If they are North African then, I am West African!
If they are North African then, I am West African!
If they are North African then, I am West African!

If they are North African then, I am West African!
If they are North African then, I am West African!
If they are North African then, I am West African!
If they are North African then, I am West African!
If they are North African then, I am West African!
If they are North African then, I am West African!


Call me a West African or ELSE!!!!

O.D.B.:

Why are Supra-Saharan's so interested in West African affairs??

get out of our affairs and mind your own business!

1. I also mentioned Jews

The point I was making with the post (which you seem to have missed) is that none of those three groups are some black/white hybrid

2. And also, you were 100% wrong about North Africa

3. Also wrong about Carthage and Hannibal, but I suppose I'll leave that be until you concede point (2) above

If you're not critical thinker, take your linear thought process off the damn thread...

This thread was created to ask questions, not for Eurocentric thrash...

I'm trying to ask questions - I don't need anyone to regurgitate the crap I've been taught gazillion times already...

*Sighs*

O.D.B.:

You really are a sick, demented individual. Despite fulsome evidence on this forum to the contrary, you still rehash tired, baseless, racist nonsense by ignorant vermin like Charles Darwin. May God help you grow a brain. Worthless piece of slave dogshiit.

SmoothCrim:

Why are Supra-Saharan's so interested in West African affairs??

get out of our affairs and mind your own business!

sup

ROSSIKE:

And you, stop talking garbage, and go and learn. The ancient Egyptian maps WERE 'upside down' by current convention, and the Nile had ZERO to do with it. THAT is the invention of the western mythorians you're parroting. It's like saying Nigerians would have named the north ''Southern Nigera'' if the River Niger had flowed from southern highlands to northern lowlands, which of course would be absolute rubbish.

Rivers flow from HIGHlands to LOWlands. Your words were 'LOWER EGYPT' and 'UPPER EGYPT'. Why is it easier to believe that a map you have never seen was upside down rather than simple topographical reasons to describe places. Very soon you would tell me the Ancient Egyptians were very advanced and went to space which the white man who is meant to be weaker managed to destroy. According to rossike, The map was upside down rather than the Nile flowed from the upper portion has to be the reason.

YES, your example of NIgeria is pointless and bears no relation to your point and is in your words absolutely rubbish!

Stop being obtuse with the inaccurate explanations about the origins of the cardinal points. You have made valid arguments defending the black race in the past especially your argument proving that Nigeria is a far developed country today than before the Brits left. However, on this point, you are wrong and I have to call you out here.

Sub-sahara is a description and only an insecure fellow would find it offensive. One wonders why the same white people call themselves the West (pointing to the USA) when the sun sets in the west. Perhaps an insecure American would begin to blame the Russians and Japanese for rotating the map to say the sun sets in their land. These are just silly conjectures drummed up by a simple mind to explain their inadequacies.

lwkmd

Ok, well, that was kind of amusing

Anyway, so, what have we learned today?

1. North Africa is more connected historically to Europe and the Middle East then Africa
2. Arabs are not black/white hybrids
3. Hannibal was not a black African

Not bad for roughly 15-20 minutes worth of work

ow11:


Rivers flow from HIGHlands to LOWlands. Your words were 'LOWER EGYPT' and 'UPPER EGYPT'. Why is it easier to believe that a map you have never seen was upside down rather than simple topographical reasons to describe places. Very soon you would tell me the Ancient Egyptians were very advanced and went to space which the white man who is meant to be weaker managed to destroy. According to rossike, The map was upside down rather than the Nile flowed from the upper portion has to be the reason.

YES, your example of NIgeria is pointless and bears no relation to your point and is in your words absolutely rubbish!

Stop being obtuse with the inaccurate explanations about the origins of the cardinal points. You have made valid arguments defending the black race in the past especially your argument proving that Nigeria is a far developed country today than before the Brits left. However, on this point, you are wrong and I have to call you out here.

Sub-sahara is a description and only an insecure fellow would find it offensive. One wonders why the same white people call themselves the West (pointing to the USA) when the sun sets in the west. Perhaps an insecure American would begin to blame the Russians and Japanese for rotating the map to say the sun sets in their land. These are just silly conjectures drummed up by a simple mind to explain their inadequacies.

Any evidence of the bolded part? Inherent in your statement is the idea that there is something about sub-Saharan Africa to feel inferior about? I disagree!! Now, prove your offensive claim!! It is human nature to want to be acknowledged as what you are.

ow11:


Rivers flow from HIGHlands to LOWlands. Your words were 'LOWER EGYPT' and 'UPPER EGYPT'. Why is it easier to believe that a map you have never seen was upside down rather than simple topographical reasons to describe places. Very soon you would tell me the Ancient Egyptians were very advanced and went to space which the white man who is meant to be weaker managed to destroy. According to rossike, The map was upside down rather than the Nile flowed from the upper portion has to be the reason.

YES, your example of NIgeria is pointless and bears no relation to your point and is in your words absolutely rubbish!

Stop being obtuse with the inaccurate explanations about the origins of the cardinal points. You have made valid arguments defending the black race in the past especially your argument proving that Nigeria is a far developed country today than before the Brits left. However, on this point, you are wrong and I have to call you out here.

Sub-sahara is a description and only an insecure fellow would find it offensive. One wonders why the same white people call themselves the West (pointing to the USA) when the sun sets in the west. Perhaps an insecure American would begin to blame the Russians and Japanese for rotating the map to say the sun sets in their land. These are just silly conjectures drummed up by a simple mind to explain their inadequacies.

You're another person brainwashed to see the world through the blue eyes of a Caucasian. Why are some of you people so allergic to new knowledge?

Read and learn:


''It came as a surprise to me after over 20 years of seeing "normal" world maps to come across an upside down one. The most surprising thing was that I found it surprising. It is completely artificial that we have North at the top of a map.

The convention came a few centuries ago when Northern hemisphere, European navigators started using the North star and the magnetic compass. Before that, the top of the map was to the East which is where the word orientation comes from.''

http://flourish.org/upsidedownmap/

ekt_bear: lwkmd

Ok, well, that was kind of amusing

Anyway, so, what have we learned today?

1. North Africa is more connected historically to Europe and the Middle East then Africa
2. Arabs are not black/white hybrids
3. Hannibal was not a black African

Not bad for roughly 15-20 minutes worth of work

All of your statements are not absolute. The first two are at least debatable. Lastly, North Africa is not homogenous. It is a diverse area. The Maghreb region of North Africa is more related to each other than to Egypt for example. The Berbers, Copts, Arabs are all distinct ethnic groups historically. Lastly, many Arabs are mixed with black. Only a fool would deny that but, that is not the debate. The debate is about sub-Saharan Africa and how valid the term is.

ROSSIKE:

You're another person brainwashed to see the world through the blue eyes of a Caucasian. Why are some of you people so allergic to new knowledge?


The convention came a few centuries ago when Northern hemisphere, European navigators started using the North star and the magnetic compass. Before that, the top of the map was to the East which is where the word orientation comes from.

would this 'before that' refer to the time when people thought the earth was flat and that you would fall off the edge of the world if you sailed far enough?

I am asking for Africa to be viewed this way!



As it can help focus on problem areas and solve issues easier. Eventually I support the principals of the OAU and the AU of unity but, first focus on the above mentioned areas of the continent!

1. Sure. Anyone can debate anything. But the question is, what conclusion would most reasonably intelligent people come to.

2. I think most reasonable people, upon recalling the history of north africa well, would agree with point (1).

3. Pretty much nobody is going to say the Arabs are a black/white hybrid. They don't look it, for the most part (aside from of course certain places where indeed the population is full of black African descent folk. Which is not the majority of the arab world), and genetic testing also will not give a result that says, for example, 80% of arabs are of black African ancestry.

And this is just the "black" part of the "black/white" hybrid. We've not even touched the white aspect.

4. There is nothing really left to debate about sub-Saharan Africa as a term. This bone has been picked dry and has no meat left

ekt_bear: 1. Sure. Anyone can debate anything. But the question is, what conclusion would most reasonably intelligent people come to.

2. I think most reasonable people, upon recalling the history of north africa well, would agree with point (1).

3. Pretty much nobody is going to say the Arabs are a black/white hybrid. They don't look it, for the most part (aside from of course certain places where indeed the population is full of black African descent folk. Which is not the majority of the arab world), and genetic testing also will not give a result that says, for example, 80% of arabs are of black African ancestry.

And this is just the "black" part of the "black/white" hybrid. We've not even touched the white aspect.

4. There is nothing really left to debate about sub-Saharan Africa as a term. This bone has been picked dry and has no meat left

Like I said you are both right and wrong. It should be noted that I am NOT NOT NOT calling North Africans or Arabs black and don't want to have this debate

I am saying that I am West African and want to be acknowledged as such!

The debate I want to have is if the term sub-Saharan African is more useful than the term West African, Southern African etc etc.


Debate me on these issues please! The other debates are tireless, fruitless debates which are of no benefit! I have studied African history in depth and debated issues with more intelligent people, what I want to debate is this NEW issue but, it seems those who post here lack the intelligence!

oyb:

would this 'before that' refer to the time when people thought the earth was flat and that you would fall off the edge of the world if you sailed far enough?

Actually it was people in EUROPE who thought that, NOT the people of the world. Again, you are seeing the world through the blue eyes of a Caucasian, which is a very big mistake, since historically speaking, the Caucasians are VERY new to civilization. Africans and Asians knew the earth was a sphere thousands of years before the Europeans discovered the fact.

Sure, we don't have to have debate this..there is nothing really to debate. The initial post you quoted was a summary, not meant to open something up for further discussion.

Regarding "sub-Saharan", again, this is a fairly dry piece of bone. There isn't much left to discuss...most of the important points have already been mentioned

Don't be too offended or surprised if people ignore that particular topic

There has never been a famine in Southern Africa so to say there is a famine in Sub-Sarahan Africa is an insult to the good governance in Southern Africa.

The Aids rate is low in West Africa thus, to say there is an AIDS problem in Sub-Saharan Africa is an insult to the prevention of the disease there. you see, when you go into details you get more useful information and can focus on and solve the problems in various areas!

ROSSIKE:

You're another person brainwashed to see the world through the blue eyes of a Caucasian. Why are some of you people so allergic to new knowledge?

Read and learn:


''It came as a surprise to me after over 20 years of seeing "normal" world maps to come across an upside down one. The most surprising thing was that I found it surprising. It is completely artificial that we have North at the top of a map.

The convention came a few centuries ago when Northern hemisphere, European navigators started using the North star and the magnetic compass. Before that, the top of the map was to the East which is where the word orientation comes from.''

http://flourish.org/upsidedownmap/

Let me indulge you a little, even if the map is oriented East, all we get that African countries with predominantly black population would be called what 'East-Saharan or something of the sort' countries OR even in the upside down parallel universe where black people enslaved white people, it would be called SupraSaharan as the countries are grouped with reference to the Desert. So if we are to automatically decide to make all our maps due south and sub-saharan countries become supra-saharan countries, would that mean that the average European bigot would begin to see the African as superior?

Sub just means below as Supra means above. . . So how is that condescending? Maybe the Chinese people would need to get offended when their country which is bigger than India is called yes 'a country' whilst India has the luxury of being called the sub-continent or maybe it is the Indians that should be offended that their country is called the sub of the continent

ow11:


Let me indulge you a little, even if the map is oriented East, all we get that African countries with predominantly black population would be called what 'East-Saharan or something of the sort' countries OR even in the upside down parallel universe where black people enslaved white people, it would be called SupraSaharan as the countries are grouped with reference to the Desert. So if we are to automatically decide to make all our maps due south and sub-saharan countries become supra-saharan countries, would that mean that the average European bigot would begin to see the African as superior?

Sub just means below as Supra means above. . . So how is that condescending? Maybe the Chinese people would need to get offended when their country which is bigger than India is called yes 'a country' whilst India has the luxury of being called the sub-continent or maybe it is the Indians that should be offended that their country is called the sub of the continent

Let me clarify, as a geographic term it is not offensive but, it is so useless it should not be used. The way it is used and the laziness behind how it is used is what is offensive. It seems some here believe that some are offended because they want to be related to North Africans. I will state it clearly here. I want in NO WAY to be related to them. I am NOT related them! All I am asking for is calling people what they are and being more specific as that is more useful.

ow11:


Let me indulge you a little, even if the map is oriented East, all we get that African countries with predominantly black population would be called what 'East-Saharan or something of the sort' countries OR even in the upside down parallel universe where black people enslaved white people, it would be called SupraSaharan as the countries are grouped with reference to the Desert. So if we are to automatically decide to make all our maps due south and sub-saharan countries become supra-saharan countries, would that mean that the average European bigot would begin to see the African as superior?

Sub just means below as Supra means above. . . So how is that condescending? Maybe the Chinese people would need to get offended when their country which is bigger than India is called yes 'a country' whilst India has the luxury of being called the sub-continent or maybe it is the Indians that should be offended that their country is called the sub of the continent

I don't really care what Europeans term black Africans. That's entirely their business. What matters is what we term ourselves. I see no reason why we should designate ourselves as 'sub' ANYTHING.

Another thing I detest is the way we refer to even our major ethnic groups as 'tribes'. That's another racist colonial designation we'd do well to get rid of.

The Nazi's were Supra-Saharan people! Watch out for them

SmoothCrim:

Any evidence of the bolded part? Inherent in your statement is the idea that there is something about sub-Saharan Africa to feel inferior about? I disagree!! Now, prove your offensive claim!! It is human nature to want to be acknowledged as what you are.

The idea behind this thread pre-supposes on the fact that describing African countries that actually lie within and below the Sahara desert as sub-saharan is a condescending term. This would mean that someone is feeling insecure about himself and is demanding an acknowledgement based upon conjectures and absurdities.

A lot more people are not offended and see it as what it is, a geographical description based upon what is acceptable worldwide. Maybe you should cease to speak English since it is borrowed and means it is the white man's deliberate attempt to kill your native tongue.

I certainly do not see any racial undertone and there are many more standards we have like the Calender for example. The muslim world can complain all they want but everyone knows this is 2012. Whether ancient Nigerians used a 4-day week is irrelevant, What matters now is that a week is 7 days old.

Geography has a set of rules drummed up by someone or a group of people and if it became popular, so be it. Trying to force fit racial undertones to the rule set is disingenous.

I just like you

SmoothCrim:

Let me clarify, as a geographic term it is not offensive but, it is so useless it should not be used. The way it is used and the laziness behind how it is used is what is offensive. It seems some here believe that some are offended because they want to be related to North Africans. I will state it clearly here. I want in NO WAY to be related to them. I am NOT related them! All I am asking for is calling people what they are and being more specific as that is more useful.

Now we are getting somewhere. I quite agree with you here especially the laziness bit. The same way Americans say Europe or many people believe that Oceania is a one country continent or in a very lazy grouping (Asia-Pacific).

Now the Australians and Fijians aren't complaining are they?

ow11:

The idea behind this thread pre-supposes on the fact that describing African countries that actually lie within and below the Sahara desert as sub-saharan is a condescending term. This would mean that someone is feeling insecure about himself and is demanding an acknowledgement based upon conjectures and absurdities.

A lot more people are not offended and see it as what it is, a geographical description based upon what is acceptable worldwide. Maybe you should cease to speak English since it is borrowed and means it is the white man's deliberate attempt to kill your native tongue.

I certainly do not see any racial undertone and there are many more standards we have like the Calender for example. The muslim world can complain all they want but everyone knows this is 2012. Whether ancient Nigerians used a 4-day week is irrelevant, What matters now is that a week is 7 days old.

Geography has a set of rules drummed up by someone or a group of people and if it became popular, so be it. Trying to force fit racial undertones to the rule set is disingenous.

It is condescending but, not for some of the reasons stated. It is condescending because it is too general and lazy... The "sub" debate does not resonate with me and I don't care for it. What I do care about is the laziness in which sub-Saharan African it is used. Do you agree it is lazy?

ROSSIKE:

Another thing I detest is the way we refer to even our major ethnic groups as 'tribes'. That's another racist colonial designation we'd do well to get rid of.

Totally agree with you here. Colonial legacy and our educators have failed to drum up what the word 'tribe' means and how inappropraite it is to calling someone a member of the Igbo or Yoruba tribe.

The blame lies squarely at the doorstep of the Ministries of Education that approve social studies textbooks

Let me also clarify one thing. Historically no West African wants to be a North African or Arabian! The West Africans who accepted Islam as a religion NEVER accepted to become Arabians. This was not the case in other areas of the world including North Africa and parts of East Africa. Thus, to insinuate that West Africans have historically wanted anything to do with North Africans or Arabians is a big joke.

Get off that tangent and get on the real debate!

SmoothCrim:

It is condescending but, not for some of the reasons stated. It is condescending because it is too general and lazy... The "sub" debate does not resonate with me and I don't care for it. What I do care about is the laziness in which sub-Saharan African it is used. Do you agree it is lazy?

You are a nonentity why then will you suppose they will consult you on how best to describe regions of black Africa? Should it be more appropriate if they called it ; Sh1tville since every corner south of the Sahara is hopelessly messed up

SmoothCrim:

It is condescending but, not for some of the reasons stated. It is condescending because it is too general and lazy... The "sub" debate does not resonate with me and I don't care for it. What I do care about is the laziness in which sub-Saharan African it is used. Do you agree it is lazy?

Means you were talking about something outside of the discussion at hand. Of course, it is a lazy way to talk. A more specific grouping would be strictly cardinal points. But then again, we have Middle East, Far East and United states of America everyone including many Nigerians call America.

Funny enough, South Americans don't like the Laziness or Latin America (Guyanese speak English and can't understand why their continent is called Latin America). We are not being racist to the South Americans when we call USA, America , it is just us being lazy. It is sort of a human thing rather than being racist.

O.D.B.:


You are a nonentity why then will you suppose they will consult you on how best to describe regions of black Africa? Should it be more appropriate if they called it ; Sh1tville since every corner south of the Sahara is hopelessly messed up

Not really! The fact that you don't know that shows you lack of intelligence!