Respect to Muta. I didn't know about him until you. I do respect him and share a lot of his opinions.
However, this is just my opinion, but I feel like when we trace back the steps of our ancestors... we will see that they migrated. They didn't stay in one place or one land mass. They explored. The conquered. And they dwelled in all of these places. If they only had 1 son and 1 daughter each, then yes, they may not have had a need to do this (just the desire to explore). And there is nothing wrong, by any means, with those who don't want to explore and want to stay right where they are. I have a hard time, personally, wrestling with the thought of leaving my home in Ohio. If it was just me, I would feel free to go wherever. But for me, home is kinda where my family is to a large extent. And I have small children with an ex-wife and an aging mother.
My wife, on the other hand, is a traveler by nature; an explorer. She's always and forever plotting new trips whether we can afford it or not. And it's like in her DNA. So I don't think there's anything wrong with that and nothing wrong with those wanting to stay; which of course means there's nothing wrong with those who want to "go back" to wherever they feel connected as "home". The funny thing is while so many Jamaicans get that feeling from Africa, I think because my father moved to the US before I was born, I get that feeling from Jamaica. So for me... Jamaica is that "place" where I long to live.
My wife and I just came back from a cruise where we got to visit 4 port cities in Mexico. She talked about how we could live there because she doesn't have a static connection to any one place. But as for me, if I'm going to move to another country I already know where my heart belongs.
Point is... that feeling... will always take humans to new places AND keep them in the same place. It's just different for each person. I don't think we should judge each other if we're not the same type. And some of us (humans) migrated to South America, and North America, and the Islands all in between because native people where there before Europeans "discovered" these places. We were already there; already inhabitants.
But the determination of "who is us"... "who is we"... that's obviously the next question. How far back do we go in order to consider where we came from? If I stopped short of the slave trade my lineage descends from Jamaica. If I go back further (I don't have a DNA test) its probably the west coast of Africa. But it is also more likely that people from the West Coast of Africa built boats and ships and used the water in order to travel great distances, including other continents. Do you see where I'm going?
Here's what I DON'T want to happen.
I don't want racism to completely define who "we" and "us" are to the point where we cannot be MORE than what someone else said about us. To me that is the greater tragedy like calling a kid stupid and the kid accepts that and then fails to achieve in life. When they said we were "black" it kind of also solidified this identity that is cut off from other "indigenous" "natives" who are also from Africa and thus "African".
If whites hadn't called us black would we now be saying that we should live in Africa?