




































EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

Obijekwu & Muomah                                                                                                            26 
 

IMPLICATION OF DENIAL OF GLOBAL HUMANISM IN THE 

MODERN WORLD: A CRITICAL INVESTIGATION 

 

 

Matthew Ike Obijekwu, PhD 

Department of Philosophy, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University, 

Igbariam, Anambra State, Nigeria; 

Founder/President, Ethics and Values Ambassadors International Association 

(EVAIA); 

Director, Dr Ike Obijekwu Centre for Values Mentorship, Ihiala,  

Anambra State, Nigeria. 

08063795889; mi.obijekwu@coou.edu.ng 

&  

Romanus Ikechukwu Muomah 

Principal, St. Michael’s Boys’ Secondary School, Eziorah-Ozubulu  

Anambra State 

08037981419 

 

 

Abstract 
Global humanness primarily showcases in the human interconnectedness, inter-

relationship and togetherness irrespective of geographical location, gender, 

race, religious affiliation, and culture. The disruption of this humanness over 

the ages has culminated in COVID-19 era. This is as there have been strong 

evidences of human discrimination, marginalization, exclusion, domination, 

racism and discrepancies in the world and especially in COVID-19 period. This 

has led to greater tension, unrest, terrorism and conflict in various parts of the 

world. Based on these, global development has been direly affected 

economically, politically and otherwise. This paper therefore investigates the 

foundation of the denial of global humanness in the modern world. It 

analytically investigates the implication of this denial in COVID-19 and post 

COVID-19 epoch. The study however finds that denial of global humanness 

has disrupted global stability, unity, peace and development. This is based on 

the causal chain of existence visible in the fact that what affects one affects all 

irrespective of place or geographical location. The paper therefore concludes 

that until the issues affecting global humanness are addressed, global effort to 

salvage the world from COVID-19 may end in futility.  

Keywords: COVID-19; Critical investigation; Global Humanness; 

Implication; Modern world 

 

Introduction 
Most challenges we are experiencing in the world today are due to denial of 

global humanness (GH). Often times, people are treated either as animals or 

machines thereby depriving them their dignity, freedom and rights. With this, 

mailto:mi.obijekwu@coou.edu.ng


EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

Obijekwu & Muomah                                                                                                            27 
 

inequality, social injustices and other forms of crime against humanity are being 

perpetuated and promoted across the world. On 25 May, 2020, an African-

American, George Floyd was killed by an American police, Derek Chauvin, a 

racist (Haworth, Torres and Pereira, 2020). This action was due to years of 

negative feelings against African-Americans. It is one out of the million cases 

of denial of humanness in contemporary time. Floyd’s killing, as seen, triggered 

“I can’t breathe” and “Black lives Matter” protest against police brutality and 

police racism in America and beyond. These protests (and demonstrations) 

across the world have proven the fact that the black people all over the world 

are having the same racial experience. This experience is not only peculiar to 

the African-Americans but to black people in general and other nationals across 

the world.  

 

The truth is that humans across the world have invented ways of dividing and 

attacking themselves. In South Africa, one is faced with xenophobic attack or 

what I may call ‘Xenophobism’; the apartheid experience as a result of the white 

and the black dichotomy has been a long time challenge facing different 

nationals in South Africa. In India, it is the problem of caste system; while in 

Europe and America, itis racism, discrimination and segregation. All these 

practices bring division among people of diverse background. Based on this, 

the call to promote global humanness across the globe remains imperative. 

Herein is to find out if the claim for global humanness (human sameness) as 

advocated by United Nations and other International Organizations is globally 

accepted, respected, practiced, or not.  

 

Moreover, the underlying principles for promoting global humanness has been 

predicated on respect for human rights, freedom, equality, dignity, and above 

all, acceptance of human reason (rationality) as a universal natural endowment. 

Based on the ontological structure of human beings, one can simply say that 

human beings over the entire universe are capable of reasoning. Well, some 

people may disagree with this position; those who would like to maintain the 

romanticists’ status quo may still argue contrarily to this position. Romanticism 

is an ideology that originated around 18thand 19th centuries, and was 

championed by the Germans and the English (Onyewuenyi, 2015). The 

proponents believe in the novelty of Europe, or Eurocentric over other nations, 

especially Africa. They denied reason to Africans. Yet, human beings all over 

the world are naturally endowed with the capacity of reasoning or rationalizing, 

thinking or reflecting. In congruence with this, Boethius cited in Copleston 

(2010:103) defines human person as rationalis naturae individual substantia 

(an individual substance of a rational nature). For Aristotle, human person is a 

rational animal (Stumph, 1994). Hence, global humanness implies that humans 

across the globe are the same irrespective of their historical, biological, 

intellectual and structural constituents. This is the notable foundation for global 

humanness.  



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

Obijekwu & Muomah                                                                                                            28 
 

Freedom, equality, dignity and reason as the underlying principles of global 

humanness are conceptualized in the 1779 American Independent Declaration 

as well as in the United Nations’ Charter of 1948 on the Universal Declaration 

of Human Rights. Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Roger 

Sherman and Robert Livingston, the well-known founding fathers of the United 

State of America, declared thus: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 

all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain 

unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of 

Happiness”(Wikipedia, 2020).The United Nations reflects the fundamental 

human rights as the basic rights for every human person irrespective of religion, 

race, gender, age, tribal affiliation, etc. These rights are attached to every human 

being due to his inherent nature and ontological origin, and as well inalienable 

rights (United Nations, UDHR Article 1,1948). The member states of the 

United Nations across the globe are expected to work together in promoting 

these fundamental human rights without bias and prejudice. 

 

In this era of Covid-19, Omicron, and other global challenges, one may begin 

to doubt if these principles are respected, promoted and sustained around the 

world today. This is really doubtable. The denial or rejection of these inherent 

qualities or characteristics such as equality, freedom, dignity and rationality, so 

to speak, is the basis of the denial of global humanness. Denial of global 

humanness is therefore the rejection of commonness of humanity, equality of 

all men as well as the degradation of human dignity and all other forms of 

dehumanization of human person as seen in some places around the globe.  

  

Understanding the Concept of Humanness 

The earlier term human reads thus: humain(e); the Middle English humayn(e); 

Middle French humain; and Latin hūmānus which is similar to homō human 

being. This spelling of human is predominant from early 18th century. Human 

or humane may refer to that which is, or should be, characteristic of human 

beings. In describing characteristics, human may refer to good and bad traits of 

a person alike (human kindness; human weakness). When emphasis is placed 

upon the latter, human is thought of as contrasted to divine. We often say “to 

err is human, to forgive is divine”.  Humane considers only the nobler or gentler 

aspects of people and is often contrasted to their more ignoble or brutish aspect. 

A humane person is benevolent, or loving in treating fellow humans or helpless 

animals.  

 

The word “humane” also had connotations of courtesy and refinement (hence, 

the application of humane to those branches of learning intended to refine the 

mind (Collins Dictionary, 2020). British Dictionary however defines 

“humanness” or “human” (ˈhjuːmən) as “of characterizing, or relating to man 

and mankind, human nature consisting of people, the human race; a human 

chain having the attributes of man as opposed to animals, divine beings, or 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

Obijekwu & Muomah                                                                                                            29 
 

machines” (Explore Dictionary.com, 2020). The scientific definitions for 

humanness/human [hyōō′mən] therefore “is a member of the species Homo 

sapiens; a human being”( The Science Dictionary, 2011).Human: of, pertaining 

to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people; human frailty; consisting of 

people: the human race; of or relating to the social aspect of people; human 

affairs; sympathetic; humane; a warmly human understanding (Thesaurus.com, 

2020). 

 

From the foregoing, the term human implies “the characteristics of people when 

contrasted with God, animals or machines”. “Humanness” is a characteristic of 

human person or human beings that differentiated them from animals or 

machines (robots). Social psychological research into laypeople’s conceptions 

of humanness has focused on three related categories of human attributes such 

as emotions, personality traits and mental capacities (Wilson and Haslam, 

2013). Wilson and Haslam (2013) note that the striking about this body of 

research is that, despite reflecting distinct theoretical perspectives, broadly 

comparable results have emerged about lay conceptions of humanness and how 

our specific sense of humanness separate humans from animals and machines, 

respectively.  

 

Wilson and Haslam (2013) in Demouli et al. (2004) note that in emotional 

expression, humans share some emotions with animals which is described as 

non-uniquely human emotions (anger, surprise); and emotions that are 

considered as uniquely human(that is, uniquely human emotions like love, 

guilt). Accordingly, nonuniquely human emotions are judged as innate, visible 

to outside observes, caused by external events, and of short duration. By 

contrast, uniquely human emotion are judged as invisible to observers, 

generated internally via thinking, experienced over a long duration, morally 

informative and acquired through socialization (Demoulin et al. 2004; 

Rodriguez et al.2005). Wilson and Haslam (2013) conclude that the focus on 

emotions that are shared with animals (nonuniquely human emotions and 

uniquely human emotions) indicates that humanness is conceptualized in a way 

that emphasizes the human-animal boundary. Obviously, there are some 

emotions that when human beings exhibit reduces them to animals, especially 

emotions or actions that debase human persons such as racism and slavery.  

In considering the conceptions of humanness in the ambience of personality 

traits, Haslam et al. (2005) suggests that there two distinct senses of humanness 

namely; a species-typical sense termed human nature, and a species-unique 

known as human uniqueness. Human uniqueness, according to Haslam et 

al.(2005) refers to those traits that differentiated humans from animals such as 

refinement, moral sensibility, self-control, and rationality. Buttressing this 

further, Haslam (2005) asserts that uniquely human traits are judged as acquired 

through learning, as requiring maturity for their expression, not prevalent in the 

population, and culturally specific.  



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

Obijekwu & Muomah                                                                                                            30 
 

Contrarily, human nature reflects the biologically-based human essence – the 

fundamental or essential attributes of the human species. Such essential 

attributes like emotional responsiveness, prosocial warmth, cognitive openness 

and individuality are often shared with animals (Haslam et al., 2005).  

Dehumanization research conducted by Loughan and Haslam (2007) gives 

insight into how the two senses of humanness differentiated humans from 

nonhumans. They show that human nature traits are associated explicitly and 

implicitly, with animals more than with machines and uniquely human traits are 

associated with the machines more than animals. Loughan et al., (2009) note 

that the denial to people of traits that reflect human nature leads them to be 

likened to machine, whereas the denial to people traits that reflect human 

uniqueness leads them to be likened to animals. The approach is applicable in 

studying the humanness belief in mental capacity of humans. Indeed, Gray et al 

(2007) research into laypeople’s beliefs about mental capacities suggesting two 

dimensions of mind’s perception known as agency and experience. 

Accordingly, agency is exemplified by the capacity for language, reason, self-

control, and morality. These traits are parallel to the findings obtained for 

uniquely human emotions and traits. On the other hand, experience dimension 

has to do with capacities for consciousness, primary emotions and basic 

appetites. These traits as well are parallel to the findings obtained for 

personality traits that reflect human nature. Agentic capacities show the human-

animal boundary, while experience capacities show human-machine boundary 

(Gray et al., 2007).  

 

From these social psychological researchers and emotion scientists, it is clear 

that human person is barricaded and divided. At present, directly or indirectly, 

this division is applied in human relationships and interactions. Humanness has 

been judged in relation to animals and in relation to machines. This specific 

sense of humanness is what makes us human and this specific sense as well is 

what has been denied globally. At present, it has been constituted and still 

constituting global inconsistencies in human relationships and 

interconnectedness. 

 

Humanness, as used here implies also the “quality of being human” or “the state 

of being human” as distinguished from animals. Fernandez Armesto (2004) 

cited in Wilson and Haslam (2012) note that “the longest debated frontier of 

human identity in Western culture has been between humans and animals”, and 

it is this frontier that has historically informed Western conceptions of what it 

means to be human. Wilson and Haslam (2013) citing Hampshire, (1991) and 

Turkle (1991) assert that the boundary between humans and animals is not, 

however, the only boundary to inform our understanding of what it is to be 

human. That another salient boundary is that between humans and machines. 

For them, therefore, there are other things to consider and amongst them such 

as “emotion, personality traits and mental capacities.” Wilson & Haslam (2013) 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

Obijekwu & Muomah                                                                                                            31 
 

note that other things to consider as we think of humanness are humans’ ability 

or willingness either to help or harm others. 

 

In the ideology of global humanness, the nobler actions are considered. Humans 

are neither seen as animals nor as machines. Rather, they are seen as an entity 

with a holistic uniqueness and humanistic qualities and being guided by moral 

responsibilities. Obviously, the idea of global humanness encourages the 

principle of brotherhood and sisterhood of all humankind. The concept of global 

humanness, as said earlier, predicated on the uniqueness of human nature, on 

the global interconnectedness, interrelationship and togetherness of all human 

beings.  

 

Foundation of the denial of global humanness in the modern world 

The denial of global humanness has historical, biological, intellectual and 

structural bases. Despite these, one cannot completely rule out global divisions 

among the factors that instigated, initiated or influenced denial of global 

humanness. The term globe is simply the “world” or “universe”. The globe and 

world will be interchangeably used here. Currently, the “world” is divided into 

seven continents namely; Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, 

Antarctica and Australia/Oceania. These continents make up what is known 

today as the world or globe. One of the ancient scholars Herodotus once asked: 

Why should a single large landmass be divided into separate continents? 

(Wikipedia, 2020). This was not only the case, the habitants or people of the 

world are divided along the colour of their skins or body pigments, 

physiological features, biological traits, and geographical locations. Such 

divisions include the Caucasoid (Europeans), Negroid (Africans), Mongoloid 

(Asians), Americanus (American Indians), and the Australoid (Australian 

Aborigines) (Oyebola, 2002). One cannot doubt the current political, economic, 

social and cultural attachments to this global division.  

 

The current classification of the world into the First World, Second World and 

Third World, developing and developed world, civilized and uncivilized world, 

global south and global north and so many other divisions all over the globe has 

been the root of the problem. All these involve in separating one country from 

the other; and separating individuals from the others. All these divisions also 

have their implications which will be examine later. Some of the factors that 

orchestrated the denial of global humanness include extreme nationalism, 

racism, colonialism, imperialism and slave trade (Onyewuenyi (2015). This led 

to the division of humans into rationality and irrationality, human and less 

humans, slaves and free-born, superiority and inferiority, civilized and 

uncivilized world, and so on. In fact, some sections of the world like Africa 

were over time considered less human, irrational and slaves to others. Among 

those that propagated this ideology include Aristotle, Georg W. F. Hegel, John 

Locke, David Hume, George Henry Lewes and some others who came after 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

Obijekwu & Muomah                                                                                                            32 
 

them. These philosophers denied the humanness of Africans just to exclude 

Africa’s contribution to global civilization and development. In fact, Georg 

W.F Hegel, in his first lecture on the Philosophy of History delivered in 1822-

23 described Africans in a humiliated form; as slaves to Europe and America 

(Turner, 1903); Bentley, 1900). Indeed, denial of global humanness became 

more visible when some sections of the world began to describe other sections 

as salves, non-humans and irrational. Based on this, Jamela Dunbar writes: 

If all men are born equal why change the subject matter? 

Are slave humans, or humans slaves? When did we know 

that humans are slaves? When did man decide to call 

humans slaves? Man and woman, created, as man and 

woman, not slaves. The slave was never man and woman's 

name at birth. Why should any human be called a slave by 

another human like himself? Why, because of his own 

selfish reasons, greed, and corruption, or fame? Man is not 

a slave. All men are human without a question. And no 

human should thus be a slave by its own kind. It is an 

abomination to the human creation. If a man is called a 

slave the man that said this word is a slave to himself. He 

is shooting himself down with no respect for his 

humanness as a man. For a man cannot call another human 

like himself a slave, to himself. It is an abomination to our 

spirituality, humanness, and our creator by far. Humans 

are not slaves. All humans are born equal and if any man 

calls a human a slave, he is calling himself a slave too 

because he himself is human (Definitions.net, 2020). 

 

Exacerbating this notion in the world is global inequality, restriction of human 

freedom of movement, dehumanization and exploitation of the human person. 

This attitude has questioned human dignity and values. However, denial of 

humanness in global context varies in degrees. Hence, the way Africa was 

excluded or separated from the rest of the world is not the way Asians or other 

nations of the world are separated from the rest.   

 

In German, during the time of Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) about six million Jews 

were exterminated on the ground of German superiority and purity amongst 

other nations.  Hitler saw the Jews as the enemy of the German people. In his 

desire to expand Germany, he focused on Eastern Europe but promoted racially 

motivated ideology. Indeed, his Nazi regime was responsible for the genocide 

of about 6 million Jews and millions of other victims whom he and his followers 

deemed Untermenschen (sub-humans) or socially undesirable. Nazi regime was 

also responsible for the killing of an estimated 19.3 million civilians and 

prisoners of war (Wikipedia, 2020). Kershaw (2000b) noted of Hitler’s 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

Obijekwu & Muomah                                                                                                            33 
 

ideology stating that “never in history has such ruination – physical and moral 

– been associated with the name of one man” (841) 

 

The Implication of Denial of Global Humanness in COVID-19 and Post 

COVID-19 Era 

Currently, the entire world is battling with Covid-19 which till date has its 

origin still unknown. However, we cannot ignore what denial of global 

humanness implies to the modern human population in pre and post COVID-

19 era  

 

Till date, emergence of covid-19 is still controversial. Obijekwu (2020), in their 

paper titled “Impact of Covid-19 on Global Humanness: A Philosophical-Based 

Lesson”, notes that the emergence of Covid-19 has been a controversial one. 

There were allegations and counter-allegations amongst nations, especially 

among the economic competitive nations like US and China on the origin and 

cause of corona virus.   

 

As such, denial of global humanness will continue to pave unhealthy divisions 

in the world. This is a division that will enable the COVID-19 virus to be more 

pandemic. The reality of this has been visible in emanation of another faction 

of COVID19 referred to as omicron variant. This aspect of COVID-19 like its 

mother virus has today infected the sizeable population of the world. The 

Aljazeera news of December 13, 2021 has it that as COVID-19 is still 

pandemic, its aspect called omicron variant has infected more than 50 million 

people in South Africa, England and other places. From all these, it stands that 

denial of global humanness kills global unity and will even render post COVID-

19 era frail to annihilation. With this deepening division and poor human co-

operation brought by denial of humanness, the survival of the modern world 

and future human generation is bleak.  

 

If every sections of the world acknowledged the universality or global 

humanness, I wonder if there would be proliferation of weapons of mass 

destruction, biological weapons, war, political, economic, social, cultural and 

religious motivated conflicts. This is the reason the global humanness should 

be promoted by global agencies like the United Nations. The United Nations 

can achieve this task when it becomes more proactive in promoting the 

fundamental principles of global humanness like freedom, equality of all men, 

and respect for human dignity. Along this lane, UN has to denounce 

colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism, human slavery, human exploitation 

and racism among its member states and in the global world.  

 

Conclusion 
Denial of humanness has been an age-long global phenomenon. This is visible 

in people looking considering others as less-humans and treating them as such. 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

Obijekwu & Muomah                                                                                                            34 
 

Denial of global humanness is also glaring in people’s deprivation of others’ 

rights and entitlements, as well as the intent to annihilate others considered as 

obstacles, less important or less human. This global attitude has great 

implications in the modern world. These implications are visible in the fact that 

it is creating an unhealthy division that makes it hard for humankind to confront 

global adversities like COVID-19 pandemic, other diseases and the unfriendly 

environmental factors. This situation therefore calls for a better world where 

humankind have to acknowledge the humanness in everybody, and with the 

spirit of sisterhood and brotherhood work for global development and common 

good. Until denial of global humanness is adequately addressed, the desire for 

global peace and eradication of global terrorism will remain a wishful-thinking. 

 

References 
Bentley, W. N. (1900) Pioneering on the Congo  cited in Onyewuenyi I.C.  

(2015). The African  Origin of Greek Philosophy: An Exercise in 

Afrocentrism. Owerri: Asumpta Press. 

Copleston, F. (1972). A History of Philosophy: late medieval and renaissance  

 philosophy. New York: continuum, Vol.3 

Demoulin,S.,Leyens,J.P.,Paladino,M.P.,Rodriguez,R.T.,Rodriguez, A. P., & 

Dovidio, J. (2004). Dimensions of “uniquely” and “nonuniquely” 

human emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 18(1), 71–96. 

Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind  

 perception. Science, 315, 619. 

Hampshire, S. (1991). Biology, machines, and humanity. In J. J. Sheehan & 

M. Sosna (Eds.),  The boundaries of humanity: Humans, animals, 

machines (pp. 253–256). Los Angeles,  USA: University of 

California Press. https://www.lap-publishing.com. Accessed 

 09/04/2020 

Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and  

 Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252–264. 

Haworth, Jon; Torres, Ella; Pereira, Ivan(June 3, 2020), “Floyd died of  

 cardiopulmonary arrest, test positive for Covid-19, autopsy shows”.  

 ABC News. Retrieved 6/08/2020s. 

Humanness. Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012  

 Digital Edition, Harpercollins Publishers, 2012. 

Loughnan, S., & Haslam, N. (2007). Animals and androids: Implicit  

associations between social  categories and nonhumans. 

Psychological Science, 18, 116–121. 

Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Kashima, Y. (2009). Understanding the 

relationship between  attribute-based and metaphor-based 

dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup  Relations, 12(6), 

747–762. 

 

 

https://www.lap-publishing.com/


EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

Obijekwu & Muomah                                                                                                            35 
 

Madhukalya, A. (2020). $20 trillion lawsuit against China! Us group says  

coronavirus is  bioweapon. www.businesstoday.in. Accessed 

30/03/2020.  

Obijekwu, M. I., Enemuo, J. C. & Aghamelu, H. U. (2020a). Gender equality  

 discourse: critique  of the feminists’ view in Igboland 

Obijekwu, M. I;  Okafor, A.U  & Okeke, A. (July, 2020b). Responsible 

Parenthood: A Paradigm  Shift for Sustainable Peaceful Co-

Existence, Social Security and Political Stability. In  Journal of Ethics 

and Values, Vol.1(1), 67-79. 

Obijekwu, M.I & Emejulu, J. (2020). Impact of Covid-19 on Global  

Humanness: A Philosophical-Based Lesson (paper submitted for 

publication). 

Onyewuenyi I.C. (2015). The African Origin of Greek Philosophy: An  

 Exercise in Afrocentrism. Owerri: Asumpta Press. 

Oyebola, A. (2002).  Black Man’s Dilemma. Ibadan: Board Publications Ltd. 

Stumpf, E. (1994). Philosophy, History and Problems.NewYork, USA:  

 McGraw-Hill Inc. 

The Science Dictionary. (2011). Humanness Definition.  The American  

 Heritage. Houghton  Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 

Turkle, S. (1991). Romantic reactions: Paradoxical responses to the computer  

presence. In J. J.Sheehan & M. Sosna (Eds.), The boundaries of 

humanity: Humans, animals, machines  (pp. 224– 252). Los 

Angeles,USA: University of California Press. 

Turner, W. (1903). History of Philosophy quoted in Onyewuenyi I.C. (2015).  

The African Origin  of Greek Philosophy: An Exercise in 

Afrocentrism. Owerri: Asumpta Press. 

United Nations (2020) Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. 

https://www.un.org/universal- declaration-of-human-rights. 

Wikipedia (2020). United States Declaration of Independence.  

 https://en.m./Wikipedia.org/wiki/united states declaration of  

 independence. Retrieved  04/08/2020. 

Wilson, S. G & Haslam, N. (September, 2013). Humanness beliefs about  

behavior: An index and  comparative human-non-human 

behavior judgments. In Behav.Res, 45, 372-382.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

http://www.businesstoday.in/
https://www.un.org/universal-%09declaration-of-human-rights

