Should We Stop Using the Term "Sub-Saharan?"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 май 2021
- For gaming streams, follow me on Twitch:
/ theempirefn
Another way to see sources:
www.fromnothing.info/sources (#39)
Join my Discord community:
/ discord
Follow me on Twitter
/ theempirefn
The only problem I can see with the term sub-Saharan Africa is that it makes the most culturally and genetically diverse region of our planet seem like it's one big monolithic thing .
I can agree to that, however the same is done elsewhere as well like "The Americas." Literally 2 entire continents.
Notwithstanding genetic diversity. Where do you stand on the term Papua New Guinea?
People use terms to generalize an area. It happens everywhere. "The East" as in everything east of the balkan and turkey, is another example of this. Not everything is meant to insult, sometimes it's just because generalizing is easier. Don't get me wrong; generalizing should never be done to insult.
@@FromNothing Plus Islands
The same could be said about South America, or Europe. Hence why we have further discreet subdivisions called countries and tribes
I have no problem with it but its high time people learn Sub Saharan doesn't mean Black or simply Bantu and North African doesn't mean Arab or white. Both these regions have diverse complex demographics and histories associated with each other. For example lingustically speaking native North African Amazigh people belong to the same language family as Chadics, Cushitics and Semitics from Sudan Eritrea, Ethiopia, Chad, Northern Nigeria, Niger and Mali for example and there have been many cultural and in many cases genetic exchanges too, plus these nations I've mentioned labelled Sub Saharan (except Nigeria) have huge portions of land above the Sub Saharan line. So people shouldn't use these terms to isolate or alienate the regions because historically the relationship between North and Sub Saharan is alot more complicated than people assume.
North Africa has EUROPEAN mtDNA. The only reason why they look different from their E1B1B forefathers is because of the Barbary Slave Trade and intermarriage with Hyksos and Sea People (all non African ethnic groups who invaded Egypt). Plus, Wedt and Central Africans were pushed down into those regions due to constant invasions and wars. You are right. African history is VERY complicated!
@@ilovelife3328,
That is only partly correct.
The entire North African coast is the Mediterranean, which has always been the superhighway to three continents due to its unique location, and that has been true non-stop, where people are concerned since, at least, the Neolithic till now.
@@ilovelife3328 what European DNA?? The dominating haplogroup Subclude is indegenious. And that slave trade didn't change the demographics and the genetic make up of the region. The ancient Libyans, Mauritanians (not the modern nation) and Numidians for example looked like the people in the regions today. And what intermarriage based on what evidence? Indeed there has been admixture but, I doubt it has changed the overall demographics significantly.
North africa is never arab. They are berbers and copts. There are whiteish peopls north but mainly it is brown.
@@yaruqadishi8326 the Berbers are originally black not white
I usually prefer regional terms like West African, North African, West-Central African, ETC
@Zache same here. I always thought it was strange that when it comes to North Africa people would just say North Africa but than lump all the other African countries as Sub Saharan Africa. And there's countries that are located smack dab in the middle of the Sahara. :)
@@aan3Amen 🙏🏽
Actually, Baja California means Lower California. What we call today California was historically known as Alta California (Upper California) before it broke away from Mexico and later became an American state.
"It is best to keep the problems where they belong, and not create new ones that didn't exist in the first place."
Thank you Jabari
While the criticisms have merit, I agree that it's ultimately another subregion named after geography whose renaming doesn't require priority amidst the myriad issues that need to be solved when it comes to global understanding of its current events, cultures, and histories.
Cool vid!!!
Long comment ahead but worth the read 😉
I’ve never found this term offensive back when I was in my home country. Geographically speaking, that’s how we considered ourselves in school.
The issue however is that when I went to one of the North Africa countries, they called us sub-saharan in a derogatory manner.
Heck, some would even call you african not simply because of geography but your race (as if they are not africans themselves). It’s funny because it’s your fellow african ( North ) who calls you this. I personally don’t get into much talks with such people but I have witnessed where some were trying to justify how they are not african and that it is us (blacks) who are the africans. Basically, their whole point was because of skin tone lol.
In real life, you will hardly EVER hear those from the North consider themselves african. They’d rather just stick to their country’s name as some see it self-belittling to call themselves african.
While in university, the officials aren’t even cautious of how they make themselves sound. If you are a group of 10 (4 blacks and 6 north africans), they’d call the 4 out as africans and the others (no name). This has happened to me right in my face where the number of africans to them is the number of “black” people. I just let things slide n ignore their ignorance. When the school’s director ask you how many africans are in the school (referring to me and my fellow black-skinned africans), while we are still in african soil, then you know something is really off with these people.
The one that got me surprised however is when a Professor (she’s at least 45) asked me when was the last war in my country. It came to me as a surprise as I asked, why do you assume we have wars. She said “well, the sub-saharans are always at war, are they not ?”. Told her my country has never had wars. She also said that sub saharan africans aren’t developed. After I pointed out South Africa (being the most sub of Africa 😅), she smiled and said “well South Africa is not sub saharan, well technically it is but it’s not”. She admits South Africa is even more developed that their country. From there I concluded in her understanding “sub-saharan” denotes poverty stricken black Africa.
I’ve been questioned if we have house, roads and cars back in sub-saharan africa 😅. I casually reply that we live in trees and mount on lions to goto school. Oh btw, the professor explained above was the one to ask me if we have houses like these in sub-sahara 🥲.
If the educated among them can speak like this, what is there to day about the average folk ???
Just as how many unanimously agree that Americans don’t know geography or anything outside America, so is the case of some North Africans. I’m not even talking outside Africa. I’ve tested a lot of them randomly, they can’t even draw me a sketch map of Africa. Meanwhile I knew every capital city and almost all the presidents/leaders while I was in 6th grade. I’ve legit met someone in university who didn’t know he was in Africa 🙃 (I kid you not)
Truth be told, some of them try to educate the others that there is no distinction between North and Sub-sahara and that we are all Africans. One of my professors doesn’t like to hear the term sub-saharan being used on any african. Sadly, they have a lot way to go.
This is why I see some of my africans brothers and sisters take offense to being called sub-saharan especially when it’s coming from a fellow african because deep down, what they mean by that term is not really what we understood it as.
Hope this info was helpful. I’m not type to get triggered by any of these as I just blame it as lack of exposure. Their schooling system and media portrays things in such a way that they grow up with this mentality thinking it’s the norm.
One more funny experience, I’ve had someone (african) told me she has a friend in Africa (didn’t mention a single country) and dared to ask if I know him(said friend) 🤣. Apparently Africa is a small village where we all know each other her country isn’t located in Africa. It’s probably levitating above Africa so they’re correct to exempt themselves from Africa.
All and all, it gives me good laughs. I would’ve never known such africans existed had I not left my country. At least I know our history and I’m more appreciative now that I see the difference in people.
You have the patience of a saint and that professor sounds like a proper shit. 👍🏽
Not just that but even from a geographical point on most maps, Africa is usually depicted smaller then it really is. And little things like that and the word subsaharan subconsciously implies negative things, just like the word black. But either way its not really a big issue its just something to note.
@@EPUEPUEPUEPU And your name is the first american devise. Classy.
Black doesn't have to sound négativ though.
"Say it loud" would sing James Brown.
In French , people would tend to say black as it would euphemise the word noir. I speak english. It doesn't euphemise for me. And to begin with there is nothing to euphemise.
I say une personne noir, a black person. As only an indication of melanine rate.
That pretty much the only meaning.
"I’ve been questioned if we have house, roads and cars back in sub-saharan africa" Now, this response is gold! I think I'll try this next time someone asks me a stupid ass question like that. LOL! Thanks man!
Interesting that the professor would ask if your country has roads. Nigeria is more developed than most of North Africa 😂
I don't think it's any stranger than saying East Asian or Central European, etc.
I've never heard of anybody getting upset from the term Sub Saharan.
They do exist sadly
Just look in the comments section lol
Words are the meaning we give them sadly
Maybe because no one has ever asked actual Africans. The term was IMPOSED on us and plenty of us don't use that term.
@@timvanrijn8239 nope the words can be twisted to mean anything depending on circumstance.
"It is best to keep the problems where they belong, and not create new ones that didn't exist in the first place."
A-f***ing-men
Except there is a problem , many folks including myself hate it , just like the oid terms like Negroid , Mongoloid Caucusoid etc it’s trash and covers a lot of sins.
The fact that old maps depicted Africa smaller then it is. The fact that there is no Sub Alps. The fact that South Africa was named something that would separate it from the rest of Sub Saharan Africa and the fact that nobody uses the term Saharan Africa or Supra Saharan Africa shows that the term may have racist roots. Should we use it ? Of course but do we know people are using the word in a negative connotation? Absolutely!
the reason why Sub-Saharan Africa it's called that it's purely for geographic reasons as in the context Sub-Saharan means south of Sahara/Below Sahara, while this does not work the same for sub-Alps, as Alps are a mountain range, while Sahara it's a hot desert and an entire region of it's own that occupies most of North Africa and parts of West and Central Africa another country covered by Sahara is Eritrea a small eastern African nation,
calling the region south Saharan would mean that it's in the Sahara.
the reason why Africa appeared smaller in the old maps is because it was not explored as most of Sub-Saharan Africa because Malaria would weaken the white explorers so apart from the natives very few could explore central and southern parts of Africa due to Malaria and other tropical diseases.
so South Africa could be called as such because it's the southernmost country in all of africa, meaning that The Republic of South Africa cannot be used as a parallel whatsoever, all the peoples living in South Africa give it the same name abeilt in their own languages,
@@EPUEPUEPUEPU like the comment above me already explains, it is not really fair to compare a gigantic desert with a mountain range. The Sahara is as large as a big part of mainland Europe. Nonetheless is there indeed such a thing as "sub alps" but in another form: "ultra montans" meaning on the other side of the mountains. This in general meant north european people that believed in the rightful rule of the pope (so Catholics) in contrast with Protestants.
I understand what you are saying but I wanted to share this anyway.
@@thatangrywickedtardigrade.39 That point about the map being small because it was under-explored doesn't really hold water buddy. if you know the shape of the continent that means you have circumnavigated it. You therefore chose to represent it as smaller than it actually is. Basic common sense.
The opposite problem occurs with other geographic terms. Its frustrating how many people seem to think that "great Britain" means "good" and not just that it's the biggest of the british isles. I agree that the solution isn't to change the geographical terms though, but rather to teach people their actual meaning.
I agree with this video people should stop using the term sub-saharan Africa because once the white man came to Africa he decided that he wanted separate Africans from their northern african roots from the moment Muhammad Ali refused to accept with his northern African roots in Morocco.
I never agreed that we should stop using It...
I said we should stop finding excuses to feel offended over things.
@@FromNothing Well I agree with Black Greece that the term Sub-saharan Africa should not exist at all since the wm loves labelling places everywhere he goes. When the wm first set foot in to Africa during pre colonialism he decided that he was going to divide North Africa from the rest of Africa since North Africa was too advanced based on this architecture. This is why back in the 1960s who kept making up so much movies in Hollywood regarding the wm as a pharaoh (😂 which never happened) ruling Egypt it's a white-washed fantasy they love
This is a very powerful comment
@@blackbankers1883 Every human from the dawn of time has given names to every new place they've arrived to. I fail to see the issue with that as long as it's not offensive.
@@FromNothing So you're saying that for the wm to give the name "sub saharan" in the 1950s/1960s prior for the rest of Africa excluding North Africa; was done since the dawn of time?
People using too much mental gymnastics to turn nearly anything negative without thoroughly research prior.
Yes! It is a term Eurocentrist use to try to imply that northern African countries are somehow not as African as all the other African countries. It is particularly used so they can pretend that Egypt was really built by someone other than Africans.
thank you!
While the Egyptians were Africans in a geographic sense, it is completely undeniable that the Egyptians have always been a group completely unrelated to the peoples south of the Sahara
Egypt was built by Mayans most likely.
@@autochton-7 The original Mayans, like everyone else on the planet, were Africans. 😉
@@QuatMan
No they aren't.
What does the term "African" mean to you that isn't what some ignorant White slave masters are also thinking?
I feel old, I remember (older) people call it "Black Africa" and complaining about the new name.
Same in the German speaking world. Most older people, and even many younger ones who aren't aware about the change of terms now used in formal discourse, would still say "Schwarzafrika", which literally translates to "Black Africa". And they'd use "Schwarzafrikaner" for a person from Sub-Sahara Africa, due the colour of their skin (rather than country of origin). The counterpart would be "Nordafrikaner" (North African).
A perfect exemplar video of why I’m subscribed!
- As a SUBscriber, perhaps I should rethink my options.
- 😁 Nah, I'm good. There's more to life.
Madlad
😂😂😂
Actually Mali wasn't a caliphate. If they aren't a caliph like Askia, then the state is called a sultanate
He probably got confused with modern-day Mali. Because in the borders of the modern-day country there was another caliphate (though people commonly know it as the Toucoleur Empire).
Very nice and informative. I particularly liked your mentioning the Near East and the Middle East being the same
@ From Nothing. Great video! It seems some people use to the term to make Africa seem like a monolithc thing as another commentator mentioned when it's a huge continent and each African country is completely different from each other. It's also a lazy way (couldn't think of another term) for some people to avoid recognizing the ethnic, cultural and lingualistic diversities in North, West, East and South Africa. :)
Lmaooooo that comment from the Moor video had you make this! This is so hysterical hahahahahahahahaha
Nah that is one of many that I've seen over the years as well as conversations that I've had with HomeTeam History.
North Africans are not white they never have been and you never will be. whyte people have no history and Culture so out of sheer hatred and jealousy, they decided to colonize the lands.
The same can also be said for Arabs
@@FromNothing,
Home Team History?
I had to unsub from that guy.
I'd overlook his chronic laziness if he didn't have Patrions supporting his ass.
@@warriormania7034 White people have no history or culture? 🤔🤨
You can say all you want that " sub Saharan " isn't a negative term, but the way that it's used is very racist. Particularly when it's used by the white arabs of north Africa
I just subscribed to your channel and want to encourage you to keep up your great work. I agree with your conclusion the sub-Saharan should be seen as neutral but appreciate that you acknowledged that the negative reactions are rooted in something and not just totally irrational. The most compelling argument to me is the view that such distinctions have and can still be used to portray the history and cultures of sub-Saharan Africa as totally separate from some of the northern African cultures that have been historically recognized as advanced for a long time. That being said in the short time I’ve been watching your videos it is clear that the substance of much of your content does a lot to dispel that false perception and reveal the influence sub-Saharan Africa had in Northern Africa and the rest of the world.
One thing I would challenge you on is the assertion that African cultures in North Africa are less Black because they are genetically mixed and culturally influenced by Arabia. To me that’s like saying the of African descent who live in the Americas are less Black because many of us have European ancestors and the cultures we live in are largely Eurocentric. Forgive the pun, but how we define Blackness is not that black and white.
I recommend you watch my previous video.
@@FromNothing I just discovered your channel and I’m working my way through. Any suggestions on videos to prioritize? I’m viewing for myself and for resources to share with my 8 year old son.
@@brianferreira7277 Thanks for subscribing. As I said, I would recommend my most recent video because I break down the "racial" identity in much more detail and I also take extra care to remind everyone that race is a modern/western concept. I'd also recommend my "Black History They Don't Teach Us" playlist.
Berbers lived in North Africa way before any Arab invasion. What’s with this focus on Arabs as if they represented all light skinned populations in the Middle East and North Africa
@@kobab4270 Is your comment directed towards me or From Nothing?
Literally no different than the term Subarctic meaning immediately south of the Arctic
Thank you for the extrapolation. It was nice hearing what you had to say.
Personally, I prefer using the term "Tropical Africa", mainly because it refers to the actual region itself, rather than to it's relation to something outside of it (the Sahara Desert) and avoids the negative connotations of the prefix "sub-".
alright Down under
thank you. or call it the southern half of Africa
The region south of the Sahara isn't entirely tropical. There are deserts and Savannahs
@@adeolaolalekan2306 yeah you're right. I actually no long agree with my original comment anyways.
The Sahara as a whole is no older than 9000 years. To put that into context the human species has been around for 300,000 years. It makes sense to use it as present due to its presence and geographical local.
I don't see the point in calling it sub-Saharan. When you could just say East, West, North, South
@@NonStopHD765 All depends on the historical context, Sahara dipped in and out of existence during its greening and arid fazes, of which population groups moved accordingly.
I feel its use is appropriate when talking about the location of current population groups and not their general place of origin or genetics, as often time they would have been present across a wider area prior to the formation of the Sahara.
Sub simply implies below, so it's fitting if in context. It has no negative connotations unless you make it one.
I think another good comparison is South Asia vs East Asia.
The Himalayas being analogous to the Sahara and modern racial classification exacerbating the differences between the two population centers.
To @Admire's point, this is also an oversimplification because the changes are gradual in both places: Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh in Asia and Sudan, Chad, East Africa, and northern West Africa in Africa. It's just most of these "transitional" areas are lumped in with dominant nation-states by land area (India, China; Algeria, Libya) or the nation-states that do represent this don't exert much cultural influence on our collective awareness (Bhutan, Nepal; Chad, Niger, Mali).
With the conclusion being that continents are very arbitrary and socially constructed: humans would generally rather cross water passages than deserts, hence why cultural exchange is much more prevalent between southern Europe and North Africa, or the Horn of Africa and southern Arabia, or even East Africa and Southwestern India, though again, the "cultural popularity contest" does play a role here as well.
great video but in Egypt Upper Egypt is anything south of Memphis to the first cataract anything beyond that is not Egypt even if it's controlled by Egypt
This is a great argument. There are many falsely negative associations with sub-Saharan Africa. But the name itself has nothing to do with that and is merely a geographical descriptor for the place that people look down on. I once heard (to my surprise because I was very young and didn't realise this was a thing) a Moroccan man (in Morocco) refer dismissively to 'black Africa.' This Maghrebi attitude of superiority stems from the same problem (and I don't attribute this to all Mediterranean Africans of course, but it certainly exists) and the name isn't a contributor to it. Changing this pretty descriptive term for our region won't do anything to change people's attitudes.
That's what media like yours is for!
Long comment ahead
Nice video, my man. I think you cleared up the issue (which I didn't even know existed until now) pretty well. Also near the end where you said that Sub-Saharan Africa doesn't get much positive depiction (besides animals), that makes me feel sad a bit. Sub-Saharan Africa is very diverse and has done many wonderful things throughout history, how can people (Blacks, Whites, etc.) just ignore that?
"Sub-saharan Africa" is a term made by European immigrants that was the same people who invaded North America. There is only Africa which is the motherland to original Africans/Blacks
Africa isnt just a home to black people. North Africans arent black.
@@lastword8783 North Africans are black and Africa is Homeland to the original Africans Blacks leave Africa alone and go back to Europe where you belong we don't need you white here lol
@@xhosatribe2525 no
@@xhosatribe2525 I am an Afghan you idiot and North Africans arent black (minority might be are but majority are not). Morrocons, Algerians, Libyans, Tunisians are not black
@@xhosatribe2525 bruh what with the racist attitude?
So what would be the opposite term of sub-Saharan that critics of the term think we should be using? Since the Kalahari Desert is in Southern Africa, should we call the part of Africa north of it super-Kalahari Africa?
i can't speak on whether or not this term is offensive but it is true that words have connotations and people associate one meaning with another. north is considered "up" and "above" even though a south-up map is equally valid. if you show the average white person a south-up map we find it Wrong and even offensive because it puts europe on the bottom and those connotations are not good. if people who live in central and southern africa find the term demeaning it probably is.
I find a reverse map very Australian.
@@M.M.83-U it's also the traditional viewpoint in Aotearoa (new zealand)
Ego is mans most powerful narcotic an egotist wants to change things to suit his ego and suiting ones ego keeps one out of reality
Tell that to the colonialist who coined the term sub Saharan.
@@jeh5176 What was called before that ? You seem like a person that lives in a fake little dream world ego victims accomplish nothing by the way
They think the direction south is bad ?
In my experience sub-suharan africa is the "cool" africa.
I did an africa trip!
Oh nice! Sub Sahara africa??
oh, no. just morocco.
Ah, ok
I did an africa trip!
Oh nice! Sub Sahara africa??
Yeah! nigeria, cameroon and Zimbabwe!
Wow man! cool!
Even if some say they do not have a problem with that term, it's still problematic. "Sub-Saharan" Africa was an invention of 20th-century Western academia. The intent (geopolitical subterfuge) behind "Sub-Saharan" is to separate "North Africa" from the populations South of the Sahara, implying that such people were isolated and NEVER inhabited or had contact with North Africa, except through the agency of "slavery." It also means that some mythical "white race" permanently settled North Africa, including ancient Kemet, feeding directly into the "Hamtic Hypothesis." If you want a paradigm shift, you can't pour "new wine into an old wineskin."
Been busy lately time to relax and learn 👌
Lacan showed - among others - that every word is in its essence - its structure - is partially inappropriate… and that it’s somehow better like that, otherwise there wouldn’t be nothing left to desire. So, everybody has something to say about any word’s failure to represent reality, cause reality is that any man has to be recognized in its uniqueness, and not reified as member of a group supposedly identical.
"On the map it is below" sir who told you north was on top?
Another similar example: India is frequently referred to as a, or, the "subcontinent." It's a very rough categorization, but it's quite reasonable since it is a giant landmass that juts out below the Asian landmass. It also has distinct cultures, history and ethnic groups. Like the Sahara, the Himalayas are a major geographical feature, dramatically effecting interchange between North and South throughout history. Although, like everything, the categories blur when you look closely at the boundaries. Nothing inherently negative about the term subcontinent.
Btw what do you think of Gaddafi? Can you make a video on him?
In my opinion he is just a 20th century style ruler who had some good reforms and ideas but also had done some bad things as well, so neither good or bad like most other politicians or leaders.
Benevolent dictator is still a dick tator
i think its a decent enough name to call a group of regions that otherwise have not much in common with each other than that they are in Africa, mainly populated by black africans while also not being in the Sahara.
my point is what else do you call this region? the greener africa? south but larger portion of Africa? the africa that has more black people in it? its not important anyway. the racist connotation is not a product of the name, rather the view on what 'sub-saharan' africans are.
There are many black people in the Sahara. The northern part of Sudan is part of the Sahara. Niger and Mali are part of the Sahara. Learn the history of the naming before you dismiss it.
@@jeh5176 yes and there are black people living in the united states. totally irrelevant to my point. If youre too thick skulled to understand why, i never claimed black people to be non existent out of subsaharan africa. Learn to read before accusing someone of ignorance and racism.
No because they are two completely different people: one is black African, the other is Mediterranean
To me just feels like because Sahara is huge and was a very hard place to move acroos for centuries we do see in history some differences in how ethnicity, culture and history evolved between the two regions. But this doesn't mean people are making either culture and history superior to another. I'm from southern europe and we clearly see huge differences in ethnicity, lenguages, culture and even values with nother european countries. We have a lot of influences from middle east and northern africa in our culture that northern europe has not. So there's a clearly destinguish between mediterranean europe and northern europe.
I guess if you want people could say "equatorial Africa" or "Tropical Africa" and it may have less subbness
I have no problem with the term mostly however I try to quit using it. I find that people who do usually are trying to imply blacks had nothing to do whatsoever with anything that happened in the North, particularly Egypt but other nations as well and that the Sahara was a nice even dividing line between black people and the more Arabic looking people which is ignorant and illogical.
Honestly man I can stand the fucking word, I'll be honest with you cause I know the entire intention of the word had nothing to do with geographic bs.
genetics has proven the genetic continuity of north africans as most of them still carry the same haplogroups iberomaurusians did 15,100 years ago, ie not mixed or arab.
africa is not a race lol. you think every nation in africa is the same race? that is insane. and of all nations in africa egypt has been the most densely populated and for the longest, since the 7th millennium BC when they adopted agriculture from the levant.
UV-B radiation is highest at the equator btw far south of the maghreb, egypt and the levant to be black.
I frequently say Sub-Saharan and have no problem with it.
Yup me too.
I give the term Sub Saharan a thumbs down, I don't think its an insult but it is reductive and simplistic. North Africa isn't called Mediterranean Africa and Saharan Africa. Yet the Sahel, Sudan, The western forest zones the eastern Swahili Coast, the great Lakes, are all crammed into one off hand classification. The term is bourn from the racialized mindset of Western ideology. In your video you use Asia in comparison with West Asia / the Middle east. So you would lump Manchurians with Papua New Guinean/ Melanesians? What About Korean's and Thai's? There are Indians with epicanthic eye folds and straight black hair that are common looks in parts of India, you can guess where I am going.
If "From Nothing" is to be a educational channel can you continue with the "Outsiders Eye"? as a question how are you going to break down Nigeria? The semi-Nomadic Fulanai, the Hausa City states, to the various Igbo confederacies, to Yoruba Land which is so damned varied it is called Yoruba land, What about the "Minor" cultures. What happens if a patron asks to break down the Igbo nationalism, or if you are asked if Pre Colonial Igbo and Hausa had any animosity toward each other or if the current animosity is a modern creation?
There isn't any such thing as Sub-Saharan.
My theory is that this distinction comes from Antiquity. Northern Africa was an integral part of the Mediterranean world, and for all intents and purposes, isolated from Sub-Saharan Africa. The powers of the classical and medieval world did not interact much with any part of Africa other than the North, along the Med. coast.
Your theory is flawed. North Africa traded with southern Africa, i.e. the "Trans-Saharan trade network. There was no isolation. People from Senegal were in the Moroccan army when it invaded southern Europe in the 700's. Have you not seen all the black faces in Greek and Roman art? Libya has always had black African citizens. The Sahara cave paintings show black people living there during the "Green Sahara" period around 10,000 b. c. They have been there as long as people have lived there.
@@jeh5176 They were not isolated. There's allways had been black people accross the area too. Yet the amazigh people were part of Empire, in Numidia and Africa provinces when the sub part were not. So it wasn't that dumb of a coment. Sub as a géographical indication period.
@@jeh5176 genetics has proven the genetic continuity of north africans as most of them still carry the same haplogroups iberomaurusians did 15,100 years ago, ie not mixed or arab.
africa is not a race lol. you think every nation in africa is the same race? that is insane. and of all nations in africa egypt has been the most densely populated and for the longest, since the 7th millennium BC when they adopted agriculture from the levant.
UV-B radiation is highest at the equator btw far south of the maghreb, egypt and the levant to be black.
Sub saharan Africa is just a polite term to say "Black Africa", else countries like Mali and Sudan wouldn't be included in some definitions of sub Saharan Africa as most of their land mass is in the Sahara
Subsahara is Geographically Correct.
No it is wrong there's no such thing and no there is no such thing as a white berber either
@@worthlesswhiteculturevultu6005 yes there is white berbers have been there always.
@@worthlesswhiteculturevultu6005 nope it's not wrong and you always had light skinned/white berbers in north africa Guanche are a clear evidence and were untouched by anybody for 6000 years before the spanish came into the islands.
@@thatangrywickedtardigrade.39 That is not being white, is being light-skinned which is completely different.
@@rolandorodriguez4504 yeah but we white to describe light skinned people and black to describe dark skinned peoples.
Hey man great video, I understand your point about people taking it the wrong way and racial paranoia, it's just that the city of Timbuktu is in the Sahara desert, also Sudan is basically to through the Sahara, there are more pyramids in Sudan that are in Egypt, another reason it's a silly word is because the vast majority of Africa is south of the Sahara, you could easily just say Africa and North Africa, to me the word "sub-saharan" is just silly
Timbuktu and Khartoum are both SOUTH of the Sahara geographically. i.e.. sub-Saharan.
4:20 i think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of religion imposed by modern secular/atheist thinking.
Should We Stop Using the Term " Toilet Paper?"
the woke people from the comment section would say yes absolutely.
Yes
NO!.
YOU SHOULD NEVER ACCEPT TERMS GIVEN BY VISITORS AND FOREIGNERS..
so we should start calliing the Chinese "zhongguo ren"?
and start calling Germany Deutschland?
If Africa wants to unite with a continent wide poll into the proper naming convention ill accept the change :)
@@therationalcollection2999 lol did they do a poll to name it as it is presently?
@@MrAaaaazzzzz00009999
Those are all self named not imposed from without.
DID ANY WEST EAST CENTRAL AND SOUTH AFRICAN KINGDOM/CIVILIZATION/EMPIRE HAD A WRITING SYSTEM OF ANY KIND? THE ANSWER IS APART FROM GE"EZ AND NSIBIDI THERE WAS NO TYPE OF INDIGENOUS WRITING SYSTEM WHATSOEVER, IN MOST OF THOSE REGIONS OF AFRICA PEOPLE EITHER USED THE ARABIC SCRIPT LIKE MALI EMPIRE FOR EXAMPLE OR TRANSMITED THE INFORMATION ORALLY PERIOD SO PEOPLE IN AFRICA TECHNICALLY SHOULD BE CALLED BY THEIR ETHNIC GROUP IN THEIR LANGUAGE!
FROM A GEOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVE SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA WHICH IS A TERM FOR ALL COUNTRIES THAT EXIST BELOW THE SAHARA ABSOLUTELY MAKES SENSE!
by your logic all countries should have the names people have in their native language and call the peoples by their name in their language,
yes
There's no such thing as sub Saharan Africa.
So what do you call that part of the world?
we got a rare genius over here, folks.
Yeah it’s not real. It never existed
Commenting for the algorithm!
Let's call it upper Afrika
That would be very hypocritical.
Sub sahara doesn't involve a négative meaning. Since below is sous
Hi Staff - I am Jacquie Taliaferro Dir. LaHiTz*TV-Media. Our staff enjoys your programming. We doing many types of media,however for this exchange I will write about the African Diaspora. LaHiTz has showcased our films and other filmmakers works at festivals around the world. At these events we always have panels and "sub"jects like this one comes up. We have found that from country to country the racism there must be addresses in a way that fits the area. Sometime it is as simple as a Word; to say it or not say it,please Respect their requests. Some video footage of today's Big City Africa
is always good. Like the US - "Native's" most media is of them living in Tepees and Africans in Huts. Keep up the Great Work. Jac T LaHiTz
What's funny is people don't call people from any other regions sub- whatever. Like we don't refer to armenians or turkish people sub-caucasian asians ? Or refer to people or the region from nepal, new delhi india as sub-himilayan.
We refer to India as a "Sub-Continent" and we refer to people from India as "South Asians." I'm sure we'd do the same for Africa if there wasn't literally a country called "South Africa"
@@FromNothing India is a called subcontinent because their Caucasians with dark brown skin. And according to 16th century European anthropologists
“dark brown skin is an indicator one has been in the sun too long there for they must’ve have been a slave and of low intelligence therefore are cursed race of people that we must refer as the black race.” Indians hate themselves because of there dark skin. That fact countries like chad and Mali who’s country borders extended well into the Sahara but are still listed as “Sub (Human) Sahara” is a dead giveaway that Sub (Human) Sahara is a devious way Europeans have successfully separated North African History from there perceived ideological Sub human African history.
@@lifeinlife24 You are delusional. Why do you think the entire world's geography is judged by skin color. Why would that matter? India is not "dark Caucasians" there are many different Indians of many different types. There are dark skinned ones, light sinned ones and even some that have almond eyes like Asians. It is a very big country with immense ethnic, genetic, and linguistic diversity.
@@FromNothing Please do not insult me I did not insult you. Race was founded upon Skin Tones and Skulls. Pseudoscience stuff. Colorism is a thing in the world so please do not pretend you do not know this already. But I ask you why are countries like Mali Chad and Niger considered ''Sub Saharan'' when their countries boarders extend well into to the Sahara. Why aren't certain countries around the horn of Africa not considered sub-Saharan when they are clearly below the Sahara. And Indian people are listed as Caucasian. An overwhelming number of Southern Indians are of a Dark Complexion. They are the only Caucasian group of people that have dark brown skin like the'' Sub- Saharan Africans and Oceanic islands /Australia. and the Copper colored races of the Americas.
@@lifeinlife24 I didn't insult you, I said you're delusional. I suggest you look up the definition. I never said that racism or colorism didn't exist. In fact, I openly acknowledge the fact in many of my videos. To answer your questions countries in the horn of Africa ARE considered sub-Saharan. I don't know where you've heard Otherwise. Countries like Mali and Chad are considered Sub-Saharan because the majority of their populations live within the Sub-Saharan regions. And the reason why black people tend to be considered "Sub-Saharan" is because that's where that phenotype is the most prevalent. It has nothing to do with inferiority, it's just the way it is. If racist really wanted to target black people they'd have called it something like "lesser Africa" or "Savage Africa" or something. And the reason India is a "subcontinent' is because it literally is. In recent geological history it was it's own continent before colliding with Eurasia and forming the Himalaya mountains. This is why I said you are delusional. I think your energy should be focused on real racism, not the word "Sub-Saharan" Sub literally means "below" as I so eloquently stated in the video.
Yes yes and then yes, pls use *Tropical West or EastAfrica* because like or not!..that’s the way most folks think about it at least on a subconscious level, the term also tend to racilized both regions and is always shifting both literally and figuratively,
Think about the Term Afrocentric, harmless by itself, but used to ridicule African centered scholars especially if their ideas are solid, novel or indeed ridiculous.
Then there is tropical North Africa , a region that is connected to both and bridge the gap to littoral North Africa where most folks think that’s what North Africa supposed to look like.
And the term popped up in 1956 , I bet some of your viewers are older than that.
I don't think so. To most people, "tropical" implies humidity, but much of "sub-Saharan Africa" (including much of West Africa) is more savannah or dry season forest (with dry seasons). Also, much of South Africa is actually temperate to Meditteranean-like and not tropical at all.
@@skellagyook
Ok here is why this mostly works , pull up a map and look at the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn.
And yes S.A doesn’t quite fit as it is temperate.
My view fits almost neatly with Tropical North Africa and Tropical West & East Africa, and it does not come with any preconceived notions of who lived where in the past or present.
@@mrnancy1114 There's the other point about humidity; most of what we call sub-Saharan Africa is not humid year-round (look at a climate zone map of Africa, lots of savannah, sahel, and wooded savannah/dry season forest/savannah-forest transition areas). And I don't see any problem with the term "sub-Saharan" for reasons similar to those explained in the video. It's positional/geographic, and no more problematic than "sub-equatorial" (for regions below the equator) or "sub-Arctic".
@@skellagyook
Then you are missing the negative connotations in popular discourse, in a perfect world it is as you say it is but we don’t live in that world, it is simply a divide and conquer tactic in this context.
Yeah but where do you draw the line?. People who look like you have lived in Mauritania, Southern Morocco, Tamanrasset, Timimoun, The tubu country, Northern Chad, Upper Egypt, Eritrea,..even Yemen for Millennia! Are they sub-saharan?
Exactly fam. He has great potential but he toes the line too much. African history should be "Afrocentric". Europeans have no reservations in calling their views on their own history eurocentric its literally Europe lmao. He should have the same attitude.
That’s why I started using the terms *Tropical North Africa* to cover folks mentioned by Ghosta Gee , *Tropical West Africa* further south till you reached the shores of the Atlantic beyond the forest zone, one can add *Tropical East Africa* for the same reasons,.
Coastal North Africa or littoral North Africa where the Mediterranean touches.
@@mrnancy1114 yes. I love this.
Refer to Africa with West, East, North, Central, South...
Not sub-Saharan
Both Chad and Eritrea are part of Sub-Sahara Africa, also, just because there are black people in North Africa doesn't mean that all of the North African countries are black, there are also black people in the UK, France and the Netherlands, that doesn't mean that those countries are black countries.
@@AskiatheGreat64 I'm Eritrean and we are part of Sub-Suharan Africa.
The term Sub Saharan Africa was used by colonial era racist to separate "black" from white. Same as Bantu. That's why the African Union doesn't use that term, it's has negative connotations . It's only used by outside institutions and media houses , you'll never hear African countries use that term. Southern Africa is the most peaceful and stable region in Africa. What civil wars are you referring to? It's always these Islamic or Arab countries that are always fighting in the North of Africa or Horn of Africa like Sudan, Mali, Libya, etc
It’s a modern term. Not a colonial one. And while black and white are arbitrary, subsaharan is not
The term appeared in the 50s-60s so yes a colonial term @johnmonteiro5825
@@Speedofdark339 50s and 60s is a post colonial period by definition.
@johnmonteiro5825 many countries by then were just getting their independence
Sub-Saharan is used as a human geographic term and most people understand that as meaning Black. The problem is that there are black ethnic groups that are native to the Sahara and countries like Mali, Niger, Mauritania, Chad and Sudan that are considered sub-Saharan are also partially covered by the Sahara. Most Arabs don't even live in the Saharan part of Africa, they mostly live on the Mediterranean coast or the lower Nile valley.
genetics has proven the genetic continuity of north africans as most of them still carry the same haplogroups iberomaurusians did 15,100 years ago, ie not mixed or arab.
africa is not a race lol. you think every nation in africa is the same race? that is insane. and of all nations in africa egypt has been the most densely populated and for the longest, since the 7th millennium BC when they adopted agriculture from the levant.
UV-B radiation is highest at the equator btw far south of the maghreb, egypt and the levant to be black.
I use it based on region, not development. Supra-Saharan Africa differs greatly culturally from Sub-Saharan Africa due to the vast natural barrier between the two regions. It is not a matter of "one is more civilized than the other" but "both regions are very different due to geographical reasons"
We should stop saying it bruh. The negatives points outweigh the positives.
Yes. Europeans aren't sub-artic. South Saharan would be better.
It isn’t about race
@@draco_1876
Really so why is Sudan not considered apart of Sub Saharan Africa?
@@kangkang5185 It is apart of it
South Saharan would imho imply being located in Southern Sahara Desert itself, instead of South from Sahara.
Sub artic Scandinavia is a term used.
Besides thst is the idea europe might be a mesopotamian word meaning sunset lands.
Exonims are very commen
Outside geography I don't see how it makes sense. It has a racist undertone and aims to limit a certain group of people to an area that they are not actually limited to in reality.
Also as an African how the hell would I express the concept of "sub saharan African" in our local languages.
Concepts about Africa should reflect what can be expressed by the native people not by Europeans
So yes, I'm against the term
there is no reason for that as the vast majority people of from west central and south africa never explored a single kingdom/empire outside of their region of africa on their own, whenever a person from sub-saharan africa came into other parts of their own outside of their kingdom/civilization/empire they were mainly mercenaries, slaves, merchants, and ambassadors like those form kingdom of Kongo, besides an african term for sub saharan africa is Áfríkà Ìsàlẹ̀-Sàhárà which is the Yoruba name of Sub-Saharan africa and has the same meaning as in other languages.
so the term is not racist by any means and in terms of Geography, and absolutely any word in all existence across all languages known to exist on earth can be given racist undertones and conotations if one wants to do that.
@@thatangrywickedtardigrade.39 The vast majority of any people don't explore anywhere on their own. Everyone isn't an explorer, merchant or ambassador
You cannot make "sub saharan Africa" out of "Áfríkà Ìsàlẹ̀-Sahara"
Ìsàlẹ̀ does not denote South but "lower"
South and Lower are not the same thing
And Ìsàlẹ̀ of a place is still part of the whole. So Ìsàlẹ̀ Èkó is still part of Èkó.. Just as Òkè refers to higher elevations eg. Oṣòdì Òkè (Oshodi Oke) If you are familiar with Lagos
So whoever translated Ìsàlẹ̀ Sahara for you didn't think through the Yoruba properly but just sought to translate directly from English which is not how to treat languages
You don't see people using the term "subalpine" as a racial term or term to separate the people of Europe.
You should think about words from an African perspective and stop trying to translate English concepts word for word and say "viola! Here there's an African word for it so the concept is African too"
I specifically said in geography... Strictly geography as an earth science, the term is fine but to apply it to the cultures and people of Africa is ridiculous because the sahara is not a wall that separates the humans living on the continent.. Infact people live in the sahara
So what's the point to "sub saharan AFRICAN"
Do we get sub Himalayan Asian too
Don't act as if the motivation behind non black people using "sub-Saharan Africans" is not to imply less developed, no history, poverty and hunger
Dont people alwaysmake there own lingo in there own language. Sub saharan doesnt work in my language.
Middeland southern africa as term in geograpy class
It makes more sense to break Africans down to West, East, Central, North and South(ern) Africans than "North African and Sub Saharan African"
@@mch7933 no.... just because a kid is not gonne learn that. For there this is the world segment in geograpy. Thats like a lot
Then why Ethiopia and sudan both not considered Sub-Saharan Africa, when theyre clearly below the Sahara ?
Where and when have to heard that they aren't Sub-Saharan?
@@FromNothing
EVERYWHERE...LOL
Well we obviously live on different planets because none of my sources ever label Ethiopia as North Africa. Can you name even one that does?
@@gtitboij2586Theirs 54 countries on the continent of Africa, only 9 are considered saharan States, Look it up all are in North Africa... why
@@FromNothing According to the African Union and World's Bank, both Ethiopia and Sudan are considered Sub-Saharan African countries, this guy is talking gibberish.
You cannot base a statement that “Majority” whatever that means, of North Africans have distinct features from sub Saharan Africans cuz that’s just simply and rationally not true, and we both know that that’s just the minority, most North Africans are arguably indeed more related to so called “Sub-Saharan African” phenotypically and many are mixed and mulatto/ blasian/ phenotypically multi-ethnically passing with prominent traces proving their so called “sub Saharan” blood lineage. If you go to Egypt or Morocco you’ll see what I mean, most people there look like Dominicans or mulattos
genetics has proven the genetic continuity of north africans as most of them still carry the same haplogroups iberomaurusians did 15,100 years ago, ie not mixed or arab.
haplogroup, seriously? that doesn't even mean anything, just because some guy from Tanzania accidentally carry a haplogroup from somewhere in Thailand doesn't make him that, haplogroups re very random and unpredictable btw, it doesn't mean anything, If you want to find out the truth genetic origin and makeup of somebody or a people you must do maternal searching and fossil remains dna tests, which all prove that North Africans were a mixture of Nilotic-saharan, Central Africans and Cushitic africans. @@zombieat
why not south Saharan, me no like sub Saharan🤷🏾♀️🤷🏾♀️
South Saharan sounds like describing the southern part of the Sahara Desert. Like South Africa for example.
Yes, we should stop using sub saharan Africa
I find situating black Africans to the Subsaharan region VERY suspicious. 😒
Then blame nature because that's how it actually is...
"Sub-Saharan" is a colonialist term created out of a racist mindset. Europeans saw Europe as sitting on top, and Africa below them. They also ignored the black presence in northern Africa. Sudan is not below the Sahara, neither is Chad and Niger. Mali is right in the middle of the Sahara, not below it. So how are all black Africans "Sub-Saharan"? The term makes no sense. If history were written by someone other than Europeans, then Europe would be shown at the bottom of the map. And southern Africa would be above the Sahara. They don't call Indians "Sub-Gobi's.
The issue with Sub Saharan is that it is anachronistic. People live in the Sahara now. The Sahara waxes and waynes, and some counties to this day are in the same area but classified differently because of skin tone. The word started in the late 60s for economic reasons. It ignores the watetwaus that Africans have used forever for travel, trade, and lifestyle. Finally it use foreign populations understanding of African culture and history.
I think the Kemite term "Nehesu" should be used. Africa is European term, and so is Ethiopia. What we call SSA was not considered Africa at all by the ancients.
While i agree that ethiopia was named by euros, the term "africa," being a european term is just a theory, and not the most likely one either. The kemite and berber theories are more plausible.
Tying phenotypes to geography is a mistake. Morocco has light skinned people today but the ancient Moors were of the subsaharan phenotype, there are thousands of paintings to validate this as well as statues from the era when Moors ruled Spain and Portugal. The same is with Egypt having a light skinned population today but was of the subsaharan phenotype before. The so-called Middle East was also occupied by dark skinned Africans in ancient times, the Canaanites were described as being as dark as the Sudanese people and if you look at ancient maps of Africa, what we now call the Middle East was always part of the African map, be my guest and google those maps, cartographers never separated that land mass from the maps titled “Africa”.
noo they weren't. It's scientifically proven "meds" have been in north africa for at least 12 000 years
genetics has proven the genetic continuity of north africans as most of them still carry the same haplogroups iberomaurusians did 15,100 years ago, ie not mixed or arab.
africa is not a race lol. you think every nation in africa is the same race? that is insane. and of all nations in africa egypt has been the most densely populated and for the longest, since the 7th millennium BC when they adopted agriculture from the levant.
UV-B radiation is highest at the equator btw far south of the maghreb, egypt and the levant to be black.
No because then you’d have to stop differentiating east and west Asia. East and west Europe. There are differences. Especially between north and South African and east and west Asians. Different cultures, different beliefs and most importantly different DNA.
Trans Saharan could work as a replacement should you find the word "sub" to be problematic
Thou it does mean beyoned the sahara and so might be worse
nope it dosen't work on geographic names it workse when you say trans saharan slavery or trans saharan trade meaning that using trans saharan can only be used in context of trade and travel but not to name a region or place.
I think yes. We own the Africa.
Sub mean behind the desert ! when Arab come to spread islam they didn't know that there was a fertile lands behind the desert, so they stopped behind the desert !
It was most certainly used as a negative term by educators when describing new found lands and civilizations as a means to say darker skinned Africans were not responsible for making their own buildings, art works, pottery, and other structures. Often discovers would find artifacts and try to say by no means were they created by Sub Saharan Africans 😒. I mean like really just call the place by its name. What they did in Senegal is not the same as what was done Zimbabwe and so on and so on. What benefit is there to describing 2/3 of the Continent by one term 🤔?
You mean like America and Sub-America? It’s a problematic term.
No, because those are 2 separate continents. North and South. Sub-Sahara denotes a region, not a continent.
Um , ya , the idea of " Sub " when you think of all the other negatives that is heaped upon Africa , just appears to be another . I would much prefer a term like " Continental African ".... doesn't that just sound better? You bet it does.
The other problem with it, is it's usage as just a euphemism for "black African" . & there its just really incorrect as well.
It's just maddening. Ancient Egypt started from " African " orgins.......but not " Sub Saharan " they'll say! Which is stupid .....as what are you really saying? A phenotype? Because if that's it, probably a majority of the most powerful Pharoahs would qualify .
Unfortunately, with many " White" Europeans, a very bizarre thing occurs when discussing the Ancient Nile Valley. They will look at an image of a southern Nubian ( S.Sudanese) , & if the image is right next to an ancient Egyptian, who is portrayed, on average, as a couple shades lighter.....all the sudden they turn into 2 separate " races " , when in reality, the southern Nubian is a minority in Africa. There are many more Africans that aren't that dark & full featured, than those that are. No doubt, say around the 18th dynasty, the average Egyptian would be closer to the Africans & African Americans we see everyday, than the southern Nubians would be.
& finally, it's used as a way to create even more of an artificial barrier on the continent. We need to demonstrate all the cultural ideas & traits that are similar than to continually act like " Sub Saharans " are some kind of different " race " of people that have nothing to do with north & even north east Africa . It is bogus & has very little to do with antiquity, as we know now people migrated all over Africa. So , that's why I think it's a really bad term , not just with the way it sounds ( when black Africans make up 80% of the population in Africa) but in the way people functionally use it. They use it instead of saying " black ". Which causes all kind of issues. I'm not quite sure why you haven't got the memo yet, but look into it. A much better term could be had. 2 things arose during the time the term started being used in the late 1970's. AID's was ravishing the more impoverished areas of Africa & the rise of Afrocentrism in the modern discourse. So it absolutely was a term brought about to keep " these Africans " ftom " those " .
Maybe stop using the term Africa. Period.
👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
Very problematic video... it ignores historical things that lead up to this term (which shows whats being implied using the alien term "Sub-Saharan").. chronology... and you used false equivalencies (i.e. - the California to Mexico part)
Most definitely. West African historians (griots) say that they originally came from NORTH Africa and elsewhere (some as far as India in the case of the Lebou of Senegal) so why would anyone separate Africans of today by geographic location? Many modern day so called “Sub Saharan Africans” lived in the Nile Valley region for over 1000 years and were only pushed down as a result of war. There is a tribe in Cameroon who only arrived in that region around 900 years ago. North Africa isn’t some separate continent (though many like to treat it as it is).
Many African tribes are recent arrivals In their lands.
@@beezelsub Yep! There is an ethnic group - I think it may be the Tikar - who just arrived in Cameroon only 900 years ago. Prior to that, they inhabited the Nile valley. The Bantu theory is completely inaccurate.
@@ilovelife3328 according to the Bantu theory most Bantu groups are relatively recent inhabitants, and like not even the first human inhabitants. I'd be willing to bet that prior to 1000 years ago, especially 2000 years ago, much of Africa outside of North Africa and Nile regions were sparsely inhabited.
@@ilovelife3328 It's mainly "Westerners" who try pushing the narrative that people were all throughout Africa for tens of thousands of years. Most of the oral history from the tribes themselves have them as recent arrivals.
@@ilovelife3328 nope Bantu come from the border between Nigeria and Cameroon and their oral history and traditions suggest that they are relatively recent arrivals 3000-4000 years ago Africa central and south was very sparsely populated and all the population there was hunter-gatherers before before the arrival of bantu who conquered interbred with and killed the natives in wars.
That's not why it's call "upper"
They're referring to the way the Nile goes. C'mon man stop spreading false information. It's not too hard to make the connection of them correcting that term Sub-Saharan in order to separate Northern Africa from the rest of the continent. Just like the middle east. Do your research, don't just accept the mainstream of what most people say. It's literally when talking about the race of people.
What are you talking about man? I literally said the Egyptians called it the upper because it's the source of the Nile. The river flows from the source does it not? How is that false information?
You're very condescending towards black people. Many Afrocentrics prefer to use the term inner African because sub Saharan, the label to describe Black Africa could easily be seen as negative. You don't need to lecture them.
He isn't condescending I think you extrapolate way too much because you are easily offended
Sub-saharan means below the sahara desert.
At best it's a European-centrist term... but not in any shape or form offensive.
@@coolbule1238 How many posts of mine have you read to deduce that I'm easily offended? Anyway he is very condescending and doesn't even consider arguments from Afrocentrics. I myself came to this conclusion by observation. Watching his videos. For people like him, his team and his viewers the very word Afrocentric brings up images of loony black academics preaching psuedo history and making wild claims.
@@JoeMartinez18 You shouldn't try to convince a thinking person what not to be offended by
The term “black African” is offensive in itself as if the majority of indigenous Africans aren’t melinated people in the first place. The brown skin color of most Africans in general is seen in the majority of the indigenous population so why is it pointed out as if it isn’t normal to Africa?
Names have power. The word sub is not used for any other geographical location. For example there is no sub Alps. Baja California means lower California and is not based on a natural border like Africa has with the Sahara. It is understandable how this term is used in a negative connotation. Nobody says Saharan Africa or Supra Saharan Africa when referencing North Africa. However Sub Saharan Africa is used consistently especially in correlation to maps that depict Africa smaller then it Actually is, Which has been intentionally done on maps.. The fact that Sudan is a part of this " sub saharan" area but actually considered a part of North Africa clearly shows the term literally has nothing at all to do with its location. But I think we should still use the term in the same way we use the word Black to describe dark people. It has negative connotations but it is what it is.
Subartic is a geograpic term refering to a climate zone
@@timvanrijn8239
So you are talking about climate zone? The weather? That tells me how bad it is that you literally can not find any other locality described as sub....like sub Saharan Africa. There is no sub Alps..
@@EPUEPUEPUEPU there is the indian sub-continent, also you can't compare mountain ranges to massive regions like Sahara, so a sub-alps would be a dirt poor example to use for a geographic term.
@@EPUEPUEPUEPU i mean there are things discribed as such. But it indeed isnt very common. Sub danubian and sub caucasian mountian region.
Most of the time such terms use trans instead. Like transsylvania, trans balkai, etc.
@@thatangrywickedtardigrade.39
Right good one ( sarcasim) nobody uses the terms you use.
One of the main objectable inferences from the use of the term "sub Saharan Africans" (sometimes fleshed out by additional comments) is the idea that the Sahara desert from the beginning of time was a permanent and impenetrable barrier that prevented stereotypical "black" sub Saharan Africans from ever having a presence in "North Africa" until they were brought there by the Arab slave trade, and thus they played no part in "North African" civilizations like Egypt.
Despite the fact that the Sahara is a recent desert, coming into existence AFTER the area was populated by people from the lower, east and western parts of the continent, and even during and after desertification was continually traversed and even inhabited by "sub Saharan Africans".
genetics has proven the genetic continuity of north africans as most of them still carry the same haplogroups iberomaurusians did 15,100 years ago, ie not mixed or arab.
the sahara desert is 3.7 million years old and even during the Last Glacial Maximum (its smallest extent as a desert) it was still mostly arid deserts.
The Sahara region was covered in vegetation, rivers and lakes several thousand years ago
bro! I'm from Transylvania, the land beyond the forest, that doesnt make me transgender😂 also the people from the highlands are not high on drugs😂 sub is Latin for under, bellow. also in Romanian. north is up because we used stars and compasses for guidance. period. as you said, there are enough problems already, we don't need to create new ones. those people just don't know how present is Latin and Greek in our modern lives
Don’t they also call India (a country of nonwhite people) a “subcontinent” for some reason? Also, Europeans countries south of the Arctic Circle don’t get called “Sub-Arctic” for their differences from Scandinavia. ‘Sub’ is an antonym for ‘regular’ and I think this is deliberate in the context of India and the non-desert, green Africa because these are terms coined by anglophone white supremacists that did the colonizing (enslaving) of both locales.
India is called a subcontinent because it used to be its own landmass but collided with Eurasia (forming the Himalayas) millions of years ago. As for the racial stuff. India has a long established and persistent caste system so not sure what that has to do with Europeans
Sub arctic is actually region a it's just that no country is fully in it