2 Responses

  1. Mike Rodent
    Mike Rodent October 18, 2012 at 1:10 pm |

    Hi there! I most definitely feel the term “sub-Saharan” is pejorative because of the use of “sub”. I don’t see “Indian sub-continent” as truly comparable, as the latter is using a specifically **topological** *noun* (i.e. we are speaking of a subset of the term “continent”), whereas it is not at all clear from the adjective “sub-Saharan” in what sense that part of Africa is “sub”.
    The most unfortunate connotation is inevitably “sub-human”. But even if our interpretation is not taken to that extreme, why are we so apparently indifferent to use such “North-ist” perceptions as “the norm”. Africa south of the Sahara is “super-Saharan” if you draw the maps with the South Pole at the top.
    My feeling is that both “sub-Saharan” and “super-Saharan” are unnecessarily and unhelpfully redolent of past and present evils. Couldn’t we just use something neutrally geographical such as “Non-Mediterranean Africa”? Would also encompass the Berbers of southern Morocco, but I suspect they’d be cool about this…

  2. Dhanu
    Dhanu August 5, 2015 at 12:58 am |

    Simply wanna remark on few gaenrel things, The website design is perfect, the written content is rattling great. If a man does his best, what else is there by George Smith Patton, Jr..

Leave a Reply