For centuries, people of African descent have been identified by two widely accepted labels: “Black” and “African.” These terms appear in academic literature, government documents, media reports, and everyday conversations. They are often used without question, as though they are natural and self-evident descriptions of a people. Yet a growing body of decolonial scholarship argues that these labels should not merely be reconsidered but replaced altogether.
The argument is not simply about political correctness or personal preference. It is about power, identity, psychological liberation, and the right of a people to define themselves on their own terms. If names shape consciousness, and consciousness shapes destiny, then the names by which a people are known matter profoundly.
Naming is never neutral
Throughout history, naming has been an act of authority. To name something is to define it, classify it, and establish a relationship with it. In many cultures, the right to name carries significant symbolic power.
This reality is evident in the history of slavery and colonialism. Enslaved Africans were routinely stripped of their original names and assigned new ones by their owners. Colonisers renamed rivers, mountains, kingdoms, and territories. These acts were not administrative conveniences; they were declarations of ownership and dominance.
When a people continue to identify themselves primarily through names imposed by others, they may unknowingly continue to inhabit the conceptual framework created by those others. Political independence may be achieved while conceptual dependence remains intact.
The struggle for liberation, therefore, is not only political and economic. It is also intellectual, cultural, and psychological.
The problem with the name “Africa”
One of the most important questions rarely asked is this: Who named Africa?
While scholars debate the precise origin of the term, many trace it to Greek or Roman usage. Some suggest that it derives from the Greek word aphrike, meaning “without cold,” while others point to the Latin word aprica, meaning “sunny.” Regardless of the exact etymology, what is striking is that the name appears to reflect the geographical observations and experiences of outsiders rather than the self-understanding of the people who inhabited the continent.
In other words, the name “Africa” tells us more about how Europeans perceived the continent than how its peoples understood themselves.
This raises an important philosophical question. Why should the world’s second-largest continent continue to identify itself through a label rooted in the perspective of foreign observers?
Most civilisations derive their identities from their own histories, cultures, and collective memories. Their names often communicate something about who they believe themselves to be. The name “Africa,” by contrast, appears disconnected from the continent’s indigenous civilisations, languages, philosophies, and historical self-conceptions.
If true liberation requires self-definition, then retaining a name inherited from external observers deserves serious scrutiny.
The problem with the label “Black”
The term “Black” presents an even deeper challenge.
At the most basic level, the label is inaccurate. Human skin is not literally black. It exists in countless shades of brown. Yet entire populations have been classified under a colour category that does not accurately describe their physical appearance.
More importantly, the term emerged within historical systems of racial classification that ranked human beings according to perceived biological and cultural differences. In these systems, colour categories were not neutral descriptions; they were instruments of hierarchy.
The word “black” has long carried negative symbolic associations in many cultures and languages. Darkness was frequently linked to evil, ignorance, danger, or inferiority, while whiteness was associated with purity, goodness, and superiority. These symbolic associations did not remain confined to language. They became embedded in social institutions, legal systems, and racial ideologies.
The label “Black” therefore cannot be separated entirely from the historical context in which it acquired its social meaning.
Some have argued that the solution is to reclaim the term and invest it with positive meaning. While this approach has produced important cultural and political movements, it leaves an important question unanswered: Why should a people devote generations to rehabilitating a label that was never theirs to begin with?
If someone deliberately gives you a distorted portrait of yourself, should you spend your life improving the portrait, or should you discard it and paint a new one?
A growing number of scholars and thinkers argue that true conceptual liberation requires abandoning externally imposed categories rather than endlessly redefining them.
Beyond reclamation to self-definition
The debate ultimately centres on two competing visions.
The first argues that existing labels should be reclaimed and transformed. According to this view, words such as “Black” can be emptied of their negative historical content and filled with pride, dignity, and empowerment.
The second argues that genuine liberation requires replacement rather than reclamation. If a label was originally created within a system of domination, then continued dependence upon that label may preserve elements of that system, even after its overt structures have disappeared.
This second perspective insists that freedom includes the freedom to define oneself.
A people should not be compelled to understand themselves through categories developed by those who conquered, enslaved, colonised, or classified them. Instead, they should have the right to develop identities rooted in their own histories, philosophies, languages, and civilisational experiences.
The quest for conceptual liberation
Replacing the terms “Black” and “Africa/n” would not, by itself, solve the continent’s political, economic, or developmental challenges. However, names are not insignificant. They shape narratives. They influence perception. They contribute to collective self-understanding.
The issue is therefore not merely linguistic. It is conceptual.
Every liberation movement eventually confronts the question of identity. Who are we? By what names shall we be known? Whose categories define us? Whose language frames our understanding of ourselves?
These questions lie at the heart of conceptual liberation.
The challenge before people of African descent is not simply to reject old labels but to develop new frameworks of self-definition that emerge from their own histories and aspirations. Such a process would require intellectual courage, cultural creativity, and civilisational confidence.
Whether one agrees with the proposal or not, the argument deserves serious consideration. If names carry power, and if identity influences destiny, then the right of a people to name themselves may be among the most important dimensions of true freedom.
- business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com
“Black”, “Africa/n” as racial slurs need to be replaced