Are you referring to "Sub Saharan"? And if yes, how is that racist?
The term "Sub-Sahara" Africa
I absolutely loathe that racist nomenclature.
1 - 20 of 91 Posts
I dont get it. who is being called racist ? is it cptjosh for subsharan comment or IMF ?
It is racist because it divides Africa into the those with a large degree of Arab decent and those with small or no Arab decent. It is a term originally used by the West to divide Africa which the African grabbed onto. Behind this term is the belief that the North African are so vastly different from the rest of Africa they can not be considered part of the continent.Are you referring to "Sub Saharan"? And if yes, how is that racist?
The fallacy in the whole process became clearer as South Africa became free. Now it can clearly be seen as a racial line.
The Irony is most Egyptian have more African ancestry than Arab according to DNA tests.
As the North African countries start being overtaken by the rest of Africa it will become increasingly obvious.
As a side note I don't see anyone saying that Singapore is not in South East Asia, even though the economy and state are highly developed.
I don't see anything offensive in the term sub-Saharan,,,,, Please don't go to DNA to prove any thing all humans have more similarity in their DNA than differences,,, geo- politics and culture have nothing to do with DNA compositions,,,,, the difference between the sub Saharan Africa and the north of Africa is not just geographical but it is also cultural and geo- political ,,, north Africa sees itself culturally in the Arab and Mediterranean worlds and geo-politically in the Arab League,,,, a wise man once said 'a man cant serve two masters, he will honor one and offends another' ,,, in the same way nations cant be part of two geo-political entities with equal devotion to both of them ,,African union is one geo- political entity and the Arab league is another geo- political entity, countries who are members of both clubs cant be expected to be devoted to both clubs equally ,, just because there is one single land mass called Africa it doesn't mean that it should also have one single cultural and political identity ,, in reality Europe and Asia are in one single land mass known as Eurasia but culturally and politically they are planets apart ,, so it is the same with Black Africa and Arab Africa.It is racist because it divides Africa into the those with a large degree of Arab decent and those with small or no Arab decent. It is a term originally used by the West to divide Africa which the African grabbed onto. Behind this term is the belief that the North African are so vastly different from the rest of Africa they can not be considered part of the continent.
The fallacy in the whole process became clearer as South Africa became free. Now it can clearly be seen as a racial line.
The Irony is most Egyptian have more African ancestry than Arab according to DNA tests.
As the North African countries start being overtaken by the rest of Africa it will become increasingly obvious.
As a side note I don't see anyone saying that Singapore is not in South East Asia, even though the economy and state are highly developed.
I hate that term too. That whole "sub saharan" conjures up "sub human" Africa. I never liked that term especially since we all know the Sahara was not always a desert.Not only the PPP point, but "subsaharan Africa"?
There should only be African or North africa. The whole sub saharan thing is not to many peoples liking. We are not "sub" anything.Are you referring to "Sub Saharan"? And if yes, how is that racist?
Your usually make valid arguments but really went off the rails with this one. (I'll ignore the false dichotomy bit of the lower half as that is just plainly silly and you know it)I don't see anything offensive in the term sub-Saharan,,,,, Please don't go to DNA to prove any thing all humans have more similarity in their DNA than differences,,, geo- politics and culture have nothing to do with DNA compositions,,,,, the difference between the sub Saharan Africa and the north of Africa is not just geographical but it is also cultural and geo- political ,,, north Africa sees itself culturally in the Arab and Mediterranean worlds and geo-politically in the Arab League,,,, a wise man once said 'a man cant serve two masters, he will honor one and offends another' ,,, in the same way nations cant be part of two geo-political entities with equal devotion to both of them ,,African union is one geo- political entity and the Arab league is another geo- political entity, countries who are members of both clubs cant be expected to be devoted to both clubs equally ,, just because there is one single land mass called Africa it doesn't mean that it should also have one single cultural and political identity ,, in reality Europe and Asia are in one single land mass known as Eurasia but culturally and politically they are planets apart ,, so it is the same with Black Africa and Arab Africa.
I should preface this by saying that first of all, this is not a question of whether it is appropriate to have geographical boundaries or to distinguish one group from another. What is being questioned here is whether or not the basis by which the separation between Sub and Supra Sahara was justified is racist.
Now tell me, can you point to a single cultural, linguistic, economic, historical, or religious commonality that exists in the north, that is not equally present in countries considered "Sub Saharan"?
If it is not accurate Geographically:
Linguistically:
Religiously:
Culturally:
Climatically:
Historically:
Economically:
What the hell is it based on?
There is only ONE distinguishing characteristic which separates Supra-Saharan from Sub-Saharan. I'll let you take a guess what that may be.
7
^^I'm sorry if I went off the rails,, but I describe myself as a Pan Africanist and I support the cause for a strong united Africa ,,have nothing against north and south Africa uniting into one solid entity,, but it is not a realistic view to hold,,,guys this is not something you can explain with maps , geography DNA science ,,because I was not referring to physical divisions I was referring to ideological and cultural differences between the north and the sub Saharan Africa ,,,,,, any layman can tell that north Africa has so much in common with the middle east than it has with the rest of Africa,,,and All I said is north Africa belongs in the same cultural and geopolitical grouping with the Persian gulf and the middle east,,
^^But what you are claiming is categorically false. There is not a single thing you can point to that these nations share with the "Middle East" that they do not also share with many countries considered Sub-Saharan. I laid it out quite clearly above. If you disagree, please provide specifics.
The only distinguishing characteristic anyone can point to for justifying this is the notion that those in the north are "not black," which is itself more of an ostensible thing than anything substantive.
The only distinguishing characteristic anyone can point to for justifying this is the notion that those in the north are "not black," which is itself more of an ostensible thing than anything substantive.
Language, Music, Clothing... Egypt has always describe itself as African root but Arab identity.But I would like to know what the North Africans think about it themselves.
Have you been to any north African city? Have you interacted with Egyptians, Algerians, Tunisians, Moroccans? How can you say they have more in common with Africa than they do with the Middle East? I'm with FKebede on this one, they associate themselves with the Middle East, and with the Mediterranean world at large, not with Africa. That's the reality. No amount of chart and maps will change that.^^But what you are claiming is categorically false. There is not a single thing you can point to that these nations share with the "Middle East" that they do not also share with many countries considered Sub-Saharan. I laid it out quite clearly above. If you disagree, please provide specifics.
The only distinguishing characteristic anyone can point to for justifying this is the notion that those in the north are "not black," which is itself more of an ostensible thing than anything substantive.
Yes, I have. I even have Egyptian family members. Where did I say they have "more in common with Africa"? What does that even mean? Is all of "Sub-Saharan" Africa the same or in any way categorically discernible from North Africa? Have you ever interacted with Togolese, Namibians, Zambians, Congolese, or Mauritians? What do they have in common with you? Name me one custom you share with them and I'll tell you 10 you share with these so called Middle Eastern countries.Have you been to any north African city? Have you interacted with Egyptians, Algerians, Tunisians, Moroccans? How can you say they have more in common with Africa than they do with the Middle East? I'm with FKebede on this one, they associate themselves with the Middle East, and with the Mediterranean world at large, not with Africa. That's the reality. No amount of chart and maps will change that.
You guys aren't making any sense. lol
I was not talking about differences in physical features or skin color what I was referring to is their cultural differences. and where they consider themselves culturally ,, for instance it will be more strange and foreign for an Ethiopian to be in Cairo or Algiers than to be in Nairobi or Kampala,, and it is the same for a North African, it will be very strange and foreign for an Egyptian to be in Addis or Nairobi than to be in Damascus or Baghdad.^^But what you are claiming is categorically false. There is not a single thing you can point to that these nations share with the "Middle East" that they do not also share with many countries considered Sub-Saharan. I laid it out quite clearly above. If you disagree, please provide specifics.
The only distinguishing characteristic anyone can point to for justifying this is the notion that those in the north are "not black," which is itself more of an ostensible thing than anything substantive.
LOL what? Nairobi is next to Addis. What point are you trying to make? California has more Nevadans than it does North Carolinans. How is this even relevant? For your information, there are more Ethiopians in Cairo, Sana'a, and Beirut, than there are in Kampala - by far. But even if there weren't, how does this justify separating the few countries in North Africa on their own and then agglutinating the rest into one large unitary bloc?I was not talking about differences in physical features or skin color what I was referring to is their cultural differences. and where they consider themselves culturally ,, for instance it will be more strange and foreign for an Ethiopian to be in Cairo or Algiers than to be in Nairobi or Kampala,, and it is the same for a North African, it will be very strange and foreign for an Egyptian to be in Addis or Nairobi than to be in Damascus or Baghdad.
I don't know why you're even trying to make this argument. lol
The whole sub saharan thing should be scraped. It intention had less to do with racial identification and more with levels of development- but its too disparaging.
Hersh I think you are purposely overlooking my point or you are not understanding what I am trying to say ,,,,,it is not geographic proximity that makes cultural identity,, Australia is geographically much closer to south east Asia than it is to the Anglo Saxon world but culturally they belong to the Anglo Saxon world,,, And as for the comparison you made between Cairo and Kampala, for instance there are many Gojames or Gonderes who would rather immigrate to Cairo or Beirut than to Addis Ababa or Awassa but that is purely for economic reasons,,that doesn't prove that they have a greater sense of belonging in Cairo or Beirut than they would have in Addis or Awassa,,, so it is the same if there are more Ethiopians in Cairo than there are in Kampala it is just for economic reasons,, I assume that there are more Ethiopians who migrated to the western world than there are to other African countries but can you really use that as evidence to suggest Ethiopia is a western country ? so why is it wrong to claim that we as Ethiopians would feel less foreign in a sub Saharan country than in a North African country,, please understand me, I am not some Arab bashing ultra nationalist,,I am not trying to create a geopolitical differences that doesn't exist,,, weather we like it or not,this differences already exist, I am just stating the geopolitical reality we have today.LOL what? Nairobi is next to Addis. What point are you trying to make? California has more Nevadans than it does North Carolinans. How is this even relevant? For your information, there are more Ethiopians in Cairo, Sana'a, and Beirut, than there are in Kampala - by far. But even if there weren't, how does this justify separating the few countries in North Africa on their own and then agglutinating the rest into one large unitary bloc?
I don't know why you're even trying to make this argument. lol
No, I'm afraid you do not have a valid point to make. No offense.Hersh I think you are purposely overlooking my point or you are not understanding what I am trying to say
Lol You can't actually be serious. Where did these Australians with Anglo-saxon affinity come from? Polynesian caves?it is not geographic proximity that makes cultural identity,, Australia is geographically much closer to south east Asia than it is to the Anglo Saxon world but culturally they belong to the Anglo Saxon world
Dude, it is irrelevant what their reasons are. I am not here arguing that they are there because of cultural affinity (which by the way does exist). You are the one who was suggesting that their presence in these places would be weird, while it won't be in more proximate places like Kampala. Yet you provide no supporting cultural, ideological, historical, or geographical reason why someone from Khartum should feel more at home in Lusaka than in Cairo, other than them being "Black." Until you do, you're just grasping at straws.And as for the comparison you made between Cairo and Kampala, for instance there are many Gojames or Gonderes who would rather immigrate to Cairo or Beirut than to Addis Ababa or Awassa but that is purely for economic reasons,,that doesn't prove that they have a greater sense of belonging in Cairo or Beirut than they would have in Addis or Awassa
Ironically enough, other than proximity, Kampala has no cultural or historical ties with Addis. None whatsoever. So how about you stop being argumentative and answer my previous question. Name me one thing that Togolese, Namibians, Zambians, Congolese, or Mauritians have in common that makes them different from North Africans?so it is the same if there are more Ethiopians in Cairo than there are in Kampala it is just for economic reasons
You are begging the question. I'm not going to waste my time refuting a circular argument. Stop being silly.I assume that there are more Ethiopians who migrated to the western world than there are to other African countries but can you really use that as evidence to suggest Ethiopia is a western country ? so why is it wrong to claim that we as Ethiopians would feel less foreign in a sub Saharan country than in a North African country,, please understand me, I am not some Arab bashing ultra nationalist,,I am not trying to create a geopolitical differences that doesn't exist,,, weather we like it or not,this differences already exist, I am just stating the geopolitical reality we have today.
I said on my previous comment I am not referring to geographic proximity or physical features of the people,,,,,,I am talking about the sense of political solidarity that developed in the sub Saharan Africa and North Africa, separately through the last 50 or 60 years,,and by that I mean the pan- Africanism idea that is widely supported by many black Africans,, as opposed to the pan- Arabism idea that is widely supported by many north Africans. Hersh,, if you have some interest in international politics and if you know about the geopolitical blocks that exist in the world today,, you would understand what I am saying ,, I don't mean it in a bad way when I say that north Africa has a different political values than Black Africa,,,No, I'm afraid you do not have a valid point to make. No offense.
Lol You can't actually be serious. Where did these Australians with Anglo-saxon affinity come from? Polynesian caves?
Dude, it is irrelevant what their reasons are. I am not here arguing that they are there because of cultural affinity (which by the way does exist). You are the one who was suggesting that their presence in these places would be weird, while it won't be in more proximate places like Kampala. Yet you provide no supporting cultural, ideological, historical, or geographical reason why someone from Khartum should feel more at home in Lusaka than in Cairo, other than them being "Black." Until you do, you're just grasping at straws.
Ironically enough, other than proximity, Kampala has no cultural or historical ties with Addis. None whatsoever. So how about you stop being argumentative and answer my previous question. Name me one thing that Togolese, Namibians, Zambians, Congolese, or Mauritians have in common that makes them different from North Africans?
You are begging the question. I'm not going to waste my time refuting a circular argument. Stop being silly.
I suppose I can rest my case now. Thanks for trying. lolI said on my previous comment I am not referring to geographic proximity or physical features of the people,,,,,,I am talking about the sense of political solidarity that developed in the sub Saharan Africa and North Africa, separately through the last 50 or 60 years,,and by that I mean the pan- Africanism idea that is widely supported by many black Africans,, as opposed to the pan- Arabism idea that is widely supported by many north Africans. Hersh,, if you have some interest in international politics and if you know about the geopolitical blocks that exist in the world today,, you would understand what I am saying ,, I don't mean it in a bad way when I say that north Africa has a different political values than Black Africa,,,
I see your point now ,,, yes, sub Saharan Africa happens to be Black Africa ,, But don't assume that the difference in color is what caused our difference in geo political orientation I mentioned earlier,,, you can take Sudan for instance.I suppose I can rest my case now. Thanks for trying. lol
1 - 20 of 91 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
SkyscraperCity Forum
A forum community dedicated to skyscrapers, towers, highrises, construction, and city planning enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about structures, styles, reviews, scale, transportation, skylines, architecture, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Katarzyna DJ
7540 Replies
calatravavx
2550 Replies
Srdjan Adamovic
1854 Replies
Recommended Communities
Join now to ask and comment!
