
Sub-Saharan Africa, Africa south of the Sahara Desert, is the term used to describe those countries of Africa that are not part of North Africa. In the 19th century Sub-Saharan Africa was commonly known as Black Africa or as Dark Africa, partly because of the race of its native inhabitants and partly because much of it had not been fully mapped or explored (Africa as a whole was sometimes labelled "the dark continent"). These terms are now obsolete, and often considered to be offensive. The neutral phrase African Uplands was preferred by Hegel and some other writers of the time, however this was primarily intended to refer to the African interior as opposed to coastal regions. The modern term ''Sub-Saharan'' corresponds with the standard representation of North as above and South as below. Tropical Africa is an alternative modern label, related to the word Afrotropic, used for the distinctive ecology of the region. However, if strictly applied, this term would exclude South Africa, which lies outside the Tropics. This division of Africa has arisen from the perception of North Africa as predominantly Arab or Berber in ethnicity and culture, and the perception of sub-Saharan Africa as predominantly blacks in ethnicity or culture. The two regions are separated by the sparsely populated Sahara Desert. North Africa has long been integrated with the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Sub-Saharan Africa, on the other hand, had sporadic contacts with the rest of the world before the modern era partially due to the effect of endemic diseases like Malaria. While the coasts received visits by traders, much of the interior of the continent remained unknown to the outside world until the colonial era. With a few exceptions, such as Mauritius and South Africa, sub-Saharan Africa is one of the poorest regions in the world, and it contains many of the least developed countries. (See ''Economy of Africa''.) The exact position of the dividing line between the two regions is not clearly defined because of discontinuous and blurred break-points between national boundaries, ecologies and ethnicities. However, according to one classification of the two regions, sub-Saharan Africa includes forty-eight nations. Forty-two of these nations are on the African mainland. In addition, four island nations in the southwest Indian Ocean (Madagascar, The Comoros, Mauritius, and Seychelles) and two island nations in the Atlantic Ocean (Cape Verde and Sao Tome and Principe) are considered part of Africa. According to this classification scheme, the countries of sub-Saharan Africa are: Central Africa * Central African Republic * Chad * Democratic Republic of the Congo * Republic of the Congo Eastern Africa * Burundi * Comoros * Djibouti * Eritrea * Ethiopia * Kenya * Seychelles * Rwanda * Somalia * Tanzania * Uganda Southern Africa * Angola * Botswana * Lesotho * Madagascar * Malawi * Mauritius * Mozambique * Namibia * Réunion * Swaziland * South Africa * Zambia * Zimbabwe Western Africa * Benin * Burkina Faso * Cameroon * Cape Verde * Côte d'Ivoire * Equatorial Guinea * Gabon * The Gambia * Ghana * Guinea-Bissau * Liberia * Mali * Niger * Nigeria * São Tomé and Príncipe * Senegal * Sierra Leone * Togo == External link == * [http://travel.state.gov/tips_sub-saharanafica.html USA State department travel tips] * [http://www.junglephotos.com/africa Photos and information from Malawi, Kenya, Zambia and Zimbabwe] Regions of Africa
Is Black Africa really a common term? I guess I've heard it a couple of times, but maybe 1% as often as I've heard "sub-Saharan Africa". And if people find it offensive, why include it? We could turn the page "Black Africa" into a real page, mention the term, that it means "sub-Saharan Africa", and its implications. I also don't agree that the distinction ''arose'' from the desire to distinguish the predominantly-black parts of Africa from the rest. Clasically, North Africa ''was'' Africa. You can't tell the history of the Roman Empire, or of Islam, or of the Mediterranean, or of Spain, without talking about North Africa. User:Waltpohl :Waltpohl, please sign your comments (I've done it for you above). :Regarding the term "Black Africa": Thanks for discussing this. It was the predominant term before the twentieth-century; if you do read older geographic, historical, or social texts, you will come across the term again and again. According to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, we should less make judgments about political correctness rather than about whether the information is encyclopedic, which it ''is''. ''Some'' people regard it as politically incorrect, but many people think the term is fine. It continues to be used in some contexts today, even by African-American leaders, including some in the Afrocentrism movement. :Yes, I agree that during Roman times, or the rise of Islam, as you say, "North Africa ''was'' Africa." However, later, when exploration of sub-Saharan Africa began, a distinction began to be made between the two areas, and cultural and ethnic factors were definitely part of what distinguished the two areas in the minds of the early explorers. --User:Lowellian 19:32, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC) :: Sorry, I randomly forget to sign about 50% of the time. I know it's a bad habit. :: My point is that the significance of sub-Saharan Africa is clearly intended to be a purely geographical term, without the racially-loaded connotations of Black Africa. If you read the page as currently written, you'll get the feeling that by using the term "sub-Saharan Africa", you're doing something subtly racist. -- User:Waltpohl 23:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) :I read the article again, and I don't get the feeling from reading it that the term "sub-Saharan Africa" is portrayed as racist. The article does not uphold any region as superior to one another; it merely points out differences based on ethnicity and culture between the two areas. The separation of sub-Saharan Africa from North Africa is not based just on geographic features such as the Sahara; it also depends on ethnic and cultural factors, in the same way that the separation between East Asia and South Asia is not based just on the Himalayas, but also on civilizational factors; South Asian peoples are clearly different from East Asian peoples. :If you still think the article reads badly, then you could try rewriting it. I could accept a rewrite as long as the rewrite makes it clear that: # Sub-Saharan Africa is also known as Black Africa. # Part of the reason for the distinction between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa arises from ethnic and cultural differences. :--User:Lowellian 00:21, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC) == Changing times == Can we move away from the "Sub-Saharan" point of view that reinforces blacks beneath whites? The better term would be Equatorial Africa to describe the region of Africa nearest to the Equator and shows that the Black Africans origins (Ethiopia and Cameroun regions which are both right near the Equator). Sub-saharan does imply a racist or biased term as any "sub"-term would imply a beneath. The phrase "sub-urban" is never pronounced properly as the "b" sound in the word is moved over to the second syllable to minimize this same negative "sub" effect. I think the empathsis that "SUB" = "Black" in this article is dated and becoming offensive. It is also reinforcing the strong stereotypes that create the racial disparity still present in society. ::'Sub' means below, not 'lesser'. Yes, it's used as a prefix in many words that use "below" in the sense of "inferior" (subordinate, subhuman etc) but it's also used in may neutral words (submarine, subjective, sub-section etc) and also positive words (sublime, substantial). I've never heard of an Indian complaining that the term "subcontinent", regularly used to refer to India, is offensive. Your theory about the proununiation of "suburban" seems to me to be pure fantasy. But the point is that this is an ''Encyclopedia''. This is a commonly used phrase, and so should be properly defined and explained here. 'Tropical Africa' may or may not be preferable, but it is not as well-established. User:Paul Barlow 15:05, 27 May, 2005 (UTC) :::I've tried to address this issue in rewrites of the opening para. User:Paul Barlow 12:13, 28 May, 2005 (UTC)
#REDIRECT Sub-Saharan Africa
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Sub-Saharan_Africa:
Sub-Saharan_Africa
Sub-Saharan_Africa
Sub-saharan_africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa, Africa south of the Sahara Desert, is the term used to describe those countries of Africa that are not part of North Africa. In the 19th century Sub-Saharan Africa was commonly known as Black Africa or as Dark Africa, partly because of the race of its native inhabitants and partly because much of it had not been fully mapped or explored (Africa as a whole was sometimes labelled "the dark continent"). These terms are now obsolete, and often considered to be offensive. The neutral phrase African Uplands was preferred by Hegel and some other writers of the time, however this was primarily intended to refer to the African interior as opposed to coastal regions. The modern term ''Sub-Saharan'' corresponds with the standard representation of North as above and South as below. Tropical Africa is an alternative modern label, related to the word Afrotropic, used for the distinctive ecology of the region. However, if strictly applied, this term would exclude South Africa, which lies outside the Tropics. This division of Africa has arisen from the perception of North Africa as predominantly Arab or Berber in ethnicity and culture, and the perception of sub-Saharan Africa as predominantly blacks in ethnicity or culture. The two regions are separated by the sparsely populated Sahara Desert. North Africa has long been integrated with the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Sub-Saharan Africa, on the other hand, had sporadic contacts with the rest of the world before the modern era partially due to the effect of endemic diseases like Malaria. While the coasts received visits by traders, much of the interior of the continent remained unknown to the outside world until the colonial era. With a few exceptions, such as Mauritius and South Africa, sub-Saharan Africa is one of the poorest regions in the world, and it contains many of the least developed countries. (See ''Economy of Africa''.) The exact position of the dividing line between the two regions is not clearly defined because of discontinuous and blurred break-points between national boundaries, ecologies and ethnicities. However, according to one classification of the two regions, sub-Saharan Africa includes forty-eight nations. Forty-two of these nations are on the African mainland. In addition, four island nations in the southwest Indian Ocean (Madagascar, The Comoros, Mauritius, and Seychelles) and two island nations in the Atlantic Ocean (Cape Verde and Sao Tome and Principe) are considered part of Africa. According to this classification scheme, the countries of sub-Saharan Africa are: Central Africa * Central African Republic * Chad * Democratic Republic of the Congo * Republic of the Congo Eastern Africa * Burundi * Comoros * Djibouti * Eritrea * Ethiopia * Kenya * Seychelles * Rwanda * Somalia * Tanzania * Uganda Southern Africa * Angola * Botswana * Lesotho * Madagascar * Malawi * Mauritius * Mozambique * Namibia * Réunion * Swaziland * South Africa * Zambia * Zimbabwe Western Africa * Benin * Burkina Faso * Cameroon * Cape Verde * Côte d'Ivoire * Equatorial Guinea * Gabon * The Gambia * Ghana * Guinea-Bissau * Liberia * Mali * Niger * Nigeria * São Tomé and Príncipe * Senegal * Sierra Leone * Togo == External link == * [http://travel.state.gov/tips_sub-saharanafica.html USA State department travel tips] * [http://www.junglephotos.com/africa Photos and information from Malawi, Kenya, Zambia and Zimbabwe] Regions of Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Is Black Africa really a common term? I guess I've heard it a couple of times, but maybe 1% as often as I've heard "sub-Saharan Africa". And if people find it offensive, why include it? We could turn the page "Black Africa" into a real page, mention the term, that it means "sub-Saharan Africa", and its implications. I also don't agree that the distinction ''arose'' from the desire to distinguish the predominantly-black parts of Africa from the rest. Clasically, North Africa ''was'' Africa. You can't tell the history of the Roman Empire, or of Islam, or of the Mediterranean, or of Spain, without talking about North Africa. User:Waltpohl :Waltpohl, please sign your comments (I've done it for you above). :Regarding the term "Black Africa": Thanks for discussing this. It was the predominant term before the twentieth-century; if you do read older geographic, historical, or social texts, you will come across the term again and again. According to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, we should less make judgments about political correctness rather than about whether the information is encyclopedic, which it ''is''. ''Some'' people regard it as politically incorrect, but many people think the term is fine. It continues to be used in some contexts today, even by African-American leaders, including some in the Afrocentrism movement. :Yes, I agree that during Roman times, or the rise of Islam, as you say, "North Africa ''was'' Africa." However, later, when exploration of sub-Saharan Africa began, a distinction began to be made between the two areas, and cultural and ethnic factors were definitely part of what distinguished the two areas in the minds of the early explorers. --User:Lowellian 19:32, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC) :: Sorry, I randomly forget to sign about 50% of the time. I know it's a bad habit. :: My point is that the significance of sub-Saharan Africa is clearly intended to be a purely geographical term, without the racially-loaded connotations of Black Africa. If you read the page as currently written, you'll get the feeling that by using the term "sub-Saharan Africa", you're doing something subtly racist. -- User:Waltpohl 23:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) :I read the article again, and I don't get the feeling from reading it that the term "sub-Saharan Africa" is portrayed as racist. The article does not uphold any region as superior to one another; it merely points out differences based on ethnicity and culture between the two areas. The separation of sub-Saharan Africa from North Africa is not based just on geographic features such as the Sahara; it also depends on ethnic and cultural factors, in the same way that the separation between East Asia and South Asia is not based just on the Himalayas, but also on civilizational factors; South Asian peoples are clearly different from East Asian peoples. :If you still think the article reads badly, then you could try rewriting it. I could accept a rewrite as long as the rewrite makes it clear that: # Sub-Saharan Africa is also known as Black Africa. # Part of the reason for the distinction between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa arises from ethnic and cultural differences. :--User:Lowellian 00:21, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC) == Changing times == Can we move away from the "Sub-Saharan" point of view that reinforces blacks beneath whites? The better term would be Equatorial Africa to describe the region of Africa nearest to the Equator and shows that the Black Africans origins (Ethiopia and Cameroun regions which are both right near the Equator). Sub-saharan does imply a racist or biased term as any "sub"-term would imply a beneath. The phrase "sub-urban" is never pronounced properly as the "b" sound in the word is moved over to the second syllable to minimize this same negative "sub" effect. I think the empathsis that "SUB" = "Black" in this article is dated and becoming offensive. It is also reinforcing the strong stereotypes that create the racial disparity still present in society. ::'Sub' means below, not 'lesser'. Yes, it's used as a prefix in many words that use "below" in the sense of "inferior" (subordinate, subhuman etc) but it's also used in may neutral words (submarine, subjective, sub-section etc) and also positive words (sublime, substantial). I've never heard of an Indian complaining that the term "subcontinent", regularly used to refer to India, is offensive. Your theory about the proununiation of "suburban" seems to me to be pure fantasy. But the point is that this is an ''Encyclopedia''. This is a commonly used phrase, and so should be properly defined and explained here. 'Tropical Africa' may or may not be preferable, but it is not as well-established. User:Paul Barlow 15:05, 27 May, 2005 (UTC) :::I've tried to address this issue in rewrites of the opening para. User:Paul Barlow 12:13, 28 May, 2005 (UTC)
Sub-saharan africa
#REDIRECT Sub-Saharan Africa
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
S
SB | SC | SD | SE | SF | SG | SH | SI | SJ | SK | SL | SM | SN | SO | SP | SR | SS | ST | SU | SW | SX | SY | SZ |Words begining with Sub-Saharan_Africa:
Sub-Saharan_Africa
Sub-Saharan_Africa
Sub-saharan_africa
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
