Is it time to re-examine the labelling of Africa's regions as North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa? Should there not be a more modern term for the larger subdivision of Africa. One that communicates its larger land mass, population , historical, anthropological, genealogical and economical significance. While not sure of the origin, but sometimes these terms originate with cartographers or journalists and then persist in the language? We seem not to have persisted with labels such as Asia Minor and Asia Major (see map). On the other hand, in the Caribbean there is an historical division of the Antiles as Greater Antiles and Lesser Antiles. Is the label Sub-Saharan Africa still apprpriate? If not, what would you recommend the larger Africa be referenced as ? Greater Afica ? Africa Major ? Some other reference ?
I think the name sub-Saharan Africa doesn't consider the very relevant points and history you have raised; the name is so simply because this part of Africa is located below the belt of the Sahara desert.
Appreciate the feedback Daniel
Any personal thoughts on what an appropriate nomenclature for the larger Africa would be ?
I welcome the idea that the name "sub-Saharan Africa" is demeaning and it is time it is changed. But, I also understand how difficult it is for linguistics to accommodate changes. I will prefer "Africa" for the entire continent to erase any idea of this invisible border generating any racial thoughts.
I would like putting the view over the language as if it was a tool. Europe as a Empire in the past had colonys divided for the sahara desert . They began to use sub-saharian, but in the way that sub means south, under the sahara. Never in the sense as if the people o countrys which were under de zone of the saharian desert were -less- than the" people-countrys" from the north. But I would like to remeber that in my knowledge is only an spanish expresion.
There is perhaphs another particulary vision. In the north of Africa were the Egypt Empire, the Roman Empire and the Arabian people until XVIII Century and the desert was a very big natural border betwen north and south with very diferent cultures. I agree that names and thinks change and it belongs to you if you want to promove it.
I think that what you are asking for - changing a name identifying an important region - was actually done a number of years ago (I do not know when and by whom), when "Black Africa" was no longer considered as appropriate and was replaced by "Sub-Saharan Africa". As Josep mentions, "sub" does not imply the meaning of less, it just reflects the fact that it means the region south of the Sahara (of course: implying that North is at the top, the way we are used to look at maps...). Not sure whether we need to change this name; for obvious reasons, it cannot be called "South Africa", even if we want to distinguish it from North Africa.
Dear Robert/Josep,
Appreciate the comments
It is agreed and understood that the term Sub-Saharan Africa was intended to connote a reference to the African region below, or to the South of, the Sahara. But where else does it occur in the lexicon that sub means south? Maybe "Sud" but not "Sub"
In the context of the common language usage of the pre-fix 'Sub', it should also be recognized that the opposite of 'Sub' is 'Super'. Thus if one uses the Sahara as a defining line to separate geographic regions, the question then becomes 'which side of the line could reasonably be referred to as "Sub" and which side as "Super".
In the choice of "Sub" or "Super", which term communicates the larger land mass, population , historical, anthropological, genealogical and economical significance.
Beyond that, the communication that suggests that "Sub" means "below", 'under', 'beneath', 'down' is fine and acceptable when refereing to a vertical orientation. Sub-Saharan then accurately referes to the huge aquifers and layers of geology and history lurking under the Sahara Desert. However its use for horizontal orientations should be examined further as it merely reflects a convenient cartographic orientation; one that has North on 'top' and South to the 'bottom' or 'under'. That is, to the Northern territories, the North has an orientation on top and everything to the South is below.
However, to territories in the South, who is on 'top' and who is on the 'bottom'? 'Sub' therefore has no meanng in the context of horizontal planar orientations. In terms of cartography, its an inappropriate application of the pre-fix. It has no relevance. Are Guatamala, Honduras and Belize sub-Yucaton territories?
Another observation is that no other region of the globe, is named by reference to another geographical feature as benchmark.
The term Sub-Saharan was an unfortunate and awkward use of language, terms and signalling. There is no positive signalling from 'sub'. Not sure of Robert's assertion that "sub" does not imply the meaning of less"; think of 'sub-standard' or 'sub-human' or 'sub-lieutenant' for instance.
Historical maps show reference to the land mass to the south of the Sahara by the name of Aethiopia (see attached) which begs the question as to from whence came the name "Sub-Saharan".
Silburn
Adding this piece from Akenataa Hammagaadji to the discussion.
https://www.afrobeatradio.com/academic-professional/2014/1/20/on-rethinking-the-term-sub-sahara
Before being called "sub-Saharan Africa", it was called "black Africa". This designations appear because of the social and cultural difference in comparison with the north of Sahara where the society is more like the one we find in the Middle East.
Pedro, Robert,
In a context where pioneering research by Prof Alice Roberts has found that all homo sapiens journeyed out of Mother Africa to now be established as the dominant, most successful specie on earth, I think that the term "Black Africa" would also similarly be a misnomer as Africa is in the DNA of all of us.
Roberts, A. (2010). The Incredible Human Journey. A&C Black.
https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-incredible-human-journey-9781408802885/
Silburn, this is a no-problem. Turkey is called Asia Minor, India is called sub-continent and I never saw neither of them feeling misnomer because of that. Instead of worrying with political correct things, what we should worry is with the situation in Africa concerning corruption and the fact that there is no country in Africa with a real democracy (although officially it exists)
Pedro,
I think that you may be addressing a different question. Nor sure where you would be taking the discussions to with your perspectives and notions of democracy and corruption. Would love to engage you on the new dimensions that you raised but may I humbly suggest that you start a new thread to properly objectively examine democracy and corruption in Africa. I would suggest that a dispassionate view may prove insightful and will in fact surprise you.
Now back to the question at hand. India is a sub-continent because it is a smaller part in size of the Asian continent. Similarly, Turkey is again the smaller part in size of the Asian continent. The point is that a yardstick like that would fail if applied to the current regional designation in Africa.
Want to highlight three dimensions that support the narratives for a Greater Africa designation for Aethioia
1) Population: Africa's share of global population is projected to grow from 16% in 2015 to 25% in 2050 and to 33-39% by 2100. Africa's population will surpass that of China by 2022.
https://qz.com/africa/1099546/population-growth-africans-will-be-a-third-of-all-people-on-earth-by-2100/
2) Economy: Africans have formulated, designed and ratified the largest free trading bloc on the planet, next to the WTO.
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2017/12/07/african-countries-are-building-a-giant-free-trade-area
3) Economic Growth Trends:
In a large multi-year, multi-country study, Steven Radelet in his book
"The Great Surge: The Ascent of the Developing World", told us that the past quarter century (1990 - 2015) was a boom period for Africa in which the health, education and general well-bieng of millions of its population rose.
https://www.brookings.edu/books/the-great-surge/
Sub-Saharan Africa is culturally different to North Africa. North Africa for example is commonly grouped together with the middle east (MENA). Sub-Saharan Africa does indeed cover a larger area than north africa, but the two regions have a different history and I think this is the reason for the name. North Africa has had strong connections to Europe through connections such as the Roman empire, as well as mediterranean trade. Also Islam is very common in North Africa, whilst sub-saharan Africa is majority Christian. Sub-Saharan Africa is seperated from North Africa by the Sahara Desert which is the world largest desert and seems to be a good place to divide africa, especially because of the different histories.
https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/what-exactly-does-%E2%80%98sub-sahara-africa%E2%80%99-mean
This article may be of interest to you.
Also this one :
https://qz.com/africa/770350/why-do-we-still-say-subsaharan-africa/
To be honest I would just say the country names. One reason for the use of sub-saharan africa might be to compare different regions, and this sort of makes sense as it has similar populations to these regions,m however the landmass and variety in sub-saharan africa is quite big.
Using regions like east africa, and southern africa is more helpful though when making comparisons. In conclusion I guess it just a term that sucks but is out there and will take a long time if ever to not be in the vernacular.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia