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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-15-2013, 04:59 AM
 
Location: Maryland
18,624 posts, read 16,433,169 times
Reputation: 6348

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by caribdoll View Post
Some of you Africans have become so Americanized/Westernized that you lap up racial ideas and assume every statement is about race. So what if Arabs called the Sudanese and other land of the blacks? Again, what does that have to do with the term sub-saharan and you seem to be advocating the same assumption of "blackness" that you are complaining about. Nonsensical. Colonization really did a number on you guys.
Lol and some of you are so Western centered you think their definitions are absolute and are motivated by African animus. Arabs calling Sudan the Land of the Blacks predates the term sub-Sahara Africa. It is possible for non-Europeans to come to their own conclusions and develop names based on things they've learned without European influence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-15-2013, 11:07 AM
 
51,950 posts, read 41,815,822 times
Reputation: 32412
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
But wouldn't you agree that dividing Africa by North, West, etc would be a lot better than just lumping them together and calling them Sub-Saharan Africa?
It would depend upon the context and the era one was talking about.

If you are talking in a modern sense, I would find both to be just too general and arbitrary for dealing with such a massive and diverse continent in terms of politics, religion, economics, ethnicity etc....but from a geographical standpoint it could still have some valid usage.

For example saying sub-saharan oil development by the Chinese wouldn't necessarily be a terribly inaccurate statement.

I guess it's just in peoples nature to make simplifying comments....like "fly over country" for example.

It's a very very complex and grey issue. My only chuckle is at claims that it's some European tool to "divide africa" which is hillarious to even consider Africa to be some monolithic entity and that the term comes from an era when the countries that would later colonize them were at that time being colonized by the Romans or at least subjugated....in some cases with the help of.....Africans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2013, 11:16 AM
 
9,967 posts, read 14,621,434 times
Reputation: 9193
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
But wouldn't you agree that dividing Africa by North, West, etc would be a lot better than just lumping them together and calling them Sub-Saharan Africa?
We do divide Africa that way. Many carve it up into North, West, Central, East, and Southern Africa...

United Nations Statistics Division- Standard Country and Area Codes Classifications (M49)

West Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

East Africa

Central Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Southern Africa travel guide - Wikitravel
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2013, 11:24 AM
 
9,967 posts, read 14,621,434 times
Reputation: 9193
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
I also find it ironic that the area with the greatest genetic, let me say that again, the greatest genetic diversity get's lumped together.

African neighbours divided by their genes : Nature News & Comment

Massive study of African genetic diversity – Genetic Future

Which population is most genetically distant from Africans? : Gene Expression
Eurasia is basically one continent, but we see fit to divide a huge region with an even larger range of cultural diversity than Africa in many ways into one continental region called Asia. We lump together the Kazakhs, Tibetans, Tamils, Khmers, Persians, Japanese, Turks, Sinhalese, Tatars, Lebanese, Siberians, Javanese, and so on simply on the nature of being on the other side of the Ural Mountains or the Bosphorphous Strait/Black Sea on the Eurasian continent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2013, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Caribbean
7,577 posts, read 2,435,663 times
Reputation: 2743
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
Lol and some of you are so Western centered you think their definitions are absolute and are motivated by African animus. Arabs calling Sudan the Land of the Blacks predates the term sub-Sahara Africa. It is possible for non-Europeans to come to their own conclusions and develop names based on things they've learned without European influence.
Actually, it is you who is Westernized but are too blind to see it. I am well aware of how Arabs described Sudan. That has nothing to do with the current discussiln but you will use any and everything to support Western thinking. Sad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2013, 12:49 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 32,099,608 times
Reputation: 14896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deezus View Post
Eurasia is basically one continent, but we see fit to divide a huge region with an even larger range of cultural diversity than Africa
Ok... and....?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2013, 01:14 PM
 
9,967 posts, read 14,621,434 times
Reputation: 9193
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Ok... and....?
My point is that we divide up into what is one gigantic landmass into two continents based on a historic cultural division(European culture vs. Non-European Culture) and some arbitary geographic features. What really changes when you cross the Ural Mountains in this day and age? We group a lot of disparate ethnic and cultural groups over a huge area into "Asia".

Yet no one gets offended by the usage of "Asia". No one gets offended by the term Central America as a division when it's just part of North America. Or the use of Latin America to refer to everything south of the United States. No one really gets offended by the fact that Vladivostok is geographically next to China and in Asia yet we don't call a person living there an Asian.

It's just that certain folks likes to make anything involving Africa into a ever so sensitive subject. Even something as simple as a broad geographical/cultural grouping like "Sub-Saharan Africa".

When I went to Morocco, if I mentioned to the locals that it was first time I'd set foot on Africa... "No, no my friend, real Africa starts to the south," they'd inevitably say and point in the direction of the Atlas Mountains.

Last edited by Deezus; 05-15-2013 at 01:42 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2013, 04:35 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 32,099,608 times
Reputation: 14896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deezus View Post
Yet no one gets offended by the usage of "Asia".
As I pointed out in a earlier post, and apparently have to have to do again, no one uses Asia as a way to dismiss the achievements of African people. As in;
But still we are victims of word games,
semantics is always a bittcch:
places once called under-developed and 'backwards'
are now called 'mineral rich.'
And still it seems the game goes on
with unity always just out of reach
Because Libya and Egypt used to be in Africa,
but they've been moved to the 'middle east'.

Gil Scott-Heron, "Black History"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2013, 06:41 PM
 
Location: Maryland
18,624 posts, read 16,433,169 times
Reputation: 6348
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribdoll View Post
Actually, it is you who is Westernized but are too blind to see it. I am well aware of how Arabs described Sudan. That has nothing to do with the current discussiln but you will use any and everything to support Western thinking. Sad.
What is Western about sub-Sahara? Being sub or South of the Sahara is a geographic distinction, an objective description. Yet you assign something objective to Westerners. You've just made my point but you probably don't realize it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2013, 09:37 PM
 
Location: Caribbean
7,577 posts, read 2,435,663 times
Reputation: 2743
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
What is Western about sub-Sahara? Being sub or South of the Sahara is a geographic distinction, an objective description. Yet you assign something objective to Westerners. You've just made my point but you probably don't realize it.
More like you have made mine, but continue to play ignorant...
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