International Year of Peoples of African Descent / Reparation?

'International Year of Peoples of African Descent'. Are Africans included? Silly question? The first thought is that an African is a national of Africa, i.e. someone born in Africa, so 'peoples of African descent' would be inclusive of the Diaspora as well as those born in Africa . But then, 'African', like European, cannot be a nationality since there is no country called Africa (or Europe) therefore 'African' can only be an identity. (If there is a flaw in this argument feel free to expose it)

I may be wrong, but to make sense, the concept of 'peoples of African descent' connotes that the term is synonymous with 'black' (whatever that means) from Africa, (not Australia or India or New Guinea for example), and anything on the palette mixed with black, so that people born in England of Asian (e.g. Chinese or East Indian or Japanese) parents who were born in Africa (people of Asian descent?) would not be considered 'people of African descent'. Thus there must also be a connotation of 'native' which introduces its own complexities. (Note that I have tried to skirt 'race' and the concept of 'race'. Note also, there is a common thread of slavery re Africa, beyond colonialism, which excludes India, China etc.)

Thus it would seem to me that though the term, 'peoples of African descent', may have been used in an attempt to promote clarity, the more correct term/word would be 'African' and the declaration and its signalled intent would be more meaningful if stated 'International Year of Africans'. I contend that there is an ultimately significant difference in the use of the word 'African' as an adjective or a noun here. Note also the double plurality of the word 'Peoples', meant to indicate diversity, I would like to think, but in which there is also an inherent potential for divisiveness as opposed to the inherent potential for unification in the plurality of the word 'Africans'. Remember Bob Marley's, "Africans Unite"?

If, as I have suggested, the use of the referred phrase is in the interest of clarity, then would it not be wiser to choose the more meaningful statement with an explanation for clarification rather than leave room, under critical analysis, as to the genuineness, and by extension probability of success, of the agenda?

I labour this point because, in my opinion, it is at the heart of the misunderstanding, fragmentation and resultant identity crisis which has engendered the past, present and ongoing, generally pathetic post slavery/post colonial condition of Africans, both on the continent and in the African Diaspora, and which recognition has given rise to this 'better late than never' declaration of the United Nations.

Can you see the dilemma emerging here before we can even begin? Probably one of the reasons the issue has been shied away from for so long, which will have to be grappled with by this Declaration but which such considerations should not be allowed to stymie in any way this late but, nonetheless, most laudable of initiatives, one I can only hope was conceived in sincerity, i.e. love of humanity, concern for the human condition and desire to right the wrongs, in addition to burning necessity.