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.
As others have stated there is a clear linguistic and demographic difference in the north of Africa as opposed to the populations south of the Saharan desert (Sub-Saharan populations). That is really all there is to it. There is no negative connotation attached to the term. It is used to define different regions and from that point can be further used to identify different populations of people.
The problem some have with the term, in my personal experience always black Americans, is that it does not fit into the mindset of Afrocentrism. This movement, which arose out of the black identity and empowerment movements of the 1960's and 1970's seeks to cast North Africa as "black", specifically the civilization of Ancient Egypt. While, I do not want to discuss the validity of Afrocentrism at this time, it will be sufficient to say that it not accepted by mainstream scholars. It is often described as feel-good history. That is the root of some people's problem with this phrase.
Somewhere upthread, someone asked why is Europe not similarly divided into regions and different population groups? The simple answer is Europe already is. For example, historians and anthropologists have already established base cultural and ethnic subsets among Europeans: Celtic, Latin, Nordic, Germanic, Slavic, etc. More germane to the thread though, the European Union and UN divide the continent of Europe, and all continents for that matter, into regional groupings. The simple fact is there is no geographical boundary in Europe akin to the Saharan desert which seems to keep populations separated to such a degree along ethnic and cultural lines. I believe the same poster asked why are European Mediterraneans still considered "white." White and black are modern, subjective terms. Some may feel that Greeks or Italians are not as "white" as Swedes or Danes. Some may think that Meds are just as "white" as Nordics. Those subjective terms are ultimately irrelevant. It is accepted that there is variation among the different ethnic groups within the continent of Europe.
If it makes someone feel better to pretend that a Bantu language speaker from the Congo is the same culturally and ethnically as a Moroccan or Egyptian that is their prerogative. Unfortunately, actual scholarship does not support such a view.
As others have stated there is a clear linguistic and demographic difference in the north of Africa as opposed to the populations south of the Saharan desert (Sub-Saharan populations). That is really all there is to it. There is no negative connotation attached to the term. It is used to define different regions and from that point can be further used to identify different populations of people.
The problem some have with the term, in my personal experience always black Americans, is that it does not fit into the mindset of Afrocentrism. This movement, which arose out of the black identity and empowerment movements of the 1960's and 1970's seeks to cast North Africa as "black", specifically the civilization of Ancient Egypt. While, I do not want to discuss the validity of Afrocentrism at this time, it will be sufficient to say that it not accepted by mainstream scholars. It is often described as feel-good history. That is the root of some people's problem with this phrase.
Somewhere upthread, someone asked why is Europe not similarly divided into regions and different population groups? The simple answer is Europe already is. For example, historians and anthropologists have already established base cultural and ethnic subsets among Europeans: Celtic, Latin, Nordic, Germanic, Slavic, etc. More germane to the thread though, the European Union and UN divide the continent of Europe, and all continents for that matter, into regional groupings. The simple fact is there is no geographical boundary in Europe akin to the Saharan desert which seems to keep populations separated to such a degree along ethnic and cultural lines. I believe the same poster asked why are European Mediterraneans still considered "white." White and black are modern, subjective terms. Some may feel that Greeks or Italians are not as "white" as Swedes or Danes. Some may think that Meds are just as "white" as Nordics. Those subjective terms are ultimately irrelevant. It is accepted that there is variation among the different ethnic groups within the continent of Europe.
If it makes someone feel better to pretend that a Bantu language speaker from the Congo is the same culturally and ethnically as a Moroccan or Egyptian that is their prerogative. Unfortunately, actual scholarship does not support such a view.
As others have stated there is a clear linguistic and demographic difference in the north of Africa as opposed to the populations south of the Saharan desert (Sub-Saharan populations). That is really all there is to it. There is no negative connotation attached to the term. It is used to define different regions and from that point can be further used to identify different populations of people.
The problem some have with the term, in my personal experience always black Americans, is that it does not fit into the mindset of Afrocentrism. This movement, which arose out of the black identity and empowerment movements of the 1960's and 1970's seeks to cast North Africa as "black", specifically the civilization of Ancient Egypt. While, I do not want to discuss the validity of Afrocentrism at this time, it will be sufficient to say that it not accepted by mainstream scholars. It is often described as feel-good history. That is the root of some people's problem with this phrase.
Somewhere upthread, someone asked why is Europe not similarly divided into regions and different population groups? The simple answer is Europe already is. For example, historians and anthropologists have already established base cultural and ethnic subsets among Europeans: Celtic, Latin, Nordic, Germanic, Slavic, etc. More germane to the thread though, the European Union and UN divide the continent of Europe, and all continents for that matter, into regional groupings. The simple fact is there is no geographical boundary in Europe akin to the Saharan desert which seems to keep populations separated to such a degree along ethnic and cultural lines. I believe the same poster asked why are European Mediterraneans still considered "white." White and black are modern, subjective terms. Some may feel that Greeks or Italians are not as "white" as Swedes or Danes. Some may think that Meds are just as "white" as Nordics. Those subjective terms are ultimately irrelevant. It is accepted that there is variation among the different ethnic groups within the continent of Europe.
If it makes someone feel better to pretend that a Bantu language speaker from the Congo is the same culturally and ethnically as a Moroccan or Egyptian that is their prerogative. Unfortunately, actual scholarship does not support such a view.
Well that depends on who you are talking to no matter the race. Ancient Egypt or Kemet is a hot topic and will be for years. Black scholars research is just as good as those mainstream scholars.
The problem some have with the term, in my personal experience always black Americans, is that it does not fit into the mindset of Afrocentrism. This movement, which arose out of the black identity and empowerment movements of the 1960's and 1970's seeks to cast North Africa as "black", specifically the civilization of Ancient Egypt. While, I do not want to discuss the validity of Afrocentrism at this time, it will be sufficient to say that it not accepted by mainstream scholars. It is often described as feel-good history. That is the root of some people's problem with this phrase.
When it comes to Afrocentrism and Egypt, I think the root of it has to do more with Egypt being acknowledged as an Indigenous African civilization. Even during that time period, it was still taboo to even say that Egypt was part of Africa, let alone say that the Ancient Egyptians were African people. I don't think it was really about Black Americans claiming that they are the direct descendants of Egyptians. That would be like Germans claiming they that their ancestry is Greek.
Quote:
If it makes someone feel better to pretend that a Bantu language speaker from the Congo is the same culturally and ethnically as a Moroccan or Egyptian that is their prerogative. Unfortunately, actual scholarship does not support such a view.
Your missing the point. No one on here is saying that ethnic groups from countries like Congo or Cameroon have the same exact culture and ethnicity as Egyptians for example. It is also short sighted to assume that countries like Ethiopia, Liberia, and Botswana have the same culture and ethnicity. All I'm saying is that why not put a stronger emphasis on geographical definitions of east,west, south, and north like we do with other continents, as oppose to just calling it Sub-Saharan Africa. Why are there still scholars today that still use terms like "Black Africa"?
When it comes to Afrocentrism and Egypt, I think the root of it has to do more with Egypt being acknowledged as an Indigenous African civilization. Even during that time period, it was still taboo to even say that Egypt was part of Africa, let alone say that the Ancient Egyptians were African people. I don't think it was really about Black Americans claiming that they are the direct descendants of Egyptians. That would be like Germans claiming they that their ancestry is Greek.
Your missing the point. No one on here is saying that ethnic groups from countries like Congo or Cameroon have the same exact culture and ethnicity as Egyptians for example. It is also short sighted to assume that countries like Ethiopia, Liberia, and Botswana have the same culture and ethnicity. All I'm saying is that why not put a stronger emphasis on geographical definitions of east,west, south, and north like we do with other continents, as oppose to just calling it Sub-Saharan Africa. Why are there still scholars today that still use terms like "Black Africa"?
Yeah, in first bold, I think Senagelese historian Cheikh Anta Diop was the one who first brought this to light. At the least, he was one of the firsts.
On the second bold. I HATE the term Black Africa. Do we hear Yellow Asian or White Europe or Brown Mexican, or w/e. Why must African always put the color before Black. Not to mention a great portion, if not the majority of Black people around the world especially in the US isn't even Black. We come in many different shades from brown to copper to mahogany, etc.
And just as bad. Which means just as subject to racial bias.
I guess. Other people have been doing that for years and far longer than us. Black people around the world have been told that they had no history, inferior history, or that they were primitive and nomadic people that needed to be civilized for to long. Now we are finding out our story but doing our research. We have nothing to do with the people that are mad about that. :kanyeshrug:
Seems like something Europeans made up to cause division. Why not just say Africa, and leave it at that.
I agree "sub-Saraharan Africa" is a clunky term; it groups too much diversity under one label. However, just saying "Africa" would make that problem worse, not better.
To make this even more interesting, the term "Africa" could possibly have Latin, Arabic, Berber and other roots. So, even the origin of the name of the continent isn't completely clear.
I believe that "Bantu" may be a better, all incompassing term and it is translated to mean "people, human or mankind". It is also the case with the term Inuit(aka Eskimo).
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.
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.
