Talk:Sub-Saharan Africa

From Academic Kids

Is Black Africa really a common term? I guess I've heard it a couple of times, but maybe 1% as often as I've heard "sub-Saharan Africa". And if people find it offensive, why include it? We could turn the page "Black Africa" into a real page, mention the term, that it means "sub-Saharan Africa", and its implications.

I also don't agree that the distinction arose from the desire to distinguish the predominantly-black parts of Africa from the rest. Clasically, North Africa was Africa. You can't tell the history of the Roman Empire, or of Islam, or of the Mediterranean, or of Spain, without talking about North Africa. Waltpohl

Waltpohl, please sign your comments (I've done it for you above).

Regarding the term "Black Africa": Thanks for discussing this. It was the predominant term before the twentieth-century; if you do read older geographic, historical, or social texts, you will come across the term again and again. According to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, we should less make judgments about political correctness rather than about whether the information is encyclopedic, which it is. Some people regard it as politically incorrect, but many people think the term is fine. It continues to be used in some contexts today, even by African-American leaders, including some in the Afrocentrism movement.

Yes, I agree that during Roman times, or the rise of Islam, as you say, "North Africa was Africa." However, later, when exploration of sub-Saharan Africa began, a distinction began to be made between the two areas, and cultural and ethnic factors were definitely part of what distinguished the two areas in the minds of the early explorers. --Lowellian 19:32, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I randomly forget to sign about 50% of the time. I know it's a bad habit.

My point is that the significance of sub-Saharan Africa is clearly intended to be a purely geographical term, without the racially-loaded connotations of Black Africa. If you read the page as currently written, you'll get the feeling that by using the term "sub-Saharan Africa", you're doing something subtly racist. -- Walt Pohl 23:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I read the article again, and I don't get the feeling from reading it that the term "sub-Saharan Africa" is portrayed as racist. The article does not uphold any region as superior to one another; it merely points out differences based on ethnicity and culture between the two areas. The separation of sub-Saharan Africa from North Africa is not based just on geographic features such as the Sahara; it also depends on ethnic and cultural factors, in the same way that the separation between East Asia and South Asia is not based just on the Himalayas, but also on civilizational factors; South Asian peoples are clearly different from East Asian peoples.

If you still think the article reads badly, then you could try rewriting it. I could accept a rewrite as long as the rewrite makes it clear that:

1. Sub-Saharan Africa is also known as Black Africa.
2. Part of the reason for the distinction between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa arises from ethnic and cultural differences.

--Lowellian 00:21, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Changing times

Can we move away from the "Sub-Saharan" point of view that reinforces blacks beneath whites? The better term would be Equatorial Africa to describe the region of Africa nearest to the Equator and shows that the Black Africans origins (Ethiopia and Cameroun regions which are both right near the Equator).

Sub-saharan does imply a racist or biased term as any "sub"-term would imply a beneath. The phrase "sub-urban" is never pronounced properly as the "b" sound in the word is moved over to the second syllable to minimize this same negative "sub" effect. I think the empathsis that "SUB" = "Black" in this article is dated and becoming offensive. It is also reinforcing the strong stereotypes that create the racial disparity still present in society.

'Sub' means below, not 'lesser'. Yes, it's used as a prefix in many words that use "below" in the sense of "inferior" (subordinate, subhuman etc) but it's also used in may neutral words (submarine, subjective, sub-section etc) and also positive words (sublime, substantial). I've never heard of an Indian complaining that the term "subcontinent", regularly used to refer to India, is offensive. Your theory about the proununiation of "suburban" seems to me to be pure fantasy. But the point is that this is an Encyclopedia. This is a commonly used phrase, and so should be properly defined and explained here. 'Tropical Africa' may or may not be preferable, but it is not as well-established. Paul B 15:05, 27 May, 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to address this issue in rewrites of the opening para. Paul B 12:13, 28 May, 2005 (UTC)