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.
With the exception of a few groups (Basque, Hungarians, Finns, Estonians), all Europeans speak languages descended from one common source in the Bronze Age. They all also share a common history through Christianity more recently. In addition, they share written languages which date back to early Christiandom and the Roman Empire.
There is nothing similar in Africa. The Bantu languages are spoken across a wide area, and pretty close to mutually intelligible, but still, there isn't a sense of cross-Bantu identity - let alone wider black African identity, except insofar as colonialism had created it.
It's clear GWphilly needs to hit the books and return when he's gained some knowledge.
You guys are over analyzing what I wrote. The problem with the term is that unlike most geographical definitions, the Sub-Sahara term is very race based. If you guys can't even acknowledge the racial stigma associated with the term than I don't know what more I can to say to you guys. It wouldn't hurt to try and see things from the other perspective sometimes.
You and your ilk are the ones putting racial stigma on it. I'm African born in the USA and I've never heard anyone complain about Sub-Sahara being racist. As folks have pointed out the Himalayas divide South and East there is also racial connotations there but no one is making a big deal about it.
It's clear GWphilly needs to hit the books and return when he's gained some knowledge.
It's also clear that some of you are having a really hard time grasping a simple concept.
Quote:
You and your ilk are the ones putting racial stigma on it.
Of course, as I have invented the racial stigma associated with the term. Clearly it has never existed in the history of the world before I started talking about it.
Quote:
I'm African born in the USA and I've never heard anyone complain about Sub-Sahara being racist. As folks have pointed out the Himalayas divide South and East there is also racial connotations there but no one is making a big deal about it. Accept the world for what it is and move on.
At the very least the term is associated with race. The Himalayas argument is weak. They are still seen as Asian and are seen as being part of the same race. Also we don't use terms like Himalayan Asia to lump ethnic groups spanning thousands of miles away. We also don't use terms like Sub-Himalayan Asia. So you can't compare that to the term "Sub-Sahara Africa".
Last edited by gwillyfromphilly; 06-06-2013 at 10:29 AM..
At the very least the term is associated with race. The Himalayas argument is weak. They are still seen as Asian and are seen as being part of the same race. Also we don't use terms like Himalayan Asia to lump ethnic groups spanning thousands of miles away. We also don't use terms like Sub-Himalayan Asia. So you can't compare that to the term "Sub-Sahara Africa".
We call it "The Indian Sub-Continent", and the Himalayas have, through human history, formed a barrier between the Mongols and the Indians, who are of a different race. The sub-ones South of the Himalayas are the Caucasians.
Please take the advice of people who have suggested that you to read something about the subject.
We call it "The Indian Sub-Continent", and the Himalayas have, through human history, formed a barrier between the Mongols and the Indians, who are of a different race. The sub-ones South of the Himalayas are the Caucasians.
Please take the advice of people who have suggested that you to read something about the subject.
The Indian Sub-Continent is not and was never considered a distinct racial group the same way Sub-Saharan Africans are considered. Your argument is completely flawed. Also in reality there is no such thing as a Caucasian race. That's something I already proven on another similar thread. Come to think of it, you have yet to prove me wrong on anything. If you want to continue to dig a hole for yourself in this debate than go right ahead or you can just stop now while you still have a little dignity left. The choice is yours.
The Indian Sub-Continent is not and was never considered a distinct racial group the same way Sub-Saharan Africans are considered. Your argument is completely flawed. Also in reality there is no such thing as a Caucasian race. That's something I already proven on another similar thread. Come to think of it, you have yet to prove me wrong on anything. If you want to continue to dig a hole for yourself in this debate than go right ahead or you can just stop now while you still have a little dignity left. The choice is yours.
Modern Indians are roughly a 50/50 mix of people from the Middle East and a now-extinct native population, which was related to the inhabitants of the Andaman Islands (who look black, but are not closely related to Africans).
Actually, this is pretty similar to modern-day Europeans, who have also recently been found to be roughly a 50/50 mix of a now extinct indigenous population and agriculturalists who came from the Middle East. There are some signs the indigenous European population was actually partially related to modern Native Americans, hence not "White" in a modern sense.
Regardless, Caucasian seems to be pretty close to an accurate name, because the most "pure" representations of the original Middle Eastern agriculturalists seem to be in and around the Caucasus mountains. Elsewhere they mixed with different groups, forming Europeans, Indians, Arabians, North Africans, etc.
The Indian Sub-Continent is not and was never considered a distinct racial group the same way Sub-Saharan Africans are considered. Your argument is completely flawed. Also in reality there is no such thing as a Caucasian race. That's something I already proven on another similar thread. Come to think of it, you have yet to prove me wrong on anything. If you want to continue to dig a hole for yourself in this debate than go right ahead or you can just stop now while you still have a little dignity left. The choice is yours.
Kindly apply the bolded portion of your post to yourself and quietly withdraw to the sidelines please.
Also in reality there is no such thing as a Caucasian race. .
Then there is also such thing as a Black race, and therefore all of your arguments are flawed, since there is no "racial" character that is common to the part of Africa south of the Sahara, and therefore, reference to Sub-Saharan Africa cannot possibly be racial in nature.
Then there is also such thing as a Black race, and therefore all of your arguments are flawed, since there is no "racial" character that is common to the part of Africa south of the Sahara, and therefore, reference to Sub-Saharan Africa cannot possibly be racial in nature.
Wrong again! Going by your logic than racism cannot exist and has never existed. Do you know how ignorant your statement is?
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.
