You know actually what triggered me if I’m allowed to go woke for a minute on the premise of the OP?
The OP and how he “identifies”. We lost this battle for fact 50 years ago in the States and it is reproducing itself in its recent recasting as “identifies as a woman” position today. The original author A.) Identifies as black, and B.) is offended by the term “Dark Continent”, C.) Thinks A+B gives standing to complain about the term.
The notion of calling African-Americans “Black” is a fiction created in the late 1960s and 1970s as they did not like their identity as mixed race fellow Americans. MalcolmX and the other Black Power movement leaders started ascribing the term “Black” to African-Americans and created fictitious black holidays, fictitious black names, and used this distinction to attach to Africa as a means to self-segregation from their mixed-race whiteness, Native American, and Caribbean DNA.
Today, “Colored” is deemed a pejorative, racist term in the United States, even though many of the readers are indeed just that, of mixed ancestry and if American, wholly unhyphenated fellow Americans. But to be offended by a comment about the Dark Continent speaking on behalf of Black people? Sorry, the author isn’t even in that ethnic group in spite of how he identifies and no matter how much marketing of the term has been pushed since the late 1960s. The first person that would correct that notion would be a black in Africa that does not see any American as Black, we’re all just mixed-race foreigners that will never be in their tribes.
So the entire construct of A.) Author’s perceived self identity, B.) The status of his identity gives him grounds to be offended, C.) Is offended by a term unrelated to race anyway, all of it is on a foundation of sand.
is Canadian.
