The Professor next hastens into the middle of his subject. "Where does 'Afro-American' come in?" he asks; and then replies: "Awkwardly." In reply, let me say that nothing is "awkward" that is right; the user may be awkward. Says he: "It may not be so objectionable when applied to some national gathering." We have in America one great national gathering of Afro-Americans numbering some ten million or more. The Professor knows very well that it is not fair to argue from the general to the particular. The "Old Auntie in Hackensack" is not the subject. She is a member of the Afro-American family. Children generally take the name of their parents by birth or by adoption. Don't refuse to call a thing by its right name because it is "awkward," for the name is not "awkward," but the tongue that handles it. We have a similar case in God's Word. The Gileadites took the passage of Jordan and adopted a distinct watchword by which everyone of their number could be known. The Ephraimites, who desired to pass over the river, were required to say the word "Shibboleth," which, if said properly, would signify that they were Gileadites. The Ephraimites could not pronounce it correctly, so they could not pass over, but were slain. This word "Shibboleth" was "awkward" to the Ephraimites; but not to the Gileadites, because they had trained themselves to say it. So must we train ourselves to say the right name, "Afro-American." In the second place, the Professor objects to the appellation "Afro-American" because, says he: "The adjectives 'Irish' or 'German' or 'Swedish,' which are sometimes used to designate certain classes, refer always to race rather than to country, and never to either of the great world divisions." This may be true in a sense, but we beg to offer an alternative. There were many of us brought from those families or tribes in Africa which were not known as "Negroes," for the Negroes, as we have shown, were only a remnant of the great African, or Hamitic, race. In the third place the Professor objects to the term "Afro-American" because, says he: "This name would seek to separate us from our kindred in the land of our fathers." This kind of reasoning is what we call _reductio ad absurdum_, for just the reverse of what he says is true. To say "Afro-American" is to reunite us to our forefathers, both by blood and language. It tells, whence we came and where we are. There is no other term in language, thought, or reason that fits in and at the same time covers the ground so completely as "Afro-American." "Let us be Negroes, let us be one in blood," says he. We can't be what we are not. How can we be one in blood when our blood has been crossed a thousand times?