Is it time to ditch the colour Black for our true heritage, African?

Is it time to ditch the colour Black for our true heritage, African?

The African Or Black Question: Colour or Heritage? – Ade Sawyerr

In an article I wrote last year, I wondered what people of African descent would make of the declaration of 2011 the International Year for people of African Descent,, and to what extent they would benefit from the message of recognition, justice and development that was intended to be the hallmark of the celebrations.  Though we are yet to evaluate the significant outcomes of the year of celebration, it has forced on us a question that is being asked about what people of African descent should be called in the Diaspora – ‘The African or Black Question’?

Questions of identity are complex, sensitive and personal, and therefore reaching consensus even after extensive discussion may be difficult.  Any answer must be well reasoned and cover issues of race, ethnicity, culture, changes in terminology and colour.  My conclusion after considering this issue is that the colour Black does not quite denote our identity in Britain and that our heritage and historical geography, African is a more enduring and fitting term for our identity as a people.

Race and ethnicity

There is only one human race, homo sapiens or humanity as recent advances in DNA technology have confirmed, but the quest for developing a hierarchy of the species continues with classification into different groups or races and given rise to several theories of race none of which have stood the test of rigorous analysis.

The ‘three race theory’ asserts that there are three main races – Negroid, Caucasian and Mongoloid; the ‘geographical theory’ postulates that race is dependent on where your origins are in the world – Africa, Europe or Asia; the evolutionary theory explains the possibility that the distinguishing physical features on which race is based, the colour of the skin, texture and colour of hair, shape and colour of eyes and shape of noses, may have been acquired because of the need to adapt to their environment.  Other theories have as much as 40 sub-races and in Africa with varied geography and diversity in physical appearances, sub Saharan Africa alone has 9 sub races Capoid, Khoid, Sanid, Congoid, Nilotid, Aethoid, Sundanid, Babutid, and Kafrid.

This proliferation of sub-classifications calls into question the use of physical features as the main basis of race classifications.  Indeed race cannot explain widely differing body features even in the same family.  Some people are tall, some are short, and some have lighter or darker complexions or different eye, hair and skin colour.  Indeed some  Europeans have darker complexions than some light skinned Africans.

Another difficulty of race is the temptation by some experts to link race with intelligence in order to justify the hegemony that leads to racial discrimination.  It was this tenuous link that caused the United Nations to raise ‘The Question of Race’ and conclude that perhaps ethnicity was a better and less emotive determinant of group identity.  Section 6, the relevant portion of their statement issued on 18th July 1950 reads

National, religious, geographic, linguistic and cultural groups do not necessarily coincide with racial groups: and the cultural traits of such groups have no demonstrated genetic connexion with racial traits. Because serious errors of this kind are habitually committed when the term “ race ” is used in popular parlance, it would be better when speaking of human races to drop the term ” race ” altogether and speak of ethnic groups.

However, ethnicity, of which there are more than 5,000 groupings in the world, also has pejorative content and does not necessarily lead to objective classification.  Ethnicity evokes images of a pagan and heathen nature of those to which  they refer; their nationalities, heritage, language, religion, ideology, ancestry, homeland, tradition, food, clothes, geography and culture are still seen as exotic and ethnic relations are noted mainly for being underpinned by tensions that have led to war in Eastern Europe and riots in England.

Race, classification and discrimination

In Britain, race as defined by The Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 includes a) colour, b) nationality and c) ethnic or national origins.  The Act calls for positive action measures that would eradicate racial discrimination and there is a requirement of ethnic monitoring based on 17 classifications.  These classifications are, unsurprisingly, based on race, nationality and colour are also used for the census.

White British Irish

Any other White background


White and Black Caribbean

White and Black African

White and Asian

Any other Mixed background

Asian or Asian British




Any other Asian background

Black or Black British



Any other Black background

Chinese or other ethnic group


Any other ethnic group

Not stated

Most people of African and Caribbean descent born in Britain accept that they are British, the classifications do not mention English or Welsh which denote ethnicity, but there is mention of Black and White but no mention of Yellow.

Race, colour and identity

In the three race theory, the only mention of colour is Negroid and in the theories that provided many sub races, there is no mention of any colour and so we have to wonder why colour has been used to denote races.  For instance Negroid or African is equated with Black, Caucasian or European is denoted as White, and Mongoloid or Asian was classified as Yellow.  The truth is that there is nothing White about Caucasian, it is a reference to a mountain in the Caucuses somewhere in the old Soviet Union where the skull of a person was noted to be typical of all Europeans and Mongoloid was a description based on what people with Down Syndrome were supposed to look like and used to describe Asian looking people; the term Yellow has fallen into disuse so why do we still hold on to the terminology of the past in equating colour with race unless the fact of translation of Negroid into Black allows us to hold on to a pejorative view of our race.

Negro was used in America for centuries but the pejorative use of Nigger caused a shift away from Negro to Coloured though some notable institutions such as the United Negro College Fund retain the name which is a throwback to the days when Negros were educated separately.  The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the most authoritative and preeminent organisation formed during the period when ‘coloured’ was seen as more progressive retain it in their name.  The term ‘Coloured’ gave way to Black in the 60s and 70s, fuelled by the need to reclaim the heritage and transform it into a positive symbol of pride.

The term Black rode on the back of the Civil Rights protest movement.  Black Power was at its peak, with the Black Panthers, the Black salute by Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics, in the song ‘Say it loud, I am Black and Proud’ by James Brown, the Big Afro and the dashiki were seen as positive manifestation of their African identity.  The Black Congressional Caucus remains as a vestige of this period.

It was not only in America that the terminology of identity has been shifting;  there are notable examples from Africa too.  In South Africa, Steve Biko propounded a Black Consciousness Movement that took pride in the culture and was developed in apposition to the Bantu education that was provided under apartheid.  This movement was within the context of South Africa where the African National Congress espoused a non-racial view of their protest.  It is this non racial view that caused the Pan-African Congress and Azania Peoples Organisation to breakaway from the ANC.

Leopold Senghor of Senegal, Aime Cesaire of Martinique and Leon Damas of French Guiana provided a philosophical framework for black politics and ideology as a protest against cultural and colonial racism, Negritude.  Their Negritude movement however became much derided.  Some of the arguments against it then were:

a)     In the common bond of an African heritage, a colour Black, was not sufficient as a concept to fight racism.

b)    Too much colour, Black, was unlikely to achieve anything except draw attention to a defensive projection of what you really do not want to be.

c)     The word Black had always been used as a derogatory term to describe people of African descent, there was no need to reclaim it.

d)    Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka commented, “A tiger does not proclaim his Tigertude, a tiger pounces on its prey”.

e)     Negritude sounded so close to ‘nigger’ that it could only be seen as ‘nigger with attitude’.

People of African descent in Britain have gone through similar shifts in terminology.  In the 1950s and 1960s, we were defined mainly by our colour and referred to as Black or Coloured.

A 1964 Lambeth Election poster sponsored by the Conservative party used the then acceptable word ‘coloured’ but with very inflammatory language


We have also been called African, those of us from the Caribbean  have been called West Indian and Afro-Caribbean, and now African-Caribbean became a more acceptable term of description.  There are also some who do not want the term Black and have suggested different terms of ‘endearment’ or ‘affection’ such as Afro-Saxon or Afropean.

Black as an inclusive political term

While the term black had been adopted in America for reasons of pride, in Britain the term was adopted within the framework of the Negritude movement as a conscious political and anti racist term to denote all people of colour or non white people as well as people who were not part of the dominant Anglo white culture.  So black was embraced by Asian people  as well as Chinese people and even to an extent by the Irish.  It was meant to embrace all the politically oppressed.

In 1983 however the two dominant political parties rejected the term Black coincidentally for the same reason.  The Labour Party rejected Black Sections for being too divisive, outlawed it and refused to support any candidate chosen by them.  The Conservative Party came out with a bold election poster of acceptance of Coloured people, rejecting the term Black as an unworthy and politically incorrect Labour Party construct. sort=Shelfmark%2CDate&qvq=w4s:/when/1978%2F1979;sort:Shelfmark%2CDate;lc:ODLodl~6~6&mi=33&trs=34

The poster may have helped the Conservatives in 1983 but it could not wish away the race discrimination suffered by Lord Taylor when he was rejected a decade later by his own party in 1993,  because he was not British enough.

Though several organisations still bear the term Black, Black as a political term has been diluted considerably over the years.  It was conjoined with Minority Ethnic to become BME or black and minority ethnic; it has now moved on to BAME to denote, Black Asian and Minority Ethnic and extended to BAMER to cover refugees.

The Black in BME is now essentially African and Caribbean, so why do we not just accept ourselves as African Caribbean Asian Minority Ethnic, (ACAME), a bit of a mouthful, but at least we do not have to persist with a term, Black, that has become meaningless.  In the 21st century there are several people who are uncomfortable with the politics of protest and would wish to move to project their true positive heritage.  They do not want to be held hostage in a solidarity movement that provides them with no benefit and is only a convenience for some.

Colour or geographical and historical heritage

Black as a political term really no longer serves our purpose and we need to return, not to ethnicity or race or culture or skin colour but to our origins to define who we are.  African, which is our heritage resounds better if it is to help us define our identity, the other terminologies will not go away but with time being  of African descent or heritage will take over and be acceptable especially as Africa moves out of the hopelessness of foreign domination and globalisation.

Kwame Nkrumah provides us with a more fulfilling political concept on which to base our identity.  He adopted the Black Star of Marcus Garvey into the Ghanaian flag, and named his shipping company the Black Star Line.  This was in support of Pan-Africanism as the identity and ideology for all people of African descent making common cause with the brothers and sisters in America and the Caribbean.  The concept of Pan-Africanism better represents who black people of African descent really are.

I suspect that there will always be lingering doubts and objections along the way.  It took some time for some to accept the term African to embrace people of African descent in America but eventually the issue was settled and people of African descent in America whether they were born in Africa, the Caribbean or America now prefer to be called African Americans much in the same way that there are Anglo-Americans and Italian Americans and Chinese Americans.  They have embraced African and the issue settled.

There are those of Caribbean heritage who believe that the term African does not describe them very well and in the same mode of ‘divide and rule’ see nothing African about them.  They should however be reminded that in their own countries of origin in the Caribbean, they are identified as being from the African ethnic group co-existing with Arawaks, Caribs, Indians, Chinese and European.  There are probably more people from the Caribbean in America than in Britain since Britain stopped being the preferred choice for emigration, but these Caribbean Americans have now embraced the term African American if even after some resistance.   So perhaps African Caribbean in the Britain may also consider this identity and let it grow on them.

Will adopting African dispel all the negative notion of Africa as a no hope continent and will it prevent the present onslaught of attacks on other cultures that are seen to be ‘contaminating’ the existing British culture.  Black, African and African Caribbean culture presents a baggage, it is seen as nihilistic and inferior to some, it is what the authorities perceive  as the reason for our  over representation  in things that are not progressive in society but under represented in the positive things.  This onslaught on multiculturalism as a non desirable import into this country refuses to recognise that there are already different cultures within this country and the Scottish, Irish and Welsh want to project their own culture even if they continue to be part of the union.

There is no doubt that people of African descent are also British, it is not about the nationality and though they are excluded from the mainstream ethnicity of the nations – I am yet to hear the term Welsh Black or Scottish Black or English Black or indeed Irish Black gain currency and yet there are many young sports people of African heritage who represent the British Isles in major sports.

Reclaiming our African Heritage

Will The African or Black Question, though important to ask help people of African descent in this country in any meaningful way?  I think that it is a start of claiming our heritage and a start of defining for ourselves who we really want to be; I think that is important and I think that being an African has sufficient positive points if we are prepared to work on it.  Agreeing on what we call ourselves will only work if we are able to combine with this a certain pride of knowing who we are, but it will also come with some form of negotiation.

Perhaps, this is the time that people of African heritage should define themselves much in the same way as  American people of the same descent and heritage embraced the continent which is the source of all humanity.  If we need an all-encompassing term to define who we are, African without the Black is more helpful and I will agree with the United Nations that the International Year for People of African Descent was certainly a better description of this celebration than International Year of Black People.

I suppose that as a Pan-Africanist whose heroes came from the continent of Africa, such as Nkrumah and Nyerere and the Caribbean such as Padmore and Garvey and America, such as DuBois and Booker T Washington, I can endorse the term African-British.

“I have no wish to be the victim of the Fraud of a black world.
My life should not be devoted to drawing up the balance sheet of Negro values.
There is no white world, there is no white ethic, any more than there is a white intelligence.
There are in every part of the world men who search.
I am not a prisoner of history. I should not seek there for the meaning of my destiny.
I should constantly remind myself that the real leap consists in introduction invention into existence.
In the world through which I travel, I am endlessly creating myself.” (Fanon in Black Skin, White Masks, 1952)

Ade Sawyerr is partner in the diversity and equality focussed management consultancy, Equinox Consulting.  He can be reached at

5 thoughts on “Is it time to ditch the colour Black for our true heritage, African?

  1. The African Or Black Question (TAOBQ): A long piece, but worth reading, as it pretty much touches on all the key points espoused by TAOBQ

  2. Hey Ade, I am bemused by your call to change something that is really a none issue. Simply because when you determine your own destiny, it doesn’t matter the tag or label is – only the results that matter. And have produced any results that we can brag or boast of – that actually benefits our people who call themselves black. Everything we do help advance the white ethnic groups of the world. And we have been programmed through colonial education to do so.

    Dr. Kwame Nkrumah’s plan was to raise a new generation of Ghanaians through the Young Pioneer Movement who hadn’t been tainted by colonial mis-education to take over at this very moment of our evolution as a nation and a continent, but what we see today in Ghana and the rest of Africa is the cause and effect of jealousy and envy that those puppets (African leaders) sowed some fifty plus years ago.

    When Ghana went down, each country in Africa, and the non-aligned Movement was decimated by the West because, at the end of the day, it is really not about color, but rather, about what you have to sell to others to keep your economy strong and theirs weak; keep them down so all they would do is remain a society of consumers…we need to keep our eyes on the prize.

  3. Nii Ahene,
    Of course this his an issue otherwise i will not be touching on it. there are wider dimensions because of the complexity of identity. there is a whole debate on the issue in Britain and there are several views and opinions on the subject. what i tried to present here is my own view.
    I recognise Africa as one continent but i also am aware that there is a whole African diaspora out there.
    sometime how people label you affects the way you react much in the same way as discrimination continues to impose barriers on people even those the barriers are surmountable.
    But i also have a view on economic development and the fact that until we are able to dismantle our colonial economics and form an economic,social and political block, we in africa will struggle to keep up with the rest of the world.
    i touched on this issue on my recent lecture on Nkrumah

  4. Hi Ade,

    I have always regarded the colour of my skin as being somewhere between tangential and irrelevant to my self-identity and consciousness. I know that I am dark-skinned and I do not need to remind myself or be reminded by others of that. Few people in this world are of the colour black in the true sense of that colour. In the same vein there are hardly any truly “White” people in the world.

    The “colour” words we use to describe the complexions of people are really shorthand terms for race. I have lived and worked in Southern India ( Madras or chennai in Tamil Nadu) where many people are in fact darker in skin colour than Africans. If however you or I talked to some Southern Indians about any supposed Black commonality based on skin colour or culture, they would look at you as if you were totally insane !

    I have come across many people of the same skin colour as myself with whom I have absolutely nothing in common. I have also come across many people of a different skin colour with whom I have got on like family. Skin colour can and often is a part – big or small – of a person’s identity and conscious. How big or small is due to varying factors .

    In today’s world there are so many more different kinds of tribes – football clubs supported, churches attended, old school and professional networks.

    Human beings will always have a tendency to form ” tribes” . It is part of our condition of being social animals and having a need to belong to a group. For many people , skin colour is a marker of a “tribe” . For some , it is language and some elements of culture and religion. We are all african and black in Ghana but look at the problems we have with tribalism.

    Skin colour is a bit like ethnic tribe. How important these become in one’s life is often related to one’s life experiences , opportunities and one’s outlook on life. The narrower and more limited one’s horizons and experiences the more important race and ethnicity become.

    There are of course those who trade on identity fascism and would like to convince others that skin colour or ethnicity are the main issues in everybody’s life. I am not for one moment denying the existence of racism based on skin colour. However if someone seems me in terms of nothing besides my skin colour , that does not mean i have to do likewise.

    I have always had problems with that broad catch-all term “Black ” in the UK of yesteryear which included peoples like Asians , Arabs , Chinese and others not noted for their love of phenotypically black African people. It was essentially a hollow, meaningless and even fraudulent term.

    I am comfortable with being the various things that make up my identity and consciousness – Africa, dark-skinned, Ghanaian, Ga, lover of football, music, literature etc and have never felt the need to succumb to any form of identity fascism.

    Whether people of African descent born outside of Africa wilfully adopt the term African will of course depend on situational factors. You meet many African-Americans in Ghana who insist that they might have been born in America but are African . Many Black Americans in the USA would punch you right in the face if you called them “African” !

    Caribbean people in America are a minority within the Black American firmament. As such they almost certainly had no option but to go along with the term. A clear case of joining them if you can’t beat them. I have lived and worked in many Caribbean islands and many people there would vehemently object to being called African. Not too long ago and within the lifetime of many older people still alive today, it was actually a a gross insult for someone in the Caribbean to be called ” African”. Of course there were many who pushed back against this sad legacy of slavery such as the great Pan-Africanists like Sylvester Williams, George Padmore, Marcus Garvey, Rastafarians and indeed many ordinary people as well.

    There actually two exceptions to this rule in the Caribbean – in Trinidad and Guyana where the people of African descent refer to themselves as Africans . There is a reason . the Black people of Trinidad and Guyana have to contend with – politically, economically and culturally – with and indian population that proudly and even stridently calls itself Indian rather than “Brown” people. As a counter measure therefore the Blacks of Trinidad and Guyana , unlike their other Caribbean cousins , call themselves Africans.

    The majority of Black people in the UK is now( since the 1990s if i read the statistics correctly ) of African rather than Caribbean origin . As such a lot of Caribbean origin people will have to fall in line with being described as African or even identifying themselves as African. In the 1970s , an African kid in a school in London most likely would have been teased and bullied by Jamaican kids for simply being ” African” . That is a lot less likely to happen today or in the future. Relative numbers do matter.

    The other issue of course is the slowly changing international narrative about Africa. As news seeps out that some african countries, despite all the various issues everyone knows about, are growing economically attitudes to Africa will inevitably change for the better and more positive. Africans in the diaspora will find the term African something not to be ashamed of but to be proud of.

    That will be when being African will finally rightfully triumph over being ” Black”

  5. Thank you for this intelligent and persuasive article. It may come as a surprise, but as a conservative Christian “White” American man, I agree with your perspective on the “African or Black Question” discussion. I agree the ethnic designations based on color are meaningless and should be phased out.

    I do want to make clear that I oppose extreme “racial” consciousness and separatism, which too often leads to division and disharmony in society. Observing our ethnic heritage should be celebrated positively and bring people together instead of fostering division. That being said, if we are to recognize ethnic distinctions, they should at least be meaningful and accurate.

    As you pointed out, referring to people as “Yellow” discontinued a long time ago and “Asian” replaced that term. If “Asian” can easily replace “Yellow” as an ethnic description, I don’t see why “African” cannot likewise replace “Black” the same way. Granted, one can identify as African and be of European heritage, just as one can identify as European and be of African heritage. But both Asian and African can denote actual ancestral geographical references. So if “Asian” can acceptably replace “Yellow” as an ethnicity, I see no rational argument against “African” replacing “Black.”

    Although Asians can include people from the Indian subcontinent, “Asian” is more typically reserved (in the USA at least) to describe people with heritage from China, Japan, Korea, etc. As you pointed out, Indians and some “White” Europeans can be darker than many “Black” Africans. Shouldn’t those contradictions render the “Black” and “White” ethnic labels as meaningless?

    I would like to highlight this quote from your article:

    “It took some time for some to accept the term African to embrace people of African descent in America but eventually the issue was settled and people of African descent in America whether they were born in Africa, the Caribbean or America now prefer to be called African Americans much in the same way that there are Anglo-Americans and Italian Americans and Chinese Americans. They have embraced African and the issue settled.”

    You are absolutely correct. When the term “African American” started to become a mainstream term about 20 years ago, I was among those who didn’t like the term, mostly because I prefer that we avoid hyphenations and emphasizing ethnicity over national identity. However, as an ethnic description, I favor terms “African American” or “of African descent” over “Black” not only because there is no place called “Blackland,” but also because they are much more accurate and dignified descriptions.

    I have always found the term “light skinned black” problematic and to be a contradiction in terms. Case in point, consider when Vanessa Williams became the first African American Miss America in 1983, she was called the first “Black Miss America” and there was much controversy over her selection as a light-skinned woman, particularly among many African Americans. Addressing that controversy, she said:

    “A lot of people thought I wasn’t representative of a true African American since I didn’t have dark eyes and dark hair, and wasn’t brown-skinned.”

    Over the years, that controversy dissipated and here are some recent quotes from her in which she clearly expresses pride in her African heritage:

    “My dad was a huge history buff, and the problem that we have as African Americans is we don’t have the luxury of having the records from our home country, or going to the town that our grandparents are from, or to the local churches where our parents were buried and married, like a lot of English and Italian and Irish people do. Because of being enslaved and being born without records, a lot of our ancestry is a mystery. We don’t know where we come from in Africa a lot of the time… Everyone assumes this long lineage of slavery, and of course that exists because we were brought from Africa and we know that.”

    “African American women from the beginning have embraced me. I am a product of an African woman, it is part of who I am and it is part of what I am and who the girls I am raising will become.”

    You can say Vanessa “embraced African and the issue settled.” Does that make her a “Pan-African” woman? I am not sure, but I do applaud her comments for being very positive without being divisive. That is why I cite her as a very positive example to emulate as it pertains to this discussion. Please feel free to comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.