afrocentrism one is a victim of fantasy, and with color one is a victim of nothingness).

 Youths identifying themselves as Negroes have a valid self-identity as a subgroup of human beings in the American race and elsewhere -- just like any other ethnic subgroup as a secondary phenomenon to their Americanism. As Negroes, people will get somewhere and be Americans whatever.

Sadly, the Negro identity has been abused and thrown away in the past 30 years. In that regard, never have Negroes been so abused and mistreated than by those who have done this. To participate in this any longer is to be an accomplice to unwitting reenslavement. To use "Negro" is to help people with their identity, whether one knows it or not.


"Race" has achieved importance disproportionate to its deserved impact. In fact, anyone who thinks "race" has intrinsic relevance ought to look up the meaning of the word in the New Oxford Dictionary and in any anthropology text. Truly "race" is a word only of the significance added to and made of it. And what has been done in the name of race is pathetic and must stop. It is a four-letter word. Look it up.

A final argument against the significance of "race" (whatever it is) is linked to the birth in the Netherlands of fraternal twins who plainly had different fathers of different colors (because the artificial insemination procedure used sperm of several different men). If that family emphasizes "race" as color, both children will suffer unnecessarily. On the other hand, if "race" is emphasized as their own culture ignoring color, the outcomes will be a process of equality and self-growth. Color, physical attributes and the usual non-cultural aspects of "race" will be, should be, must be reduced to the insignificance that they are. Race as anything but one's own culture counts.

A Negro is a human being with a genetically-based thicker melanin pigment layer traceable back to African origins. "Negro" identifies an ethnic subgroup in America -- a subgroup of the American race.

The days of temporary invocation of race or color as necessary for group social corrective efforts is now over as a group phenomenon. The group work must be over with sometime. Efforts then can become individual and national. We must study civilization and culture in America for individuals, not for race or color. We must deny the relevance of race as conventionally perceived because it is a trap creating nothing but problems. It is time to redefine and deemphasize race and color, ignoring whoever is using it and using corrective words instead. There is no multi-racial, multi-color society. There is just the society itself and whether people are fitting in and embracing it as best as possible while those needing help have an opportunity to get it as Western Civilization decrees. In this regard, there is only an American race which is that group seeking assimilation by overlooking biological differences with an allegiance to the Declaration of Independence.

People in America ought to try to be Americans. With a little work, most could make it.


Entire Site Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 by The Mankind First Company. All Rights Reserved.