WHY I HATE THE TERM - SUB SAHARAN AFRICA
Moderators: Moderator Team, phpBB2 - Administrators
WHY I HATE THE TERM - SUB SAHARAN AFRICA
How many people have actually stopped to think of this awful term used to describe the Black nations of Africa.
Sub-Saharan Africa.
Who coined this term? That person, in my humble opinion, is an evil monster that deserves the gallows.
This insulting name to Africans constitutes a form of verbal warfare, a form of verbal terrorism.
It's effects are subtle, but certain. And all negative.
By extension, another insulting term is The Third World.
Who on earth coined that term? It must have been one person.
That person deserves nothing good from this existence, and from future existences to come.
May he relive in every way all the pain, all the hurt, the death and the suffering, he's inflicted on untold billions by his singular, diabolical coinage of that term.
Sub-Saharan Africa.
Who coined this term? That person, in my humble opinion, is an evil monster that deserves the gallows.
This insulting name to Africans constitutes a form of verbal warfare, a form of verbal terrorism.
It's effects are subtle, but certain. And all negative.
By extension, another insulting term is The Third World.
Who on earth coined that term? It must have been one person.
That person deserves nothing good from this existence, and from future existences to come.
May he relive in every way all the pain, all the hurt, the death and the suffering, he's inflicted on untold billions by his singular, diabolical coinage of that term.
Re: WHY I HATE THE TERM - SUB SAHARAN AFRICA
[
what is wrong with the term Rossike?...Interpreted directly, it means Sub(Under) the Sahara..which encompasses every region in Africa below the Sahara Desert. Or am I missing something?
what is wrong with the term Rossike?...Interpreted directly, it means Sub(Under) the Sahara..which encompasses every region in Africa below the Sahara Desert. Or am I missing something?
I just don't see a European or American continent ever being referred to in such terms under identical circumstances. Sub-Saharan America? You gotta be kidding.
They have a lot of deserts in North America. See
http://www.desertusa.com/glossary.html
But the only sub I hear from there is the Subway (The train subway and the Subway sandwich)
There were many more respectful ways they could have described Africa 'south' of the sahara.
You'll note I have the word 'south' in quote above.
This is because, the countries of the earth are only NORTH or SOUTH depending on what position you're observing them from.
So viewed from another position in outer space, the SOUTH s actually the north. While Europe is to the SOUTH of Africa. (Sub Saharan Europe).
Those who purport to tell us how to think are in for a tough time, as more people escape their vapid indoctrinations.
They have a lot of deserts in North America. See
http://www.desertusa.com/glossary.html
But the only sub I hear from there is the Subway (The train subway and the Subway sandwich)
There were many more respectful ways they could have described Africa 'south' of the sahara.
You'll note I have the word 'south' in quote above.
This is because, the countries of the earth are only NORTH or SOUTH depending on what position you're observing them from.
So viewed from another position in outer space, the SOUTH s actually the north. While Europe is to the SOUTH of Africa. (Sub Saharan Europe).
Those who purport to tell us how to think are in for a tough time, as more people escape their vapid indoctrinations.
The Balkans is a term used to describe a geographical region in Europe, the polar regions is another term used in North America. Besides, North America has only three countries (or 4 if you count Greenland, although it belongs to Denmark). Anyways, the bottomline is that when you want to describe Black African countries, would you prefer they said Black Africa (which someone like you might interprete as racist) or Sub-Saharan Africa which has no "politically incorrect" intonations.
Or perhaps you might profer another name for referring to the rest of Africa ignoring the North African, Arab countries.
Or perhaps you might profer another name for referring to the rest of Africa ignoring the North African, Arab countries.
-
Bell
ROSSIKE, CUTTING THRU IT ALL...
...I think the reason you resent the term is because it brings together a contiguous region best known for its dominance of undesirable human incidents and conditions. By itself, the name is harmless.
Some might also react negatively to the term "Far East", thinking it is suggestive of an area far removed from the main regions of the world.
Bell
...I think the reason you resent the term is because it brings together a contiguous region best known for its dominance of undesirable human incidents and conditions. By itself, the name is harmless.
Some might also react negatively to the term "Far East", thinking it is suggestive of an area far removed from the main regions of the world.
Bell
The term “Sub-Sahara” is intellectually better than your famous word “BLACK” as qualifying phrases. At least, “Sub-Sahara” brings real geographical connotation to the humanity while “BLACK” brings denigration to the person being qualified as such and a sign of lacking intellectual strait on the person using hue to describe or qualify a human being. Besides, Sahara is a natural phenomenon that exists in Africa.
-
realtrouble
Oba From Montreal and RealTrouble make some sense as usual. You see, gentlemen, the thing is, the beef is with the terming of us as 'sub' anything. 'Sub' denotes inferiority, lacking completeness, lesser than the 'non-sub' whole..
I reject the term in its entirety.
And I can't help but wish all the world's ills upon the spineless moron that invented it.
I reject the term in its entirety.
And I can't help but wish all the world's ills upon the spineless moron that invented it.
Said Oba from Montreal
It sure sounds more respectable than SUB-saharan Africa, a name whose very introduction seems to butress already widely held, and infinitely false notions of African inadequacy.
Sure. Why not South Saharan Africa??Or perhaps you might profer another name for referring to the rest of Africa ignoring the North African, Arab countries.
It sure sounds more respectable than SUB-saharan Africa, a name whose very introduction seems to butress already widely held, and infinitely false notions of African inadequacy.
C'mon RossIke, South Saharan means South Sahara... Is Nigeria part of the Sahara?
Maybe you mean South of Sahara Africa and doesn't that sound so verbose? Look, as a respectable person pointed out earlier, if we made Sub-Saharan Africa great, it would be something to be envious about if someone said he was from Sub-Saharan Africa.
Maybe you mean South of Sahara Africa and doesn't that sound so verbose? Look, as a respectable person pointed out earlier, if we made Sub-Saharan Africa great, it would be something to be envious about if someone said he was from Sub-Saharan Africa.
-
realtrouble
RudeboyRudeBoy wrote:Real Trouble please tell me how the term Sub-saharan can be interpreted as Sub-Human? Such a suggestion is laughable. I suppose you can interprete Igbo to mean French too!
Just as the European coined Africa the "Dark Continent" at the turn of the century, when there are larger rain forests in Soiuth America and Asia.
What is wrong with "Africa South of the Sahara" , why sub-sahara africa or would rather prefer the term sub-sahara Africa or backward.
The "Dark" continent wasn't coined because of the colour of the people but because the continent was unknown to the people who called it that! "Sub" means below! Therefore used with human it is an insult but to use it with a building or a place it is not.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797)
Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist - Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797)
THE FULL DICTIONARY DEFINITION
SUB:
1. A prefix signifying under, below, beneath, and hence often, in an inferior position or degree, in an imperfect or partial state, as in subscribe, substruct, subserve, subject, subordinate, subacid, subastringent, subgranular, suborn [and sub-saharan Africa].
2. (Chem.) A prefix denoting that the ingredient (of a compound) signified by the term to which it is prefixed, is present in only a small proportion, or less than the normal amount; as, subsulphide, suboxide, [sub-saharan Africa] etc. Prefixed to the name of a salt it is equivalent to basic; as, subacetate or basic acetate.
SUB:
1. A prefix signifying under, below, beneath, and hence often, in an inferior position or degree, in an imperfect or partial state, as in subscribe, substruct, subserve, subject, subordinate, subacid, subastringent, subgranular, suborn [and sub-saharan Africa].
2. (Chem.) A prefix denoting that the ingredient (of a compound) signified by the term to which it is prefixed, is present in only a small proportion, or less than the normal amount; as, subsulphide, suboxide, [sub-saharan Africa] etc. Prefixed to the name of a salt it is equivalent to basic; as, subacetate or basic acetate.
The only problem with that title is that it identifies most of the poorest countries in the world and also the most corrupt ones!
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797)
Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist - Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797)