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.
The term "Sub-Saharan" seems to be synonymous with "Black Africa". My main issue with it is when people try and use it as some sort of racial divide, which sounds silly when you give it some serious thought.
Likely European nonsense. One can easily use North, South, East, West and Central to specify a region. It's simply a way for ignorant people to group those people they label as "blacks" together. Somehow they seem to conveniently understand the usage of South, East, North, West etc, when it comes to Europe and Asia though. SMH.
Likely European nonsense. One can easily use North, South, East, West and Central to specify a region. It's simply a way for ignorant people to group those people they label as "blacks" together. Somehow they seem to conveniently understand the usage of South, East, North, West etc, when it comes to Europe and Asia though. SMH.
Sub means beneath. On maps, which have been oriented for a long time with north at the top, sub-Saharan Africa is below the Sahara. Since it an expression in the English language, it shouldn't surprise anybody that it reflects the point of view of English-speaking people. India is also often called a sub-continent, because it is a significant land mass to the south of a larger continent.
The Sahara is a very effective natural barrier separating the demographic cultures that developed on either side of the desert, just as the eastern and western hemispheres have a pretty conspicuous ocean between them. The people of North Africa have much, much more in common with people across the Mediterranean, than with people across the Sahara, so there is nothing wrong with making a distinction between the cultures and demographics of the regions north and south of the Sahara.
If that is a difficult concept for you to grasp, I suggest you go there and see for yourself. Instead of just reading blogs from people who have their heads in the Politically Correct sand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
The term "Sub-Saharan" seems to be synonymous with "Black Africa".
Guess what? The people in Sub-Saharan Africa "seem" to be black. The people north of the Sahara don't seem to be. Anyone who'd rather that we call it "Black Africa", just say so, and we'll be happy to comply. It will still mean the same thing, just different words.
Sub means beneath. On maps, which have been oriented for a long time with north at the top, sub-Saharan Africa is below the Sahara. Since it an expression in the English language, it shouldn't surprise anybody that it reflects the point of view of English-speaking people. India is also often called a sub-continent, because it is a significant land mass to the south of a larger continent.
The Sahara is a very effective natural barrier separating the demographic cultures that developed on either side of the desert, just as the eastern and western hemispheres have a pretty conspicuous ocean between them. The people of North Africa have much, much more in common with people across the Mediterranean, than with people across the Sahara, so there is nothing wrong with making a distinction between the cultures and demographics of the regions north and south of the Sahara.
If that is a difficult concept for you to grasp, I suggest you go there and see for yourself. Instead of just reading blogs from people who have their heads in the Politically Correct sand.
So lets just lump all of Western, Central, Eastern, and Southern Africa together and call it one culture.
Like the poster "Caribdoll" said, it's sort of ironic how we don't really view Europe in the same context.
By the way people usually refer to India and nearby countries as South Asia. People look at countries like Nigeria and think "Sub-Saharan" first before they see the country as being a West African Nation. That the big difference!
Guess what? The people in Sub-Saharan Africa "seem" to be black. The people north of the Sahara don't seem to be. Anyone who'd rather that we call it "Black Africa", just say so, and we'll be happy to comply. It will still mean the same thing, just different words.
The post I made in the thread titled "Are Berber people white or black or a distinct races (Berber Race)?" basically answers what you were saying.
Sub means beneath. On maps, which have been oriented for a long time with north at the top, sub-Saharan Africa is below the Sahara. Since it an expression in the English language, it shouldn't surprise anybody that it reflects the point of view of English-speaking people. India is also often called a sub-continent, because it is a significant land mass to the south of a larger continent.
The Sahara is a very effective natural barrier separating the demographic cultures that developed on either side of the desert, just as the eastern and western hemispheres have a pretty conspicuous ocean between them. The people of North Africa have much, much more in common with people across the Mediterranean, than with people across the Sahara, so there is nothing wrong with making a distinction between the cultures and demographics of the regions north and south of the Sahara.
If that is a difficult concept for you to grasp, I suggest you go there and see for yourself. Instead of just reading blogs from people who have their heads in the Politically Correct sand.
Guess what? The people in Sub-Saharan Africa "seem" to be black. The people north of the Sahara don't seem to be. Anyone who'd rather that we call it "Black Africa", just say so, and we'll be happy to comply. It will still mean the same thing, just different words.
They are in denial that there are measurable, empirical differences between the peoples north and south of the Sahara. There is a fairly significant number of people that think Africa is supposed to be a uniformly "black" continent, and it blows their mind and world view when they are confronted with the obvious fact that the demographics of north and south Africa are completely different.
I don't see where the distinction would be problematic. Eurasia is one continent but I have never heard anyone say that Europeans and and East Asians are the same. There are Europeans in the west, Asians to the east and a mix in the middle. Africa is essentially the same (only north/south versus east/west) though there seems to be somewhat less mixing because of the Sahara.
So lets just lump all of Western, Central, Eastern, and Southern Africa together and call it one culture.
Like the poster "Caribdoll" said, it's sort of ironic how we don't really view Europe in the same context.
By the way people usually refer to India and nearby countries as South Asia. People look at countries like Nigeria and think "Sub-Saharan" first before they see the country as being a West African Nation. That the big difference!
First of all, linguistically, the people of sub-saharan Africa all speak a language from the Niger-Congo language group, everywhere from Senegal to Tanzania to Cape Town, the only exceptions being the Kalahari region of (obviously and conspicuously) unrelated peoples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger%E...ongo_languages
The Berbers, Tuaregs and others in and north of the Sahara speak a language related to Hebrew and Arabic.
The people of the entire sub-Saharan zone have more in common, culturally, than they do with the north Africans. Many elements of their culture, unique to Africa, follow similar attributes throughout sub-sahara.
And we do view Europe in the same context. Around the world, Italians and Dutch and Poles and Irish are viewed as having significant cultural similarities, compared to Africans and Asians. And nearly all European languages come from the same Indo-European root, with basic fundamental similarities that distinguish them from all other world languages. Even though they may have evolved into modern languages that are no longer mutually intelligible.
What's the "big difference" between "South Asia" and "South of the Sahara Africa"?
People really need to back away from their embedded political correctness and pay some attention to actual scholarship about cultural geography. Stop regarding all thinking and perceptive people as nefarious enemies setting out to destroy you.
Where did the term 'Sub-Saharan Africa' come from?
I think it's just a geographic distinction.
Plus there are racial and cultural differences between those who live on both sides of the Sahara. The peoples and culture of Morocco is different from that of Ghana so I see nothing wrong with geographic discriptions that try to make distinctions between peoples and cultures where they exist.
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.
