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.
Why would sub-saharan Africans even care. Should they all be call Africans?..It seemed that my Guinean friend thought it was odd once when I asked her questions about Africa; she is from Guinea, not really Africa..Africa is a continent, a geographical designation as is the term sub-Saharan.
Yep. Everybody that I know from Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal and Ethiopia here in DC HATES the term and has no use for it. It is nonsense. Considering that there are millions of "Sub-Saharan Black" features (whatever that is) in Morroco, Libya and Egypt.
Of course common people don't say "I'm from sub-Saharan Africa". No talks like that anywhere in the world. But government officials, academics and journalists in Africa use that term constantly.
By the way, Africa is also a word made up by "whitey". You may want to stop using it as well.
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. Niger
The Berbers, Tuaregs and others in and north of the Sahara speak a language related to Hebrew and Arabic.
Oh, puleeze let's not further obfuscate the fact that the term sub-Saharan only gained usage in period between 1960 and 1965 to denote the difference between North Africans (wannabe white) and black Africans. A successive number of minority governments in Sudan has foisted that myth for decades. Genetically and linguistically there is a presence of so-called sub-Saharans north of the Saharan demarcation, for example the nilo-Saharan language group can be found to extend from Algeria to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Oh, puleeze let's not further obfuscate the fact that the term sub-Saharan only gained usage in period between 1960 and 1965 to denote the difference between North Africans (wannabe white) and black Africans. A successive number of minority governments in Sudan has foisted that myth for decades. Genetically and linguistically there is a presence of so-called sub-Saharans north of the Saharan demarcation, for example the nilo-Saharan language group can be found to extend from Algeria to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
We use "Latin America" instead of "South America" in order to include Mexico and Central America into a culture zone not exactly coterminous with a plate tectonic, and if anybody is kicking and screaming with PC mouth-foaming about that, I'm blissfully unaware of it. "Latin America" is the linguistic and ethnological analog of "Sub-Saharan Africa", and its usage is perfectly practical, dispite the hair splitters who will immediately object using the "apples and oranges" canard.
Continents are geological phenomena, and if masses of people do not perfectly obey their perimeters, ethnologists have to find another way to describe where people live in cultural proximity.
Of course common people don't say "I'm from sub-Saharan Africa". No talks like that anywhere in the world. But government officials, academics and journalists in Africa use that term constantly.
By the way, Africa is also a word made up by "whitey". You may want to stop using it as well.
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.
We use "Latin America" instead of "South America" in order to include Mexico and Central America into a culture zone not exactly coterminous with a plate tectonic, and if anybody is kicking and screaming with PC mouth-foaming about that, I'm blissfully unaware of it. "Latin America" is the linguistic and ethnological analog of "Sub-Saharan Africa", and its usage is perfectly practical, dispite the hair splitters who will immediately object using the "apples and oranges" canard.
Continents are geological phenomena, and if masses of people do not perfectly obey their perimeters, ethnologists have to find another way to describe where people live in cultural proximity.
There are plenty of indigenous people from North and South America who do not refer to themselves as Latino/Spanish. Though there are some similarities between the Americas and Africa when it comes to colonization but the big difference is that both North and South America were completely conquered(and still are) by foreigners unlike Africa that was able to can gain independence from foreign rule and it's indigenous people were able to take control in most countries in Africa.
There are plenty of indigenous people from North and South America who do not refer to themselves as Latino/Spanish. Though there are some similarities between the Americas and Africa when it comes to colonization but the big difference is that both North and South America were completely conquered(and still are) by foreigners unlike Africa that was able to can gain independence from foreign rule and it's indigenous people were able to take control in most countries in Africa.
Then what are you doing in America taking land and resources from the Native Americans? Why don't you go back to Africa since according to your theory you can't be called American?
Then what are you doing in America taking land and resources from the Native Americans? Why don't you go back to Africa since according to your theory you can't be called American?
Don't get mad at me, I'm just stating what happen in history.
Whether you want the non-indigenous people to leave the continent is your business. I'm just stating what happen in history. Personally I think that's a rather outlandish statement to make on your part. The Americas are already colonized so there is know need to be angry at me. That would be like me hating all white people for their enslavement of West African people in the Atlantic Slave Trade.
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.
Huh? Africa is a vast continent just because folks share a continent doesn't mean they all have to be of the same race. India and China are both on Asia and border each other. Indians are classified as Caucasian (scientifically not in America) and the Han Chinese are classified as Mongolian.
The Sahara is an intimidating geographical divider the term sub-Sahara is appropriate.
There is this incessant need by mainly African-Americans to forcibly assume everyone in Africa is either Black to one degree or another simply because they reside on the continent of Africa. This is simply idiotic. Heck even Ethiopians would bristle at being lumped with Bantu Africans.
Before the use of sub-Sahara, Arabs since antiquity used to refer to the vast Sudanese region and the points South as the lands of the Blacks.
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.
