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.
Wrong again! Going by your logic than racism cannot exist and has never existed. Do you know how ignorant your statement is?
It's not my logic, it's yours. No such thing as a Caucasian race? But all the other races exist, right? Who, exactly, is harmed by racism, if nobody is a member of any race, and of what race are the racists?
What is the difference between the people of Africa south of the Sahara, and the people north of the Mediterranean who invented the slur "Sub-Saharan"? Are those two peoples different, or aren't they? What is the difference, if the difference is not race?
It's not my logic, it's yours. No such thing as a Caucasian race? But all the other races exist, right? Who, exactly, is harmed by racism, if nobody is a member of any race, and of what race are the racists?
What is the difference between the people of Africa south of the Sahara, and the people north of the Mediterranean who invented the slur "Sub-Saharan"? Are those two peoples different, or aren't they? What is the difference, if the difference is not race?
You do understand that race at it's core, is a social construct but that doesn't change the fact that someone can have a racist ideology. The ideology of race is real. Racism can be practiced and even institutionalized. It's been already proven that the Caucasian race doesn't exist as I have already explained that in a similar thread about the Berbers of North Africa, so I'm not going to talk about that again on this specific thread topic. I personally don't like applying racial terms to continents like Black Africa or White Europe as they sound ridiculous. You on the other hand appear to be very obsessed with race.
You on the other hand appear to be very obsessed with race.
I didn't start the thread screaming "Racism!" at the whole world.
I presume you also object to the term "Latin America", which is mainly populated by people of Latin ancestry and still reflects a lifestyle and culture of Latin temperament. Racist and insulting and demeaning and invented by the racist elites to use as a tool in oppressing and degrading the people who live there and obstructing them from the mainstream of western economies. Keeping them where they know their place, and everything.
As I stated already, you can't really compare Latin America to Sub-Saharan Africa. One of the major major differences is that the indigenous populations of North and South America are still considered part of the same racial group regardless of which country is considered part of Latin America. Also the term Latin America doesn't use a desert or some sort natural landscape that acts as a racial dividing line as oppose to the term Sub-Saharan Africa.
As I stated already, you can't really compare Latin America to Sub-Saharan Africa. One of the major major differences is that the indigenous populations of North and South America are still considered part of the same racial group regardless of which country is considered part of Latin America. Also the term Latin America doesn't use a desert or some sort natural landscape that acts as a racial dividing line as oppose to the term Sub-Saharan Africa.
It is the Europeans who came to Latin America who make it "Latin", not the indigenous people. But it is still conspicuously "different" on the other side of the line. And yes there is a natural landscape that separates Latin America from the rest of the American landmasses. It is called the Sonoran Desert, and during the formative years of modern American cultures, it was just as formidable as the Sahara Desert. North American settlers were able to take Tejas and California in childishly easy campaigns, simply because the governorate in Mexico was unable to defend the lands across that desert. So you see, that is not a "major major difference" at all.
There is no "racial dividing line" and there are no "radial groups" because there is no race, remember? (Or at least, there is no Caucasian Race, I don't know if you think there are others or not.) If you want to discuss this topic, please learn something about it and deliver some actual fact-based observations, instead of shouting over and over again "I already proved that" when all you did was deliver some personal opinions that you wish to harbor to satisfy some worldview that suits your convenience. I know there is no point in telling you any of this at all, but there might be other readers who stumble across this thread who might be interested in the actual historical background of these things.
It is the Europeans who came to Latin America who make it "Latin", not the indigenous people. But it is still conspicuously "different" on the other side of the line. And yes there is a natural landscape that separates Latin America from the rest of the American landmasses. It is called the Sonoran Desert, and during the formative years of modern American cultures, it was just as formidable as the Sahara Desert. North American settlers were able to take Tejas and California in childishly easy campaigns, simply because the governorate in Mexico was unable to defend the lands across that desert. So you see, that is not a "major major difference" at all.
The Sonoran Desert is not used as a way to divide the Indigenous people of North and South America by race as they are considered the same racial group. So you can't compare that to the Sahara Desert.
Quote:
There is no "racial dividing line" and there are no "radial groups" remember? (Or at least, there is no Caucasian Race, I don't know if you think there are others or not.) If you want to discuss this topic, please learn something about it and deliver some actual fact-based observations, instead of shouting over and over again "I already proved that" when all you did was deliver some personal opinions that you wish to harbor to satisfy some worldview that suits your convenience. I know there is no point in telling you any of this at all, but there might be other readers who stumble across this thread who might be interested in the actual historical background of these things.
What's so funny about the whole thing is that I continue to prove you wrong while you have yet to prove me wrong on anything but somehow you refuse to give up and continue to dig yourself into an even deeper hole in this debate. I will say that you do have a lot of determination and will power but it's okay to lose a debate. It's not the end of the world.
Your missing the point. Its not so much about using terms that come from Europe, it's more about the insensitive or racial connotation that's associated with that term. The term "Sub-Saharan" carries that baggage.
No it doesn't. The term "Black Africa" did. The geographically descriptive term "sub-Saharan" replaced the term with racial baggage.
You better not walk across the Sahara or you will get more sand in your......
Good lord... It really seems that a lot of people are hell-bent on finding racial discrimination and bigotry behind everything these days. FTR, I have heard some pretty mean-spirited and creative racial epithets in my time, but not once can I include "sub-Saharan" among them. The term is a geographical one referring to the lands south of the Sahara desert. I cannot even begin to fathom why this term would be considered offensive, unless you are one of those people that beat the bushes and look under rocks for reasons to reasons to play the race card. This behaviour has become so tiresome in recent years that I truly wonder why anyone takes it seriously anymore. It's not like there is any intellectual value in finger-pointing, after all.
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.
