Black History vs. Afrocentric History

Is there a difference between Black history and afrocentric history?  Those that dismiss the question as a false dichotomy inaccurately presume the adjectives are synonyms. Black was the generalization imposed by Europeans on groups of people from the African continent.  Based on European ignorance and incapability to distinguish differences (tribe, language, religion, history, etc.) between these distinct groups the Europeans categorized them by their common dark skin. This general practice created one group under an easily identifiable label when packaged and shipped.  It can be traced to the Portuguese and the Spanish. The Portuguese word for Black is Preto, and the Spanish word, the more familiar label, is Negro.  Afrocentric is a derivative of Afrocentricity, a cultural ideology rooted in the black studies movement in the United States during the 1960’s and 70’s.
Black history emphasizes the Black diaspora from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade (when all ethnic tribes were labeled black) to the decolonization of Africa in the 20th century.   Why does Black history end then?  Am I suggesting the election of Barack Obama is not Black history? I’ll clarify.
A few years ago I read about a rally against racism at a community college.  A 19-year-old female student from the Democratic Republic of the Congo was interviewed.  She said she never experienced racism until she came to the United States.  But she viewed racism as being labeled Black.  She said in her country everyone was identified by their ethnic tribe and united by their Congolese nationality.  She said Black was a colonial term used by Europeans and dropped after independence.