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.
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.
Arabs have been calling the sub-Sahara region the Land of the Blacks before they had meaningful interaction with "White" people. Why do African-Americans think the people of the world can't come up with anything outside of "White" influence? Slavery really did a number on you guys. White folks are not omnipresent, really they're not.
Arabs have been calling the sub-Sahara region the Land of the Blacks before they had meaningful interaction with "White" people. Why do African-Americans think the people of the world can't come up with anything outside of "White" influence? Slavery really did a number on you guys. White folks are not omnipresent, really they're not.
Arabs like Europeans are not indigenous people of Africa. The Arab slave trade started long before before the Atlantic Slave Trade. The Arabs like Europeans are not indigenous to any part of Africa, therefore view Africa from a foreigner's perspective like Eurocentrics do.
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 hear you, but "we" don't break Mexico out of Latin America because we discovered remnants of a developed civilization after arguing that non existed below the Rio Grande, if you get my meaning.
But still we are victims of word games,
semantics is always a bittcch:
places once called under-developed and 'backwards'
are now called 'mineral rich.'
And still it seems the game goes on
with unity always just out of reach
Because Libya and Egypt used to be in Africa,
but they've been moved to the 'middle east'.
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 ONE race, the human race. You are so seeped in racial ideology that my post went right over your head. People act like those under the Sahara come from one group and that is how the term sub-saharan is often used. North, South, East and West are not that difficult...at least for some of us.
Last edited by ReineDeCoeur; 05-12-2013 at 08:40 PM..
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.
Some of you Africans have become so Americanized/Westernized that you lap up racial ideas and assume every statement is about race. So what if Arabs called the Sudanese and other land of the blacks? Again, what does that have to do with the term sub-saharan and you seem to be advocating the same assumption of "blackness" that you are complaining about. Nonsensical. Colonization really did a number on you guys.
Last edited by ReineDeCoeur; 05-12-2013 at 08:26 PM..
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.
Why? Because it says "very accurately" that black people predominate in sub-saharan Africa and non-black people predominate elsewhere? What is so despicable about accurate observations?
What does "carib" imply about "caribdoll's" geo-culture? Without reading any posts, would you guess that Caribdoll is black and of Caribbean background? Isn't there an insensitive or racial connotation in associating a person with the Caribbean?
Why? Because it says "very accurately" that black people predominate in sub-saharan Africa and non-black people predominate elsewhere? What is so despicable about accurate observations?
What does "carib" imply about "caribdoll's" geo-culture? Without reading any posts, would you guess that Caribdoll is black and of Caribbean background? Isn't there an insensitive or racial connotation in associating a person with the Caribbean?
You have to understand that the term has a racial and insensitive component attach to it. I know some people like to lump everything South of the Sahara as one culture but there are regional differences. Lumping countries like South Africa and Mauritania as one culture is short sighted. That would be like lumping Japan with Pakistan.
They are actually in sub-sahara Africa. Most people below the line ARE black.
What the heck is so difficult about that?
Caribdoll is hypocritical.
She says she is West Indian,yet has an issue with the term Sub-Sahara?
Sub Sahara actually is a more geographical correct term than West Indian.
Why? Because the people actually live below the Sahara Desert.
West Indian? It isn't geographically correct. India is in Asia. The Indian Ocean is in Asia.
You are from Central America,not Asia.
You have to understand that the term has a racial and insensitive component attach to it. I know some people like to lump everything South of the Sahara as one culture but there are regional differences. Lumping countries like South Africa and Mauritania as one culture is short sighted. That would be like lumping Japan with Pakistan.
What term has a racial and insensitive component attached to it? Sub-Saharan, or Caribbean? You have not made yourself clear.
You've never been in Mauritania, have you? Nor South Africa, either, I'll bet. I've been to both, and I know a little bit about what I am talking about.
You're the one who wants to lump Japan with Pakistan, calling them both "Asia" just because geographers have conveniently declared a single land mass to be Asia, and Japan and Pakistan are both on it, and calling it "insensitive" to speak of Japan as being in a part or East Asia, or Pakistan as South Asia, or even (erroneously) as the Middle East.
And No, I do NOT have to understand that something is racial and insensitive just because you personally have gone on a campaign to get all bent out of shape about it. You have jumped to the conclusion that I personally am a prejudicially racist person who wishes nothing but harm to black people of Africa, and that I express that hatred by using a conventional term to name the part of the world they live in. In fact, it is your position that is racial and insensitive, by refusing to recognize an abundantly obvious and conspicuous geocultural reality, and arguing a fiction.
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.
Look, the bottom line here is that there is this huge uninhabited mass land called the Sahara which separates North Africa from the rest of the country. it's just natural Geography should reflect that obvious fact.
It's like Britain vs Continental Europe. It just reflects the uncontrovertible fact that Britain is separated from the continent even though in this case it's only a narrow channel as opposed to a huge desert.
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.
