U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-27-2013, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,471,112 times
Reputation: 5401

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
There is no such thing as race. Just ask any sensitive and politically correct anthropologist.
Than you shouldn't have a problem separated terms like Sub-Saharan with Black Africa.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-27-2013, 09:04 PM
 
Location: West of Louisiana, East of New Mexico
2,536 posts, read 2,028,808 times
Reputation: 5825
As a black person (call me black-American, African American or simply...my favorite, AMERICAN), the issue comes in how we attribute achievements to various "races."

When talking about the Greeks and Romans, even though we know they're 'different' from Nordics or Celtics, Eurocentric-types never go out of their way to separate them. We tend to lump all European accomplishment in one bucket. When it comes to Africa, most are unaware of the great civilizations like Songhai, Mali etc. Everyone knows about Egypt, and that too is an African civilization. However, instead of calling it "African," we have to somehow separate it and make it different.

That somehow, nothing that historically magnificent should be attached to anything Negroid. This is where Afrocentric scholars and other black intellectuals call B.S. For most of history, the Southern Europeans (yes those closer to Africa) were far more advanced than any northern European civilization. Northern European dominance is relatively recent, mostly due to economics, military/naval strength and some random luck (smallpox wiping out large numbers of indigenous peoples for instance).

Despite the obvious differences, scholars don't seem to be as willing to point out Italian and Greek cultural primacy over the more barbaric Celtic, Nordic and Germanic groups from antiquity through the Middle Ages. Instead the narrative is more about European enlightenment as a whole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Maryland
18,624 posts, read 16,435,683 times
Reputation: 6348
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgn2013 View Post
As a black person (call me black-American, African American or simply...my favorite, AMERICAN), the issue comes in how we attribute achievements to various "races."

When talking about the Greeks and Romans, even though we know they're 'different' from Nordics or Celtics, Eurocentric-types never go out of their way to separate them. We tend to lump all European accomplishment in one bucket. When it comes to Africa, most are unaware of the great civilizations like Songhai, Mali etc. Everyone knows about Egypt, and that too is an African civilization. However, instead of calling it "African," we have to somehow separate it and make it different.

That somehow, nothing that historically magnificent should be attached to anything Negroid. This is where Afrocentric scholars and other black intellectuals call B.S. For most of history, the Southern Europeans (yes those closer to Africa) were far more advanced than any northern European civilization. Northern European dominance is relatively recent, mostly due to economics, military/naval strength and some random luck (smallpox wiping out large numbers of indigenous peoples for instance).

Despite the obvious differences, scholars don't seem to be as willing to point out Italian and Greek cultural primacy over the more barbaric Celtic, Nordic and Germanic groups from antiquity through the Middle Ages. Instead the narrative is more about European enlightenment as a whole.
Maybe it's because you're not familiar with European history but I've read numerous accounts where Greeks for example were referred to as "Eastern". Also although nationalities and ethnicities vary greatly within Europe there have been periods of unifying empires whose influence "united" much of the continent such as the Roman and Charlemagne Empires. No such empire existed in Africa.

Again American Blacks tend to super impose their tortured relationship with Whites in examining the wider world. There really isn't some nefarious plot to keep the Black man from his history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 11:41 AM
 
5,836 posts, read 10,789,448 times
Reputation: 4428
I can't believe the posts I've seen on the first page. It amazes me how people don't have a concept of how the natural, physical environment has shaped human migration.

Its not something Europeans "made up"

The Sahara desert is a barrier to migration and movement of people as formidable as the ocean. It was throughout history and even still is, for people of Mediterranean Europe and the Middle East to migrate and settle the North Africa rim and the Nile Delta/Valley than it was for the people of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Therefore the climate/physical environmental, and the entire culture, ethnicity is 100% an extension of the Middle East because those were the people that were able to migrate there in ancient times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 11:45 AM
 
5,836 posts, read 10,789,448 times
Reputation: 4428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
Yep. Everybody that I know from Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal and Ethiopia here in DC HATES the term and has no use for it. It is nonsense. Considering that there are millions of "Sub-Saharan Black" features (whatever that is) in Morroco, Libya and Egypt.
Theres more "Sub-Sharan Black" features, both physically and culturally in the Caribbean than there is in Morocco.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 04:02 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,281,369 times
Reputation: 36087
The world is divided up into different regions by people according to their reason for dividing it, whether it be a geographer, a historian, and anthropologist, an archaeologist, a geologist, a naturalist, an agriculturists, a zoologist, a botanist, a mineralogist, a climatologist, a tourist, a political scientist, an economist, and if you want to demand that all those people also be called racists, then go ahead and knock yourself out. Shorten your life by ten years with all the angst of fretting about imaginary persecutions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 07:38 PM
 
Location: Jersey
2,299 posts, read 3,398,939 times
Reputation: 2037
Race as you know it is a sham folks. A lot of the folks in this thread are making the mistake of giving some credence to certain 19th and 20th centuries views of race and attempting to create another borked worldview/version of history.

I'm not here to vouch for the term "Sub-Saharan Africa" but what is undeniable is that the Sahara Desert to a large degree prevented the sort of cultural exchange/diffusion that was taking place in the Mediterranean region(a large chunk of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa) until relatively late in the game. To say some Khoi villager somehow shares in the legacy of the Ancient Egyptians because they happen to be on the same continent or have similar melanin levels in their skin is ludicrous.

Last edited by TylerJAX; 06-03-2013 at 08:03 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,471,112 times
Reputation: 5401
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerJAX View Post
Race as you know it is a sham folks. A lot of the folks in this thread are making the mistake of giving some credence to certain 19th and 20th centuries views of race and attempting to create another borked worldview/version of history.

I'm not here to vouch for the term "Sub-Saharan Africa" but what is undeniable is that the Sahara Desert to a large degree prevented the sort of cultural exchange/diffusion that was taking place in the Mediterranean region(a large chunk of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa) until relatively late in the game. To say some Khoi villager somehow shares in the legacy of the Ancient Egyptians because they happen to be on the same continent or have similar melanin levels in their skin is ludicrous.
If your going to say that's ludicrous, then why not call out the lumping of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa as one single racial group to be ludicrous as well? Yet you say nothing of that. There is so much hypocrisy in your post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 11:03 PM
 
Location: Jersey
2,299 posts, read 3,398,939 times
Reputation: 2037
The only hypocrisy in my post is that which exists in your feeble mind. You are talking about race when I am making a point about culture. Get on my level!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 11:06 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,281,369 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Than you shouldn't have a problem separated terms like Sub-Saharan with Black Africa.

I don't have a problem with it. You can call the region south of the Sahara either one of those terms, or even Bantustan if you like. or even Niger-Congolia or Equatoria. As long as I know what geographical area you are talking about, and we can then discuss relevant issues relating to that region, instead of nitpicking the name of it.


You choose the name for the part of Africa which is the traditional home of peoples who have high melanin content in their skin and speak Niger-Congo languages who have historically traded amongst each other and influenced each other's cultural developments and occupy lands bounded by the substantial geographical barriers of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans and the Sahara Desert comprised of predominantly savannah or rain forest and wet two-season tropical climate. I will call it whatever you like, as long as we are both talking about the same place. The word "Africa" does not meet the above definition. The name "Africa" is a modern word that has meaning only in the sense of plate tectonics and geology, to describe a physical land mass surrounded by a continental shelf that lies in waters known as the Atlantic and Indian Oceans and the Mediterranean Sea, and if that is not what you want to talk about, then that is not a useful word for us to use.

Just as "North America" is not a useful word for us to use if we want talk about modern issues that are common to Nicaragua, Nova Scotia and Alaska. We have words like Central America, apparently because we wish to insult and cast aspersions on and prejudicially discriminate against and undermine the progress and opportunity of the people who live in Central America., and to emphasize their inferiority to people who live north of there, such as Yukon and Ohio,, who are otherwise exactly the same as people in Nicaragua, who live under identical circumstances except for being belittled and steamrollled.

Last edited by jtur88; 06-03-2013 at 11:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top