Talk:Sub-Saharan Africa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The following discussion is archived from Talk:Sub-Saharan Africa. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Violation of Wikipedia's policies

Another point I would like to make. I made the changes in keeping with wikipedia's policies. The article, as it was, violated wikipedia's two first pillars blatantly, if not the rest. It was not only inaccurate in a very basic way (sudan is listed as a north african country by the editer and egyptians are considered black? absurd) but it was not at all neutral or objective. One point of view was being presented, namely that of a filmmaker from germany (shahada). I hope everyone respects wikipedia's five pillars and leaves the article as is. [previous unsigned edit made by Mariam83 05:11, 18 June 2007, after the following text. This tag added by davidwr ^(talk)/_(track) 22:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)]

I have made some changes that should have been made before as they are blatently misleading and make much use of evasive language. Ecyclopedic information is not being used here but rather a propagandist, outlandish and most importantly, inaccurate vision of what is not, never has been and never will be. What is more, the sources that are cited are unreliable, and in one instance, this stems from the source being flawed. I have looked into the source that is much sited on most pages concerning North Africa, a region whose size is grossly underestimated and overlooked in these rather inaccurate and misrepresentative and at times, fantastic wikipedia articles. In a source often cited, findings are based on a sample of: 29 Saharawis from Mauritania, 40 SOUTHERN Moroccan Berbers, 44 Moroccan Arabs, and 63 north-central Moroccan Berbers. This is from the Iberian-so called "NorthWest African" study. Findings based on these subjects are then applied to the whole of "Northwest Africa" and the article further implicates countries that are North African, such as Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. Demographically, it is well-known that Mauritanian is mainly sub-saharan, and Morocco, particularly the Moroccan south, dissimilar to distant countries such as Tunisia or Algeria. Again, it must be remembered that North Africa is more than twice as large as Europe and that Libya alone, "With 1.76 million square kilometers, Libya is a vast territory the size of France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Belgium combined."[1]. I think much of the misudnerstanding has arisen from this frequently cited source, that is unfortunately, misleading and grossly inaccurate. The authors should have dutifully based their findings on this Mauritanian-South Moroccan region and not have been careless and insolent enough to apply such meagre findings to such a vast region. I would also like to point out another very important point as a native of the region. I think some people who are unfamiliar with the region and who for whatever reasons are attempting to appropriate a culture not their own, overlook very simple basic facts at times and distort language to convey a rather eccentric and unfounded vision that to those in the know, is absurd. It is true that in Libya at the moment for instance, there are close to 1 million if not more illegal sub-saharan black africans. The situation sadly is similar in other countries such as Morocco, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Algeria. However, it seems to me that the presence of non-natives is prodding certain unrealistic eccetrics to further expound on their absurd and fantastical claims. One need only study the region's history or visit the region to witness the reality. As a native, I know that sub-saharan africans are not indigenous to the region and I also know that Sudan, contrary to Deecee's wishes, is not part of North Africa, not is Mauritania recognized as being part of North Africa for both racial and cultural reasons. While it is true that Sudanis speak Arabic and practice the Muslim religion for the most part, they remain a sub-saharan peoples. I think it is not fair for outsiders to rob a whole Mediterranean region of its identity, and while one cannot control eccentrics who seek to distort history and reality, Wikipedia is responsible for the content its site presents to the world as fact. I remain convinced that such a project cannot survive, because of instances such as the one that I am struggling with at the moment. I inviste Deecee to discuss her concerns. I think perhaps a marvellous exchange of ideas could occur. I dont think that a single individual's opinion should be cited here as gospel, it certainly cannot stand in the face of thousands of years of history. It is for this reason that we must respect the different culture's designations of the world they inhabit and respect these labels. If one were to write about the objectionable nature of the labels North America and South America, I wouldn't expect anyone to take this personal view very seriously, particularly one, as in Shahada's case, who does not live in sub-saharan africa. Mariam83 04:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Black 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. 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 NPOV 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. --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. -- Walt Pohl 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:

1. Sub-Saharan Africa is also known as Black Africa.
2. Part of the reason for the distinction between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa arises from ethnic and cultural differences.

--Lowellian 00:21, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard it today, but historically, I know the novella [Heart of Darkness] clearly viewed Sub-Saharan Africa in a "dark" way reflecting the time it was written.

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. Tony.

I've tried to address this issue in rewrites of the opening para. Rob

Although the multiple meanins of "the dark continent" and such are obvious, ive never heard of someone saying "sub-sahara" to mean that the region is inferior (in fact, the region is resource rich afaik). It simply means below the Sahara, "below" in a geographical context meaning "to the south of". Another geographical example like this might be saying "greater" in reference to the area around a city, such as "Greater New York", or "Greater London"

btw, i changed the part that said "black people" to "negroid", which some of you may object to. To me, having "Caucazoid" in one sentence and then "black people" in the next sounded bad. The complete phrase is now "North Africa's inhabitants are predominantly Caucasoid (mainly of Berber ancestry), while the rest of Africa is mainly inhabited by people who are Negroid.", as opposed to saying "black people" which makes me think the Jeffersons are moving in or something (dont take me as a racist for gods sake, im far far from it). At least here where i live (New York), it would seem as if the term "black people" describes people of African descent living in America (or presumably in Europe as well), as opposed to Africans in African countries, who would be considered "African". Anyway, the use of "Negroid" seems equivalent to the use of "Caucazoid". i apologize if this message was incomprehensible. BBnet3000 14:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Cameroonians tend to refer to themselves as "black people" when discussing broader racial divides (specifically, noirs and more rarely nègres in the francophone part, and black men in the anglophone part). I'm not objecting to "negroid", mind you; I'd prefer whichever term seems to have the upper hand in academia right now. Darren

While astonishing widespread, Sub-Saharan has a wrong ethymology: Africa south of the Sahara is not below the Sahara (except in maps). Below the sahara can be oil, water or ruins, those are the only things that properly can be said to be sub-Saharan. Probably in origin the name is a corruption of Sud-Saharan Africa, which is correct and should be used preferently. Other possible adjectives for the region could be trans-Saharan (like in Transalpine Gaul), ultra-Saharan or simply Black Africa (which doesn't have to be necesarily racist, just descriptive). Trans-Saharan has the problem that can mean beyond the Sahara or across the Sahara, and in this sense is used when talking about trans-Saharan caravans, what can create confusion. Ultra-Saharan, like Trans-Saharan, can be seen as Eurocentric, I must say. Black Africa, being descriptive of the skin color of its inhabitants, may not fit the likes of all but it is definitively more neutral than Sub-Saharan. The best non-POV solution is to systematically replace Sub-Saharan for Sud-Saharan, a little but significative one-letter change should make it, so I propose to adopt this solution as oficial Wikipedia policy. --Sugaar 14:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you didn't intend to put your moniker in the middle of the previous contributor's para, so I've deleted it. The problem with your suggestion is that Sub-Saharan is the established term. Sud-Saharan may be more logical, but it is hardly ever used by anyone. We have to use the established term. Paul B 15:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Wikipedia policy contradicts this proposal As "Sud-Saharan" is obscure, possibly a neologism, we should not use it as a title. See the Naming Conventions Justin (koavf) 15:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Countries by region

I've shuffled the list of countries by region a bit. Specifically, I've moved Cameroon, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, and Gabon into Central Africa, while leaving Cameroon under West Africa. Cameroon now has a note by it that it is often considered part of both regions.

As for Chad, EG, and Gabon, I've never seen them considered West African except on Wikipedia. If they are commonly included among West African countries, I'd propose a dual listing and notation be added rather than moving them to one region instead than another. BrianSmithson 15:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Further note: I've updated the list to reflect all ambiguity I could find on the issue. The list currently reflects the one found at Africa, unless some anonymous user reverts it again. BrianSmithson 13:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Capitalisation

This article is inconcistent in its use of Sub-Saharan and sub-Saharan. Which is correct? Andy Mabbett 16:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It's sub-Saharan, unless (of course) it occurs at the start of the sentence. Proto t c 11:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not Caucasoid

North africans are not caucasoid never have been never will be the original Egyptians and Berbers are genetically prdominantly african,which leaves diffrent genetic markers than middle easterners or europeans there are superficial diffrences however original north africans resembled africans not europeans,the san or khoesian people,said to be the inhabitants of punt of south africa are subsaharan "parent" of the north african not the european ,you dont like it argue with genetic proof or science not me, you still dont like it get off the planet, modern science has no room for bigoted hinderances anymore. (anonymous post)

Indeed it does not. As I understand all the evidence points to a big difference between North Africans and subSaharan peoples. Please give us your evidence if you think the oppoasite is the case. Paul B 09:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul, B, you're incorrect. Indigenous North Africans -- like all indigenous Africans -- are black. The Sudanese (of Sudan, which is, of course, a North African nation), are black. These and the Oromo, other Cushites and Nilotics are indigenous to the region. No non-black peoples are indigenous to the region. They are a mixture of Asiatics and (fewer) Caucasoids with the indigenous Africans (read "blacks") of the region. deeceevoice 10:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Further, the original Berbers were -- and are -- black Africans. Many of them have been Arabized over the centuries, with a concomittant lightening of the skin among some groups. There are more black Berbers than there are fair-skinned ones. Black Berbers are found all over North Africa, the Sahel and in West Africa. The original Berber language is not Arabic, but Tamazight, an Afro-Asiatic language related to Amharic (an Ethiopian/Eritrean language (note: the region where the Land of Punt, the point of origin of the founders of ancient dynastic Egypt, is thought to have been) and ancient Egyptian. Notice that "Caucasoid" in any of its derivative forms is nowhere in that term: "Afro-Asiatic." Of course, since I'm such an "Afrocentric extremist," I know you won't believe me. How 'bout the BBC? Here.[2] Read up and learn. deeceevoice 10:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

And then, of course, is the fact that the ancient Egyptians were (and are still today) black peoples. Petrie acknowledged that fact. Herodotus acknowledged that fact. The Great Sphinx of Giza, which is clearly a representation of a black African, is -- where? -- near Cairo, in -- where? -- North Africa. The Galla (or Oromo of Abyssinia and throughout the Horn of Africa) and the Tigre (of present-day Eritrea and Ethiopia) also are also North African peoples, all black. See references to Petrie (the "Father of Egyptology") and photos at[3] and [4]. deeceevoice 11:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

In light of the above, I've substantially rewritten the relevant text in the article -- excising particularly the erroneous garbage about how North Africans are Caucasoids. deeceevoice 14:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice, I think you make some good points, but also make some muddled, overstated ones. The wikipedia Berber article itself quotes a study that says the Beber population is 75% East African paternally from an upper Paleolithic colonization. These East Africans likely brought the ancestor language to the Afro-Asiatic languages spoken across North Africa. Following that, a further East African Afro-asiatic speaking group, possibly connected with the Berber, spread the language to Egypt. Just search for info on the e3b or M35 Y haplogroup and linguistic work by people like Christopher Ehret.

Maternally, Berber (and presumably Egyptian) populations seem to have largest percentages of Near Eastern and European mtDNA. Makes sense. In a colonizing group, males will/would likely mix with native women. Sometimes they just drive the native males out, enslave them, or kill them. Not unlike in Ethiopia where the South Arabian Semitic language-speakers left not only their language but a minority amount of genetic ancestry in some of the current population. The north African mixing was obviously larger according to the genetic evidence. The native North Africans of that period may have been part of Near Easterners who spread to that region. They were probably lighter-skinned and looked more Near Eastern until this 10,000-40,000 year old East African admixture. I think discussing Caucasoid and Negroid is idiotic in general but especially so with a group like North Africans because the genetic and linguistic evidence clearly shows their relationship to black Horn Africans and Near Easterners.

The Oromo are not North African. They are indigenous East/Horn Africans. Going back far enough, they were part of a proto-Cushitic language group including the ancestors of the Somali, the Beja of coastal Sudan, and the Semitic-speaking people of Ethiopia and Eritrea, who still share the vast majority of their genetic and cultural heritage with their Cushitic neighbors. Going back further, they spoke proto-Afro-asiatic, a decidedly African language despite attempts to ascribe it a Near Eastern origin (I've read people I respect like Luigi Cavalli-Sforza make this assumption).

Sorry if this one big repetitive, irrelevant jumble, but overall I think we agree and its important to make sure people don't take the African out of North Africa. I think you should focus more on genetic and linguistic evidence in your editing and shouldn't engage in the racial absolutism that some of these other folks engage in. I hope I don't sound like I'm picking on you. 24.218.24.39 21:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

No. I know where the Oromo are. There's that whole funny thing again of what constitutes North Africa and what does not. Eritrea and Ethiopia are actually sometimes considered part of North Africa. (Read it on a reputable online source.) Further, the Oromo historically also occupied what everyone generally considers North Africa, as well as portions of the Middle East -- as did blacks occupy Libya, etc. I address the racial issue because that is what is behind the bullshyt designations of "North Africa," "sub-Saharan Africa," "black Africa," etc. And it seems we both agree that those are ridiculous concepts with clearly geopolitical motives.

I wrote what I chose to write. Perhaps, you would like to focus on the linguistic and genetic aspects of the matter. After all, you're as free to edit as is anyone else. I just couldn't let that bull about North Africans being Caucasoid stand. What unmitigated bullcrap! deeceevoice 21:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I AM Oromo. Not to pull rank, I know more about them then you'll ever know. There is no proof my ancestors (as distinct Oromo people ethnically and linguistically) were in North Africa or the Middle East. THEIR ancestors, as black Afro-Asiatic people, however, were undoubtedly in these areas as indicated by the spread of their language. Oromo people have only been in the horn of Africa. My comment on you focusing on linguistic and genetic aspects is because that website you linked to above about Oromo people being in Egypt is out-there. Its like saying Lithuanian people were in Ancient Greece just because their ancestors were ethnolinguistically related as Indo-Europeans. Looking at a statue and saying "this looks African" isn't as solid as hard scientific genetic info. Do as you like, but I was saying to spread the message using hard science and not questionable anthropology from some random website off the internet. It's a lot harder to argue, though people still try. You don't have to be defensive, I wasn't trying to boss you around. 24.218.24.39 21:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not being defensive. Read Petrie (a well-respected scholar known as the "Father of Egyptology"). What you know as a modern-day individual is not what you might know if you'd studied your people in antiquity. Wikipedia exists so that people can write what they please. I'm not here to take direction from you. As one of the few black people on this website, I already spend wa-aay too much of my personal time trying to clear up the lies, obfuscations and outright ignorance of the average white person about who and what we are. It's annoying to have someone else tell me that I should write more -- and about how they would approach a piece. Do it ya damned self! And I don't mean that in a hostile way. But, honestly! If you have something you want to say, then, for God's sake, say it -- yourself! That's what Wikipedia is. It's thoroughly democratic. As I stated, I was responding to the claims about "Caucasoid" North Africans. I've already mentioned the linguistic issue on this discussion page. But my intention here was to debunk the stupid, erroneous, racial labels (crafted with clearly imperialist, racist, geopoligical motives) affixed to various areas of the continent -- not to get into some lengthy examination of ethno-linguistic classifications. If you'd like to contribute and bring it into the article (which really, IMO, isn't about that sort of thing) -- and you seem as qualified to do so as anyone else, perhaps even better qualified, -- then have at it. Be my guest. Know, though, that I consider you a brother/sister, and -- also -- my comments are not meant to offend. Peace. deeceevoice 22:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Further, keep in mind that the "Asiatic" part of the equation may very well not be the Mongoloid phenotype commonly thought of today, but people more akin to the Semang (who exhibit a mixture of Africoid and Mongoloid phenotypical characteristics -- as do, incidentally the San bushmen and other Africans -- heck, I know and/or have seen plenty of dark-skinned African Americans, unmixed with Asian blood, with epicanthic eyefolds) or even the obviously Africoid Australoids of New Guinea, the Solomons, Micro and Polynesia and throughout the Near East (see "African Diaspora", who share more DNA markers in common with Asians than with Africans. After all, until fairly recently in this planet's history, the aboriginal blacks of Asia ranged throughout the East. Even W.E.B. Dubois acknowledged that the Hittites (whom many scholars have suggested were a Hamitic people) may have been or had black ancestry common among their ranks. deeceevoice 19:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! North africans are, and always were caucasoid! If you have actual PROOF that they are not caucasoid feel free to post it/link to it here, rather than just regurgitating the same few pieces of nonsense spouted by the so-called "Afrocentrists"("negrocentrists" is a more appropriate term). Speaking as someone who is actually of part North African ancestry, who has been to North Africa, has spoken to north Africans, and has spent countless hours in museums with North African features I can say without and shadow of doubt that North Africans are and always were Caucasoid. The whole idea to lump a single "African" generic people together comes from sub-saharans(a perfectly valid term) who are ashamed of the nonexistent amount of culture, and achievement stemming from that part of the world. The only civilisation south of the Sahara was created by caucasoids, and some mongoloids. That isn't "racism", it's simple historical fact. While I can appreciate somebody wanting to feel that they are part of spectacular historical legacy, I will not tolerate this heritage theft. I am frankly sick and tired of people from Western and Central Africa claiming that they are in some way connected to the Egyptians, Carthaginians/Tunisians,Algerinas/Numidians,Cyrenes/Libyans, and Moroccans/Moors/Berbers. ALL of the Egyptians etc are caucasoid, and always have been. This article is about SUB-SAHARAN "Africa", which is a perfectly valid term, not only because the people are of a totally different race/biological group to the North Africans, but also because the natural fauna, flora, geology etc is significantly different. In these politically correct days, caucasoid people are meant to spend all their time defending themselves and claiming that they aren't racist, and don't mean to offend anybody, while certain(and certainly only an arrogant minority of) black people can spout whatever nonsense they like knowing that it won't be refuted by the cowering, self-guilt-filled caucasoids. Well, deecee etc. I am Hamito-Semitic WHITE and I say enough! Have you ever been to Libya? If you had, you would see that most Libyans are NOT black, they are caucasoid. Same with the whole of North Africa. This attempted theft of other peoples' heritage is deeply insulting to those of us who ARE ACTUALLY of North African descent. I'm sorry if I've offende anyone with "racism", but nothing I've said is not true. 23 February 2007

What kinda ignorant, racist bull**** is this?

Deleted:' "North Africa's intercourse with the rest of Africa for several millennia largely has been limited to the trans-Saharan trade. 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 Sahel often traded with the North, the Horn of Africa region traded with Arabia, and East African coastal towns often traded with the rest of the Indian Ocean, much of the interior of the continent had little contact with the outside world until the colonial era."

WHAT? Anybody remember Mansa Musa, who gave away so much gold when he went on hajj, he depressed the economies of North Africa? The enormous gold wealth of Mali, Ghana, Songhay and Mali which fueled trade routes with North and Europe? What about the freaking trans-Atlantic slave trade and the systematic depopulation of Africa and the exploitation/theft of its rich natural resources? Human beings, ivory, diamonds, gold, cocoa, bananas, bauxite, oil, coal (you name it, Africa's got it). It was the trade in human beings, gold and ivory, etc., etc., that was responsible for the amassing of huge fortunes in Europe, giving rise to world capitalism and, eventually, the Industrial Revolution. What about Timbuktu, which by the 1100s was a major center of learning for the Islamic world? What about the Almoravid Moors of Senegal, who were significant as warriors and rulers during the centuries-old domination of Spain and whose scholars, warriors and statesmen left their mark on European civilization -- and in the bloodlines of the Spanish people? Hell, they practically civilized Spain, and the knowledge they brought with them jump-started the Renaissance, taking Europe out of an era where they were still hanging their hind parts over castle walls to take dumps and living in such filth and ignorance of medicine and basic hygiene that these factors contributed mightily to the Black Death. "Modern era"? What about the woman warrior Nzingha, who kicked much Portuguese butt in the 1600's?

And some "editor" has the nerve to write that sub-Saharan Africa's only contact/contribution with the rest of the world before the "modern" era was disease? Day-um. Such gottdamned ignorance and race bias have no place in the twenty-first century -- and certainly no place on a website that purports to be a source of information -- an "encyclopedia," no less.

For some people, computers should be freaking illegal. *x* deeceevoice 11:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Wanna educate yourself? Try this one for starters.[5] Idiot. deeceevoice 11:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph you deleted was misguided. What the article really needs is a brief history section, which should cover much of the information you mentioned and that is touched on in the article you linked: People evolved in and spread from Sub-Saharan Africa, Sub-Saharan contacts with the rest of the world were largely through war and trade with North African groups and through the trans-Saharan slave trade at first (for West Africa; not sure about Southern and East Africa), the trans-Atlantic slave trade depopulated and devestated the continent, "much of the interior of the continent had little contact with the outside world until the colonial era" (which is largely correct, at least for Central Africa), and colonialism furthered dramatically the destruction of slavery. I must admit that I've never heard of the Almoravids being from Senegal, but if so, a sub-Saharan group conquering much of Spain is definitely worth mentioning. BrianSmithson 16:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I remain so irked by that bulls***, I tracked the addition to an anonymous editor -- likely a racist troll. That passage had been in the article since June (or July) of 2004. And people get the a** and take issue with me when I say that the information in Wikipedia is far from authoritative and should be taken with a grain of salt! Ha. deeceevoice 07:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That deleted paragraph was badly lacking in detail, but doesn't actually contradict the examples you gave. Mali, Ghana, Songhay, Timbuktu, Mansa Musa and the Almoravids were part of the Sahel, while Nzinga and the Atlantic slave trade were by definition in the colonial era, and also in the modern era by the standard definition of post-Columbus or post-1500. --JWB 16:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Pull out a map. Timbuktu was where? Mali. Check the article. Mali is where? "West Africa." The Almoravid Moors were from where? Senegal. Check the article. Where is Senegal? "West Africa." Where is Ghana? Check the article again. "West Africa." Where was Songhai? Mali and Niger. The article already says Mali is in "West Africa." So, where is Niger? He-e-e-y. "West Africa." This is the article that initially advanced that old, false dichotomy of "Caucasoid North Africa" and "Black Africa" until I rewrote that garbage. Now, some these places of black advancement are all of a sudden not in sub-Saharan, or "Black" Africa, but "Sahelian Africa." Were these, or were they not black kingdoms/empires? And Ghana part of the Sahel? Thank you, JWB, for the instructive example -- a perfect illustration why the convoluted, self-serving double-speak of white supremacy is laughed at! deeceevoice 16:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit confused by this argument here. Deecee, unless I totally misread this, you yourself edited this article yesterday to put West Africa (and by extension both Mali and Niger) outside of sub-Saharan Africa. I'm not saying that you were wrong to do that (the revision we have now is adequate, I think), but it doesn't seem fair to compare JWB to a white supremacist for saying the same thing here. And though the anonymous editor of the original paragraph is probably long gone, I think we need to remember that a lousy understanding of African history doesn't necessarily make someone a "racist troll." Sadly, it just makes them an average product of the American school system.

Anyway, it seems to me that the best way to solve this problem is going to be to just expand our pre-colonial examples of worldwide African contacts, like Mansa Musa and Abubakari II of Mali (though the claims of the latter remain pretty flimsy--maybe he's a bad example), and East African examples (those I can't do off the top of my head as neatly, though I know they exist). How's that sound? --Dvyost 18:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Just compare the maps in West Africa and Sahel and Ghana Empire or [6]. (I trust you're not committing such a basic error as confusing Ancient Ghana with modern Ghana.) Nobody in this discussion has said, implied, or suggested that said kingdoms were not black, or that the Sahel is not part of Sub-Saharan Africa (indeed it is defined as south of the Sahara).

My point was exactly that not everything is a white racist plot (although ironically some sources Deeceevoice has cited elsewhere do turn out to be white racist), and suggesting that seeing racism everywhere and fuming about it is less productive than just adding the relevant detail about Africa to the articles.--JWB 18:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of making myself unpopular with everybody here, I'm not really sure that's a fair way to characterize Deecee's edits either, as she does terrific work across Wikipedia. Still, I think you're both making the same correct, broader point; let's not worry about characterizing each other's motives, but rather just find the relevant sources and correct what we may need to in the article at hand here, no? --Dvyost 18:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

First, I edited the article with the intention of including "West Africa" as simply another, mutually non-exclusive, commonly used regional term for certain nations in Africa -- and not to remove them from the broader geographic area of "sub-Saharan Africa." You will note that when another editor brought the seeming contradiction to my attention, I agreed with the proposed subsequent edit without protest.

Secondly, I have no idea if JW is racist or not. I don't care what his personal beliefs may be, and I certainly didn't compare him to anything. What I wrote of was his use of the commonly accepted terminology which is, IMO, clearly racially and geopolitically motivated -- not to mention thoroughly inaccurate, contradictory and misleading. To say that the now excised, racist passage was somehow accurate because the ancient kingdoms/empires referred to were "Sahelian" -- as though they were somehow not part of that is commonly referred to as "black Africa"/"sub-Saharan Africa" is thoroughly specious and, IMO, suggests an intellectual dishonesty which I will not permit without comment. The point is clear: the passage is absolutely false and reeks of ignorance and racist bias. And, no. I did not state definitively it was the work of a racist troll, but the anonymity of its contributor and its blatant nature, despite at least one apparent apologist, certainly suggests to me that such is the case. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. deeceevoice 20:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the rare, kind words, Dvyost -- but the link to Walter Mondale? Bwoi, dat jes' wrong :O !!! U need Jeezus. lol deeceevoice 20:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You say yourself that "West Africa" is simply a regional term not removing nations from sub-Saharan Africa. To my knowledge and by its given definition, Sahel is the same kind of term. If you think the word "Sahel" itself is racist or connotes non-black, perhaps you could document this at Sahel as nobody else seems to be aware of it. The choice of the word Sahel in the deleted paragraph probably reflects no more than that the region that engaged in trans-Saharan trade was the region that borders the Sahara. Anyway, I was not advocating the use of "Sahel" or any particular term, much less arguing the deleted paragraph should not be deleted or revised, but just pointing out how the paragraph could have been based on the history-textbook interpretation of the word 'modern' instead of motivated by racist intent. Maybe the passage was simply copied or paraphrased from a school textbook; the style seems consistent with that.--JWB 22:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggested merger w/Black Africa

This article makes the point that the division of Africa into sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa, with the former being thought of as "black Africa" is bogus. Black Africa makes the same point. Wikipedia should not continue to perpetuate the myth that "black" Africa is limited to regions south of the Sahara. It is simply untrue. And combining these two articles would run counter to the information included in both articles. It makes no sense. Combine them? Absolutely not! deeceevoice 17:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Miscommunication? I'm not suggesting they are identical, but the "Black Africa" article is a stub, and I don't think that it merits its own entire entry. It should probably become a section in the Sub-Saharan Africa article. Granted, not all blacks live south of the Sahara (like the miniscule black Moroccan population) and not all who live south of the Sahara are black (like the Boers), but the vast majority of either overlaps with the other. Justin (koavf) 20:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed my opinion on this long ago -- but in the discussion of Black Africa. I thought the merger already had been accomplished. No? deeceevoice 14:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the separate section on "Black Africa." I'd already pretty much covered it. Thanks for doing the redirect, though. deeceevoice 04:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

West Africa/Sub-Saharan Africa

I'm not sure about changing this to put West Africa outside of Sub-Saharan Africa; it seems to me that a country like Mali (with almost all of its population south of the Sahara) should still count as "sub-Saharan", while places like Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, and Cameroon certainly should. Also, the way the article stands now is a bit contradictory, as we've still got West Africa listed as a part of it below. While I don't have any academic sources on hand for this, checking the top Google hits shows that the World Bank [7], the UN [8], and Derechos.org [9] all consider West Africa in Sub-Saharan Africa; that's neither conclusive nor academic, but it's an interesting cross section of opinion.

This shows yet again that BrianSmithson's quite right that we need to have a centralized discussion on how to settle Africa regional divisions in Wikipedia sometime. In the meantwhile, though, how about changing that first sentence, Sub-Saharan Africa, Africa south of the Sahara, is the term used to describe those countries of Africa that are not part of North or West Africa to read "North Africa and some areas of West Africa"? --Dvyost 04:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That works. deeceevoice 05:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Changed accordingly. Cheers, --Dvyost 05:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This just got changed again by anon editor User:68.60.55.162 to refer to only "Equatorial Africa." So far as I can tell from Google, this means only countries the Equator runs through, no? The more common usage as above seems to include nations north of this (Mali) and nations south of this (Angola, Botswana), so I'm reverting to the edit agreed on by me and Deecee pending a citation to the contrary. --Dvyost 05:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't found the strict equator-crossing definition on Google, but it does overwhelmingly seem to refer to French Equatorial Africa and the countries that were part of it, plus Democratic Republic of the Congo and Equatorial Guinea, or to the rainforest region. [10] is a map that also includes East Africa, but far from all of sub-Saharan Africa.

Tropical Africa is more inclusive, excluding only South Africa and its enclaves. [11] It also gets more Google hits than Equatorial Africa.

Concern about possible negative associations of representing south as down is not limited to Africa; see Reversed map.

Does everyone think Black Africa is pejorative?--JWB 10:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Pejorative or no, I don't think I like Black Africa as it starts redefining this by race instead of geography (which, as Deecee points out above, can be muddy). Tropical Africa is a better term and getting more scholarly use, but South Africa is clearly outside the tropic band, yet intended in most definitions of sub-Saharan Africa. I agree with you about the point on the reversed map business, but the problem is that nobody's really come up with a good alternate term yet, or at least not one that's gained wide usage. This is the sort of situation where WP:NOR becomes important, if subtly so, I think; as a tertiary reference work, all we can really do is report on the terms that are most commonly in use in the press and in academia. (though we can, obviously, note all the problems you've listed here!) --Dvyost 13:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I never said I thought "Black Africa" was pejorative -- just grossly inaccurate and misleading because it is a term that supports an image of blacks in Africa: uncivilized, backward, needy and found in only sub-Saharan Africa (with the Sahel usually not ever even mentioned), who never contributed anything of value to world civilization any time, anywhere; and Caucasians and Semites, civilized, advanced, productive and who people North Africa (and who, by implication or explicit and utter lies, predominated in dynastic Egypt) -- an image conceived and purveyed in the service of centuries-old lies, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, racism, colonialism, blatant cultural appropriation, neocolonialism and imperialism. (The article on North Africa -- until I just changed it -- actually said blacks inhabited only Lower Egypt and that "The northern coast, on the other hand, seems to have been continuously inhabited by Caucasoid peoples." It's ridiculous and reads like something from Stormfront. If that is so, someone please explain the huge, honking Giza Sphinx near Cairo that is about as Africoid in appearance as you can get. Same damned obfuscation, same damned lies.) That's all. :p deeceevoice 14:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

At least sub-Saharan Africa is where everyone except very recent colonists is black, which is a noticeable difference. All existing terms for sub-Saharan Africa may carry the same kind of negative connotations, and even a new or preferred term will quickly assume those negative connotations once racists start using it too.--JWB 19:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, but I'm not sure I get your point. My point in rewriting this piece from the beginning has been the false dichotomy of "sub-Saharan" and "North Africa" and the (deliberate) excising of a black presence the high Nile Valley civilizations, which were black in origin -- an artifice which abets the lie of a Caucasoid/Semitic dynastic Egypt -- and the crappily erroneous, racially skewed definition (now excised). I myself use "Black Africa," but I use it more conceptually rather than in a geographic sense, distinguishing it from the Maghreb Berbers, neocolonialist whites and rabidly, anti-black, Semitic Arabs. As far as I'm concerned, there are no indigenous peoples in Africa who are not black. All others are recent arrivals -- and that includes the Maghreb Berbers, who are the result of the westward migration of the various, original black Berber peoples mixed with Caucasoid and Asian peoples and an "I'm white" attitude. :p deeceevoice 19:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Lower Egypt is the Northern Coast. Upper Egypt is the Southern part and the one from which the First dynasty of Egypt originated. The sentence you deleted was contradicting itself. User:Dimadick

A correction. The passage stated that blacks inhabited only Upper Egypt. The information was consistently incorrect (which is why I mentioned both passages). Just a mental glitch. I know the difference between Upper and Lower Egypt and the Upper and Lower Nile and how the designations are counterintuitive. I simply misspoke/typed. (Oops.) deeceevoice 16:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Libyans that are not black or 1/2 black. I want some references for this because every Libyan I have every seen has been darker than most blacks in America except the ones who were half turkish.

Problems with the term, see an argument from the against camp

It is said that natural barriers justify the separation of North and Southern Africa, but the Sahara is only one such barrier in Africa. Ethiopia is more "cut-off" from the rest of Africa due to its mountain ranges. There are barriers due to the impassible forest of central Africa. There are also the great Southern desert belts; interestingly enough Africans have been occupying these deserts from the beginning of human history. There is no climate change when we enter Libya, there is no religious change, and we can argue there is no profound cultural changes which wouldn’t be witness moving from Ethiopia to Southern Sudan. Arabic is spoken in Djibouti just like it is in Sudan, all of these are South of the make-believe line. Somalia is part of the same political Islamic alignment just like many so-called Arab countries. Thus the legitimacy of Sub-Saharan Africa seems to be rooted in some more mischievous foundation.

In this respect to discuss Africa from the context of Sub (a word which has lin ks to sub-human, sub-culture, i.e. a very negative word) absolutely distorted view of African cultures north and south of the equator. Viewing culture from these limiting vantages point poisons the flexibility and deeper appreciate of subtle complexities shared, by these unique cultures. In a nutshell it is more obstructive, outside of science and rooted in extreme racist politics. There is more similarity between Mali culture and the culture of the nomadic Berber people than Bantu groups in the Congo . Amhara culture can be argued to have a deeper relationship with Yemen (which it annexed in antiquity) than Ghanaian culture. So a black and white view of African culture only serves racist generalizations. Historians would like to point to the unilateral influence on African culture by non-African people, never is Africa seen to be the givers of cultural influence outside of its locality. This was extended to the extreme to say Nubians offered nothing to a supposed Caucasoid Egypt. We are to infer that for thousands of years there was only a unilateral cultural and technological exchange. There is also the notion of "other" suggested in Ancient Egyptian writings, which is now being used to suggest they were of a different race. Lopsided scholarship will always try to work outside of established human behavior. When Ethiopian art depicts the people of Southern Sudan there is an artistic difference between how Ethiopians paint themselves and how they paint "other" Africans: This doesn’t mean Ethiopians are not African. Ghanaians do the same thing. Ethnic differences do not mean racial differences. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 14:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

About the reversion to an earlier version

The article was not "hacked." It was revised to, in part, explain the terminology used in, and the reasons behind, the division of the continent into a region called sub-Saharan Africa. The text is useful and informative and was inserted as part of another discussion in what used to be a somewhat redundant article on Black Africa. It was decided after some discussion, that it would be merged with Sub-Saharan Africa, but because the common terminology of "Black Africa" and "North Africa" is extremely misleading, it was felt that some explanation of the terms is warranted. If anything, it would seem that expurgating this useful information, which both explains and places "sub-Saharan" and related terms in context, is a "hack job." The article is less informative without the information. It is restored. Please do not make wholesale deletions of text -- that has been added as a result of discussion and debate with other editors -- without first discussing your revisions on the discussion page. Further, your restoration of unfortunate text which gives the impression the only contributions sub-Saharan Africans made to world civilization before the modern era were slaves and disease is indefensible. deeceevoice 07:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The previous version was neither "useful" nor "informative" about the subject of the article; i.e., Sub-Saharan Africa. It focused almost entirely on North Africa, using biased and factually inaccurate information. Furthermore, words like "miscegenation" are offensive and unfit for an encyclopedic article. - Zerida 09:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are those who would take issue with you on that. I've been thinking that a relevant subhead would make the purpose of those related passages more immediately apparent. Clearly, the information is necessary, because it addresses common misconceptions occasioned by the very terminology of regional identification in use related to the respective regions. I find it interesting that you say "miscegenation" is offensive. There was a discussion about this in miscegenation. While the term is not inherently pejorative, there are some who associate it historically with racist attitudes and intolerant rhetoric. Certainly, in the U.S., the term is in use in non value-laden/negative contexts. (See Talk:miscegenation.) The language regarding "racial"/ethnic admixture relative to the misperceptions surrounding "Black" and "sub-Saharan" Africa, compared with "North Africa" should remain; however, if you would like to substitute other language, then you're certainly free to do so. Again, I'm in the middle of a deadline, but if you'd like to take a stab at an appropriate subhead and/or language that you find more value-neutral, that'd be great. deeceevoice 10:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Language families

The current version says:

"However, the division more accurately arises from the fact that the people of North Africa have been mostly Afro-Asiatic speaking since ancient times, whereas Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo speaking black populations have predominated in the rest of the continent."

The linguistic family division does not coincide with either the Sahara, or with differences in physical anthropology. For example, the Hausa speak a language classified as Afro-Asiatic. --JWB 10:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this observation. (I didn't write the passage, and haven't read the article completely through in some time.) If you haven't made the adjustment/correction, please do. deeceevoice 10:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the predominance of one language phylum over another, the distinction is geographically evident. Also, the historically spoken languages of North Africa (Berber, Egyptian, as well as Semitic) are classified as a North Afro-Asiatic subgroup, as they are distinguished from tonal languages such as Hausa and other Chadic languages, including by other characteristics. Perhaps the article should also reflect that distinction. - Zerida 10:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No objection at all. deeceevoice 11:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Afro-Asiatic#Classification history lists 6 different modern opinions on which branches of Afro-Asiatic are more closely related. The North Afro-Asiatic grouping is only one of these hypotheses; several of the others group Chadic with one of the northern families.

I can't see that the frequent division of Africa into two parts arises from the language family affiliations, as the article states now. The language classification is recent and not well known except to linguists; non-linguistic viewpoints can hardly be dictated by it.

Tonality is an areal feature of sub-Saharan Africa, as well as of East Asia and parts of the Americas. Areal features cross language family boundaries. Tonality may correlate more closely with the divide at the Sahara, but tonality is not the same as Afro-Asiatic vs. Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan.--JWB 12:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference though is that North Africa is very much defined by Afro-Asiatic, whereas Sub-Saharan Africa is more diverse. And yes, the majority of Sub-Saharans speak Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan. I'm not however suggesting this as the reason that the two regions have been perceived by others as distinct from one another; rather, it contributes to why North Africans are in fact historically different. I realize there are other factors and that's why I tagged it, so hopefully more will contribute (focusing on Sub-Saharan Africa). Also, different hypotheses notwithstanding, you'll be hard-pressed indeed finding a mainstream linguist or Afro-Asiatic reconstructionist who disputes the affinity of Egyptian, Berber, and Semitic as being closer to one another than to any other branch of Afro-Asiatic, with the exception of Beja, tonality being only one factor in the division. Ehret's [12] in my experience is far more widely accepted. Some of the methods employed to suggest other classifications like lexicostatistics are controversial. - Zerida 13:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the similarities don't surprise me, considering all groups have North African origins; it's a regional thing. Tamazight, after all, is the language of the original, black Berbers of the East -- and most of the Maghreb Berbers who call themselves Tamazgha no longer speak it; they speak Arabic. Semites are nothing more than indigenous, black Africans mixed with Asiatic and some European bloodlines. So, again, the linguistic affinity among the three groups should not surprise anyone. But as you stated, language was not the primary consideration in how Africa has been regionalized into discrete geographic areas. It has more to do, as the part of the article I'm familiar with states, with other factors: climate, the geographical barrier of the Sahara, geopolitical and politico-ethnic/racial considerations. deeceevoice 16:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Afro-Asiatic#Classification history

^^Are we all reading the same thing? I saw more comparisons between Berber,Cusitic, and Ancient Egyptian than semitic with any of them. The most recent grouping almost excludes Semitic out of the localized context. Khoisan speakers of southern African speak a very distinct language also that isn't related to Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, or Afro-Asiatic, yet there's no separate article on South Africa. Besides, Afro-Asiatic is known to have started in/near (Ethiopia) 'Sub-Saharan' Africa, Africans obviously not only made contact with and colonized North Africa, but also the Mid-east. The basis for separation is absurd! It's all Africa..Taharqa 04:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you think people in Africa think?

You guys are all talking about Genetic pools and hell yeah North Africa is the same as Black Africa, but shouldn't the opinion of the people of the region matter somewhat?

The fact is, most people in Africa do see a huge, distinct, and tangible line drawn between North and South of the Sahara Africa. The divide is mostly ethnolinguistic, mostly cultural. The experience of most Egyptians (and other North Africans) who go to sub-Saharan countries is usually very negative with reports of systematic racism and discrimination. The experience of most Africans who visit the North may be a bit more favorable, but the relations between South Sudanese refugees and Egyptians haven't been that charming lately. Interaction between berbers and their neighbors to the South is hardly any better. In general relations between the two regions are limited to: -Soccer matches that invariably end disastrously. -Some trade. -A large number of Nigerian princes willing to give away millions of dollars. Other than the Egyptian-Sudanese relations (which are mixed by definition), interaction between the two regions is minimal.

So I find it very weird that people living outside Africa are wasting so much time asserting that North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa are one and the same, or that Tut was Black or something. Dudes, the fact is, these two regions don't like each other NOW, and maybe if they did, they'd both be better off. How do you bring them together? Study the differences instead of discussing who has a darker tan and whose mtDNA is the coolest. Karkaron 21:12, 8 May 2006

But they're still black regions.

^Not my quote.. Anyways, King Tut was African and had shared ancestry with all other African before he did with any outsiders (assuming that he wasn't mixed), but why bring him up? "Black" is a social misnomer, no one is really black, you're either African or not, dark skinned or not, genetically related, or not.

Geography

Hi, I like the article. I have a question. What is the size of sub-saharan Africa? I am guesstimating that it might be somewhere in the region of the size of North America from the Arctic Ocean down to Guatemala. I don't know. This question might sound trivial, but this is the kind of talking point that can do a lot for a Wikipedia article paragraph. I will put this talk page on my watch list. Thanks. --McTrixie 07:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Owen 'Alik Shahadah Quote

Should we provide this quote without any opposing view? Clearly people disagree with him; the term Su-Saharan Africa exists and warrants a wikipedia entry. Maybe a section with rationale for referring to it as a separate entity would be useful.

Actually, that quote looks like it was just put in by someone wanting to insert bias; A biased quote like that has no place taking half the introduction. Maybe in an Alternate Theory/Divisions/??? section, but not in the introduction.

A quote is not biased because u dont understand it, It is a vald well articulated perspective by someone knowledable on the subject, It is a popular opinion among African academics and some whites as well. Even Lonely Planet when they use the term used it "sub-sahara" the term is a problem for many. And more people need to be added. Under no cirumstance should the racist who visit these pages delete it. U find that these people are angre white that hate to see any African voice on terms they invent. This quote is also on Black people and widely considered a serious and valid argument. I will search for more people with this view. look up the word bias, how does it apply to an opposition 2 a racist term which divides Africa. The same as the word Middle East, all of these terms are not of African or Arab origin, clearly critic is valid.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 14:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

But, isn't it true? From what i heard, they hadn't even invented the wheel by the time the colonialists arrived (not sure it's true though) --AnYoNe! 21:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not add part black (sub Sahara Africans)

The issues of a few editors have no weight in determining encyclopedic content. The section black people is the source of the def in this article. thus we cannot invent new terms and definition just because of issues and confusion. Google search shows no concept of part black and hence it is not a valid term in the way it is being used. The correct term would be of African ancestry, Vesperiential has been blocked for his/her inablity to discuss before reverting, lets home this pattern has changed. part-black isnt a valid term, there is no article in wikipedia for a part-black race, it also contradicts the def on black people which it references. if you add it the quality of this article wil get a OR tag and may be deleted, as a editorial construction with no encyclopedic value.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 19:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Since genes are not really black or white we cant say someone is half-black. They can have dual heritage, they can be "mixed race" and i dont like that word, they can be multi-Ethnic (although most African-Americans are, as well as (Hausa and Fulani mixes, Oromo and Amhara mixes) the most accurate def is heritage or ancestry--can we agree on that. Putting Not everybody agrees with the def is a POV as the def of Black people deals with this and this is not the place for this debate, thus i think this article is a child of the Black People article and we have to repect the hard work done there to establish a def.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan is not a good word either because many African live in North Africa, or many Black people are native to Morocco, so this term is very poor because it discounts people, see the issue with the African who was called white because he was from Egypt, Africans live all over the continent they always have, so you cant say Sub-Saharan because the Tureg live North and South of the desert.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Black people living North of the Sahara is a recent phenomenon. They're not indigenous to those areas and were frequently brought there during the slave trade. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vexperiential (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Have you ever taken a DNA test? I have. sub-Saharan is the term they use when describing black ancestry and they can tell the exact percentage of sub-Saharan ancestry you have. A lot of the black people you think have always lived in North Africa would show up as sub-Saharan on a DNA test. As for the Egyptian who is suing the U.S. government to prove he is black, I read they want a DNA test to show he's of sub-Saharan descent and is not a typical Egyptian Vexperiential

I am happy to hear about your dna, thank Q, this article is not the place for the debate about Black identity, that is [black people]], Black people from North Africa are not Sub-Saharan, see pervious debate, see the term Sub-Saharan They didnt walk up to North Africa in 1981 for passports they have always been there, so the term excludes millions of people. again this article is not for debating blackness, see Black people for that and make your argument there, it is enough to refernce that article to discuss this one. You have one large POV, raw opinion, how do you know when "black" people got to Algeria? This is a serious claim which is outside of history, do you know the Turag? and teh Hausa and the Fulani? prior to Arabs and People from Rome and Greece and Spain.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be pushing some sort of Afrocentric agenda. I'm just going by mainstream science. When the FBI finds a DNA sample that is more than 50% sub-Saharan they start looking for a black suspect. If the black people in North Africa are indigenous to that area don't you think the climate would have made them lighter over all those generations? Vexperiential

See DNA and race, White people have African DNA. not a good idea to speak outside of your knowledge, they are lighter, plus it takes 10,000 generations to change race, look it up. 300 years isnt gonna make someone white--now is it. I know my African history, and just letting you know i am not talking air, I am not an Afrocentric, if you look up the term you would see what it means. I thing racism is a horrid thing where we are trained to believe Africans only live below a desert, so why cant they walk across it? cant they walk? see the terms and ask yourself the questions. I went to a town called Bilma which is 100% Black thosands of years old, before Arabs before Rome, look up Bilma. You seem to be pushing all kinds of things, and i feel sad for your trouble. really i do

It takes 10,000 generations to change race eh? Well given that a generation is about 20 years, then that would mean it takes 200,000 years to change race which is kind of contradicted by the fact that modern humans have only existed for about 200,000 years and the first humans did not leaver Africa (to form all the other races) until as recently as 50,000 years ago. So obviously your 10,000 generation estimate is way off, but I'm not even talking about their race changing to fit the new climate, but their skin color. And crossing the Sahara desert by foot is a lot harder than you think. The first modern humans who left Africa were able to do so because it was much less of a desert at that time but it has since become a far more foridable barrier causing those who were trapped beneath the desert to mix only with each other over tens of thousands of years creating a distinct sub-Saharan profile that's easily recognized by DNA tests. Vexperiential

read the research , and i will not debate with you, i am not a gentic expert and i certainly dont believe in concepts of Scientific race, go and see race and read about evolution of race or something, x generations 1000, or 10,ooo years (thats it) African to Arab (45,000 yrs ago) Europeans (30,000 years ago) do the subtraction. read for yourself. If you know anything about the Sahara you would know it wasnt very large 10,000 years ago, the next thing you need to know is crossing a desert crossing the sea was done many times by many people see out of Africa spread of human beings. I feel bored to be honest so i am not even trying because this info isnt anything special please look it up in wiki and see, you will find that i am not making it up;. The Sahara is expanding, they are images of people crossing the Sahara, people went via the coast, Africans are not a primitive poeple they can cross deserts you know 2 assume otherwise is... well not good.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinions but all the mainsream genetic reaserch confirms that all the ethnic groups of Africa either fit into the sub-Saharan DNA cluster (blacks) or the Caucasian DNA cluster (Middle Easterners) or are some hybrid of the two (Ethiopians, Berbers). So obviously, in the opinion of population geneticists, the Sahara desert was the dividing line between black Africans and non-black Africans. Also, you mentioned the Egyptian suing the U.S. government to prove he is black. Why doesn't the U.S. law consider him black? Because Egypt's North of the Sahara. Of course none of this implies that blacks are primitive because the Sahara desert isolated them from those North of the Sahara. Those North of the Sahara could not easily cross it either. The Sahara desert impeded travel in both directions, hence it was a barrier to gene flow allowing 2 distinct genetic clusters in Africa. Vexperiential

Sub-Saharan DNA cluster is a nonsensical term the Turag live in both regions, always have, many groups Sanhaja live in Algeria etc, millions of so-called Black people, and Ethiopians which Ethiopians are you talking about? Amhara, Konso, Tigre, Ormo, Harar, Afar, Hamer, do u want me to go on? dont think so. I have Ethiopian blood, and i think Yom has shown you that gentics doesnt show any crazy hybrid group. Y should they be two distinctive clusters, why not an East-West cluster, what about the Khoisan why select north and south what about Bantu and Fulani, what about San and Zulu, why not draw gentic lines between those two, why are we having this debate on a black billionare article? this belongs in sub-sahara. ohh Yeah Nubians crossed the Sahara, Egyptians crossed the Sahara i didnt hear them complaining about the journey, who peopled North Africa, who divided it from the South, when did this divide happen, why did it happen. No person in Mali said anything about Sub-Saharan Africa in Timbuktu, millions of native Africans live in North Africa. Again Moorish history how did the West African groups get into Spain, if desert crossing are reserved for non-Black people?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 23:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you’re interested in the volumes of research documenting the fact that Ethiopians are genetic hybrids, this page provides a good summary[[13]] It’s great that Yom as a proud Ethiopian wants to claim his ethnicity is pure but as a neutral objective outsider I can assure you he’s incorrect. Now you ask why Africa should be divided racially by the Sahara desert as opposed to an East/West divide. The answers very simple. The Sahara is massive formidable geographic barrier that impedes gene flow from those on either side of it. Races can only emerge when one group of humans gets isolated from another group of people. You claim there was simply never any genetic isolation between blacks and Middle Easterners and that blacks have just always lived alongside Middle Easterners in North Africa. But without genetic isolation there can be no races and if there can be no races there can be no blacks. If blacks have always lived in North Africa then how did they become black in the first place? A population indigenous to that region that North would have a skin color adapted to that climate. You say sub-Saharan is a nonsensical term but the greatest scientists in the world view it as one of the major races of human kind: Noah A. Rosenberg and Jonathan K. Pritchard, geneticists formerly in the laboratory of Marcus W. Feldman of Stanford University, assayed approximately 375 polymorphisms called short tandem repeats in more than 1,000 people from 52 ethnic groups in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity.[[14]] Vexperiential

What is a black person? Are the fulani mixed too, Again white people sit down and say Ethiopians are mixed, mixed with what? They said this about the Rwandan people, your failure is you dont seem to understand white academic racism and the politics of race studies. Egyptians were black skinned. WHAT climate, this is crazy, what is the climate of ethiopia? What about Mali, what happens when you get into Algeria does it start to snow? We have been so brainwashed by beliving absolute madness, there is no sub-saharan people as from time in beginning African lived in North Africa, the Romans documented this. "Greatest Scientist" most of them never went to Africa, know nothing about Ethiopia let alone Mali, Niger, all these places i have been. The Khoisan for example are very different to Bantu people so why call them black? they dont have black skin, Ethiopians are actually dark compared to the Khoisan, but i guess you will tell me and Yom who and what we are based upon some European. Go to Morocco and look at the people there, no not the ones from Mummy Returns, the ones you dont see on TV. Next you will tell me the Egyptians were a White race, forget the climiate being the same as the climate of Mali, NIger, Mauratania, Sudan, etc. Ethiopia is cold cold cold, and the people are dark compared to South Africa. Do www.flyethiopia.com book a flight and come back to me. Ethiopia to use the word almost means those using it are clueless, do you know how diverse Ethiopian poeple are? But white people are superior to Blacks so Yom clearly with all his explanation is still WRONG, because a uneducated scientist says so (who cant even break down Amhara from Oromo)the same people that said this about Rwanda to create a genocide--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 01:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

David Hume and Kant are the greatest thinkers of teh white world, go and quote them as an authentic source on Africa. What did they say? Your argument anyone who crosses the desert is white/Arab, Africans cannot have fine bone structure, (as if all Ethiopians do), Negroes are frighten of sand, they just couldnt cross the desert 10,000 years ago. Africans live in a region called Sub-Saharan Africa. Egypt was a white kingdom, Nubians were not Black people, Algeria is freezing cold.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 01:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. You keep missing the point. The human species could not have divided up into different races unless there were geographic barriers that kept us separate long enough for distinct racial characteristics to evolve. You find it limiting that blacks were historically limited by the Sahara desert to sub-Saharan Africa, but Caucasians were limited by the Sahara desert to Africa North of the Sahara and Eurasia West of the Himalayas. Orientals were limited by the himalayas to East Asia. Australian aboriginals were limited to Australia by the oceans that bordered them. So claiming this means that blacks were scared of sand makes as much sense as claiming Australian aboriginals are scared of water or Orientals are scared of mountains. True there's lots of genetic diversity in Africa (pygmies, West Africans, khoisan, East Africans) but they all were stuck together below the Sahara desert so they interbred and all collectively form a unique genetic cluster distinguishing them from peoples North of the Sahara. Again, any time there's a massive geographic barrier like a huge desert, a huge mountain range, an ocean, the human species is split, gene flow is impeded between those on either side of the barrier and after thousands of years, the 2 separate groups have divided into different races. Vexperiential

I dont know y i entertain this? They all interbreed, Ethiopia has a barrier from the rest of Africa (called Mountains) fly over it and c, dont you know? What about the other desert keeping the Khoisan from the Bantu? My God man look at the map. The Sahara is one barrier there are many.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 19:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, all of the Caucasoids you see now are mostly recent invaders from Arabia, that's why half of North Africans are hybrids and speak Arabic, duh! Before that I'm quite sure that native Africans traveled freely through out the continent. If adapting to Saharan climate makes skin lighter, that doesn't mean that it changes genetic ancestry, North Africans came from south of the Sahara, like all humans did. Also it's obvious that the original inhabitants wouldn't of had skin as light as Europeans who adapted in the extremes of Europe during the ice age, the Sahara is scorching, they'd still be relatively dark. Europe had even more formidable barriers in the form of the alps and Caucasus mountains, so Europeans were isolated all during the Ice age, they had nothing to do with North Africa at least since the last glaciation. Even then there is no evidence for back migration into Africa, Egyptians, Nubians, Berbers all have Mtdna lineages to East Africa and Y chromosomes to North Africa specific, no Caucasoid or Mid-Eastern lineages, just admixture. Also, Ethiopians have indeed exchanged contact with Yemen for eons, and even conquered them once or twice, but their lineage and predominant populations are African. There's no such thing as isolated 'sub-saharan' DNA, this is why..

Quote:

Sforza also said that Afro Asiatic was the language of Caucasoids. Most of the languages of Afro Asiatic is spoken by Black Africans only Semetic (excluding Ethiopic) and most of the Berber languages are spoken by non Black Africans. Cavalli Sfoza only studied certain Northern Africans from Algeria,Morocco,and Libya. He never studied Egyptian Mtdna or Y-Chromsome. *Cavalli-Sforza findings were before the finding of the Pn2 clade. The Pn2 clade was found to unite africans from North, South, East and West africa. The finding of the Pn2 clade has changed the way that African genetics is viewed. Most Africans including Egyptians are overwhelmingly of the Pn2 clade E3a and E3b. *Hammer's recent study on 34 Egyptian samples found 53% Yap + haplotype. Yap + is an African specific haplotype.

http://mbe.library.arizona.edu/data/1994/1105/4hamm.pdf

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/Northeast_african_analysis.pdf

^The PN2 Clade indefinitely puts to rest any unsubstantiated claims of a non-unified Africa, be it geographically or genetically.. Case closed, Africa is Africa, Europe is Europe, and Asia proper is Asia proper, end of story.Taharqa 04:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All of these terms come out of colonialism

The Middle East is a historical and political region of Africa-Eurasia with no clear definition. The term "Middle East" was popularized around 1900 by the British, and has been criticized for its loose definition. The Middle East traditionally includes countries or regions in Southwest Asia and parts of North Africa. The corresponding adjective to Middle East is Middle-Eastern and the derived noun is Middle-Easterner..

This is also true for this term. The same way Middle East is unclear so is this term. Do please tell the vandal to stop pretending that the arguments against the term are "nonsense".--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 14:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Sub" means "below", in not in any "superior" or "inferior" sense. A "subamrine" is a vessel that goes below the water. "Suburbs" were traditionally located below the main city centre which was usually on top of a hill, "subtitles" are found on the bottom part of the movie screen etc etc. If you have a problem with that then I feel sorry for you. Also, for the millionth time, Northern Africa is genetically, botanically, etc etc considered part of the Mediterranean world. Perhaps you have a problem understanding the difference between racist terms like "black race" and "white race" and the scientificaally acceptable terms like "Caucasoid race" and "Negroid race". There are farmers/settlers of pure Getrmanic stock living in the deserts of Nevada, Arizona etc who are darker than many "African-Americans". There are "blacks" who are born with albinoism, even giving them blue eyes and blonde hair! Would you say the swarthy "white" Americans are black? Or that the "black albinos" are white?! Of course the people in the Sahara ahve "black" (actually the correct colour term is "tan") skin! If you get a chance get 3 pictures, one of a typical "white" european, one of a Berber/North African, and one of a Nigerian or Congolese type. Compare them. You will see the facial features, nose shape, skull shape, body proportions, area around the eyes, the lips etc. of the European and the North African are virtually identical, the only difference is the colour...the one that lives in a snowy/rainy climate is "white" whereas the one from the hotter climate is "dark". Meanwhile the SUB-SAHARAN(a perfectly valid term) will have a different bodily shape, skull shape, nose shape etc ete etc from the other two. The only "similarity" will be that the North African and Sub-Saharan are both darker than the European, although they will be totally different shades or colours of darkness. Also note that Nubians, Cushites, Ethiopians look like neither North Africans nor Sub-Saharans, as this is the traditional area where the races meet, and there has been much interbreeding in the Horn producing an intermediate type, neither "white" nor "black". Lastly your comment about "darker than American blacks" falls flat when we realise that studies have shown the average "African-American" to ahve approximately 30% per cent "white" ancestry, as well as some Asian and/or Native American ancestry. In other words, THERE ARE NO REAL "BLACKS" IN THE USA, ONLY MIXED RACE PEOPLE THAT SHOW DOMINANT NEGROID PHYSICAL TRAITS! Any country that can consider people like Colin Powell, Jennifer Beals, and Jessica Alba to be pure "blacks" needs a reality check. If you want to see REAL blacks go to Sub-Saharan Africa!.......1 March 2007

^There is no such thing as 'looking' sub-saharan' or north african, Africa is the most diverse and long standing place on the planet in concern to human variation. Some of you ignorant people need to leave Africa alone and stop distorting our history. "Arabic looking" North Africans are just that, Arabic invaders, mostly from the 6th century.. Take Anthropology, 'pure black' is always a social term, anyone can be pure black. "Black" to me is anyone who adapted and evolved in Africa, period, anywhere in Africa because any Caucasians in Africa are known invaders and did not adapt in Africa, those people are from 'Europe' and spread their influence through out the Mid-East and more recently, North Africa. White people always try and rob people of their history, "Somalis aren't black they're mixed, so are Ethiopians", please! Some are, but most aren't, take into account the sample sizes we're dealing with, Ethiopia has 64 million people and probably no more than a few samples were taken, most of them Amhara probably(Yet Amhara are still black). And how can East Africans be mixed with "Caucasoid" when Caucasoid isn't even a real race (even given that we except race as valid). Check below, pay special attention to what's in bold..

"Liberman and Jackson (1995), and Ryan and Armelagos(2001) point to contradictory results in DNA racial analysis, in that many studies "select the small proportion of genetic variability that is roughly apportionable by race to plot out dendrograms of essentially false categorizations of human variability. T oaccomplish this, these studies use apriori categorizations of human variability that are based on the inaccurate belief that classical racial categorization schemes delineate a series of isolated breeding populations.." An exampleof contradictory results are seen in the work of such researches as Bowcock, Bowcock, Sforza, et. al, 1994. "Despite a research design that should have maximized the degree to which the researchers were able to classify individuals by racial category, the results are something less than "high resolution" with respect to this goal. For example, 88% of individuals were classified as coming from the right continent, while only 46% were classified as coming from the right region within each continent. Notably, 0% success was achieved in classifying East Asian populations to their region or origin. These results occurred despite the fact that Bowcock and co-workers entered their genetic information into a program that already used the a priori racial categories they were trying to replicate." Ironically, some of Bowcock's data itself contradicts "classical" race categories, suggesting that Caucasoids, rather than being a primary group, are a secondary type or race, a hybrid strain based on certain variants of African and Asian populations."

"Modern DNA studies are beginning to throw serious doubt on older "classical" racial categories. The nuclear DNA work of researcher Ann Bowcock (1991, 1994) for example, suggests that such primary groupings as Europeans may be flawed, and that such peoples arose as a consequence of admixture between certain already differentiated African and Asian ancestral stocks. Under this approach to the DNA data, Caucasians are thus not a primary grouping as in the classical categories, but a secondary type or race, due to their supposedly hybrid origins" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-European_Caucasoid#_note-1

You have a bunch of hybrids themselves trying to tell people who is and who is not what? Africa is Africa, they all are black if they're indigenous to Africa and this is the way blacks will always feel, and correctly so regardless of the loose jargon, propaganda, and spin language used by separatist Eurocentric mind masters. Now leave Africa alone, this is between the Africans!Taharqa 05:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't possibly be being serious! The INDIGENOUS North Africans looked pretty much what modern-day North Africans look like, Caucasoid. Caucasoid is a real racial term also, having to say so is pretty sad really. Also, INDIGENOUS Southern Africans aren't bl;ack either they're Khoisan/Capoid. Also if Africa has the largest degree of diversity in the whole world, how can you believe in a single "African" or "black" race? Check out the Racial reality sight, or John Baker or Carelton coon's books which blow your politically correct Diop-esque nonsense right out of the water. Also, just so you know, originally Africans were only hose Caucasoid peoples that lived in what is present-day Tunisia. As a Caucasoid descendant of Phoenicians, as all Phoenician-descended people are Caucasoids, I find it quite flattering that you Negroids are claiming "African" as your "badge", but true Africans resemble present-day Arabs, Italians, Jews, Greeks etc Caucasoid Mediterraneans. You whole argument is some blowhard nonsense which has no scientific or historical basis, and your only "defense" will be that you will call me a neocolonisalist, white supremacist, or eurocentric racist. Go ahead, make me smile. I know the truth, and what your real motivation is for spouting this rubbish.....1 April 2007

^You're extremely ignorant, prove what you say with an updated and reliable source..

You can't possibly be being serious! The INDIGENOUS North Africans looked pretty much what modern-day North Africans look like, Caucasoid. Caucasoid is a real racial term also, having to say so is pretty sad really.

^No it is not a 'real' racial term, I've provided sources that beg to differ with your unprofessional, unexperienced claims.. "Caucasoid" is a myth to make certain people feel better. Plus, "original" North Africans looked like the Beja people, not so much like any recent invaders.

Also, INDIGENOUS Southern Africans aren't bl;ack either they're Khoisan/Capoid. Also if Africa has the largest degree of diversity in the whole world, how can you believe in a single "African" or "black" race? Check out the Racial reality sight, or John Baker or Carelton coon's books which blow your politically correct Diop-esque nonsense right out of the water.

"Black" is a social term, and there is no such thing as a "Capoid", the genetic data doesn't seem to back up that category at all, Khoisan are closely related to pygmies, then to West Africans, there is no break in the genetic link that describes any different type of 'race'..

Quote: Capoid (named after Cape Province, South Africa) along with congoid are one of the two major divisions within the Negroid race http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capoid

^Haha, don't make me laugh, you are not intelligent at all... I'd also expect you to quote an outdated race scientist like Coon, you've obviously been living under a rock for the past 10 years and haven't heard about the Pn2 clade (that unites all Africans, north, south, east, west, and doesn't include so-called "Caucasoids") that I posted in the section above you. http://mbe.library.arizona.edu/data/1994/1105/4hamm.pdf

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/Northeast_african_analysis.pdf

Also, I never said "so-called Caucasoids" don't live there now, but they're foreigners, all of them are Arab. Berbers are evenly mixed and so are southern Egyptians and some Ethiopians. Seeing as how "Caucasoid" isn't a real race (check my sources again), that makes them "Black", because "Black", Africoid, Negro, Native African, are all the same shit to me when speaking socially, as far as genetic relationships and common lineages, this is confirmed also (again, you can check the links I posted above)....

Also, just so you know, originally Africans were only hose Caucasoid peoples that lived in what is present-day Tunisia. As a Caucasoid descendant of Phoenicians, as all Phoenician-descended people are Caucasoids, I find it quite flattering that you Negroids are claiming "African" as your "badge", but true Africans resemble present-day Arabs, Italians, Jews, Greeks etc Caucasoid Mediterraneans.

Hahahaha!! I love it when people like you say idiotic things, It gives me a chance to show off how much less-ignorant I am than you are. Phonecians were never native to Africa. They were the Canaanites of the bible and migrated to the North African coast in Tunsia in like 1,000 B.C... They were not indigenous to Africa.

Quote: Phoenicia was an ancient civilization centered in the north of ancient Canaan, with its heartland along the coastal plains of what is now Lebanon and Syria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonecia

First skeleton ever found in Egypt! (And no, it didn't even resemble a so-called "Caucasoid".

1980 Discovery in Upper Egypt:

35,000-30,000 years ago: "Oldest human skeleton found in Egypt". Nazlet Khater man was the earliest modern human skeleton found near Luxor, in 1980. The remains was dated from between 35,000 and 30,000 years ago. The report regarding the racial affinity of this skeleton concludes: "Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology [form & structure]. The radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is practically the same as the mean of Taforalt (76.6). According to Ferembach (1965) this value is near to the Negroid average." The burial was of a young man of 17-20 years old, whose skeleton lay in a 160cm- long narrow ditch aligned from east to west. A flint tool, which was laid carefully on the bottom of the grave, dates the burial as contemporaneous with a nearby flint quarry. The morphological features of the Nazlet Khater skeleton were analysed by Thoma (1984). The 35,000 year old skeleton was examined using multivariate statistical procedures. In the first part, principal components analysis is performed on a dataset of mandible dimensions of 220 fossils, sub-fossils and modern specimens, ranging in time from the Late Pleistocene to recent and restricted in space to the African continent and Southern Levant. Thoma A., Morphology and Affinities of the Nazlet Khater Man; Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 13, 1984.

The Black Mummy (First mummy ever, first North Africans)

Quote: "The Black Mummy" When a "Black African" Mummy was discovered over a thousand miles from Egypt, it launched a team of archaeologists on a quest which span almost fifty years. Their search for clues covered all of Northern Africa and revealed a long lost African culture. http://www.fulcrumtv.com/program.php?id=109&cat=factual&subcat=documentaries&year=2003&page=1&pagedesc=

^All of Northern Africa? Where are the Caucasoids? Oh yea, they didn't get to make it until thousands of years later when they started invading the coast, then later with the Arab conquests. They must of still been in Europe, where they're from..

You whole argument is some blowhard nonsense which has no scientific or historical basis, and your only "defense" will be that you will call me a neocolonisalist, white supremacist, or eurocentric racist. Go ahead, make me smile. I know the truth, and what your real motivation is for spouting this rubbish

^All you're doing is ranting and raving and the thing is, "Negroids" (whatever that is anyways) will never take you seriously at all. Africa is home of the Africoids, invaders are looked at just as that. White skin developed in Europe and made its way to Africa and the Mid-East later, and you can't prove otherwise, evolutionary theory and adaptation seems to agree with me. This is what you look like when you migrate from sub-saharan Africa (where all humans came from, and where the real, original Africans were) and adapt to the North African climate.

http://lost-oasis.org/photos/big/bw2.jpg

^Notice the ancient Egyptian features? These are the Beja people who have lived in the region between the Nile and the Red Sea in North Africa, near Egypt for 25,000 years at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beja_people

^Even being mixed with some Arabic they still retained their features and skin color because they ruthlessly fought off invaders and are 'fuzzy wuzzys', considered one of the hardest fighting groups in Africa according to Rudyard Kipling's poem about them.

Get over it, Caucasoids are a recent invader people, and you're trying desperately to fit your people's indigenous heritage across 3 continents and limit the true African presence to but a few tribes in west and central Africa, even though all human beings came from East Africa, and the first ones were not so-called "Caucasoid" (which isn't a real race, but a hybrid from later), nor did a lot of them leave Africa, but some just traveled to the North. You don't adapt into a "Caucasoid" in Africa (especially in the hot ass North African desert, it's not cold there, no cold adapted people are indigenous there), then separately adapt into one in Europe at the same time, Ha! Please, it doesn't work like that, those people are invaders from Europe/West Asia! Duh! Get over it, your historical heritage is with Europe and parts of the Mid-East, be proud of that and let Africa go you pillager! You've been owned and judging from your ignorant claims that weren't even cited, I feel satisfied in that I don't need to engage with you any longer, you have a lot to learn. You need to get something off your chest, send a message, but I don't usually respond to imbeciles in public, those require one on one sessions and takes more patience.Taharqa 17:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I never said that Phoenicians/Carthaginians were indigenous to modern-day Tunisia, merely that the term "African" was specifically used to refer to these people, and that it is somewhat ironic that you blast present-day North Africans as "not really African".

Also, I couldn't give a crap about your "scientists" amd "historians" who espouse the so-called "Afrocentric" view. There are anthropologists and then there are socially, and politically motivated people who choose to ignore what they want, and can see mulattoes in the persons of Beethoven, Socrates and even george Washington!

Also, "dark skin" proves only that a person was living in a hot climate, nothing more, nothing less. In the same way that Khoisan are NOT "black", but are more closely related to West Africans and Pygmies then they are "whites", so North Africans are not strictly "white European", nut they are far closer related to Europeans than Sub-Saharans, hence the broader "Caucasoid" term, incorporating, "whites", Semites, North Africans, Irano-Afghans, Armenoids, and even some Indians/Pakistanis. If you can't grasp such a simple concept than you should just shut up. There's no such thing as "Africoids" either, unless you accept politicaly-correct "feel-good" crap.

And the reverse of what you said is true...the "Black Egypt" bullshit is merely to make some people feel good, those people being the mixed-race descendants of WEST AFRICAN(not Nubian or other East African "blacks"), and their Germanic/Celtic/etc slavemasters. I feel sorry for you that your ancestors were whipped, lynched, and called "nigger", "boy", and "three-fifths of a person", and that you name, culture, and language were swiped from you, but that does NOT give you the right to claim North Africans as your ancestors....

some links(just a few of millions)...

http://www.angelfire.com/md/8/moors.html

http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/index.html

http://www.geocities.com/enbp/

http://www.white-history.com/hwr8c.htm

http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/troe.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/md/8/coingae.html

Also, rememberthat most modern "anthropologists" are constantly afriad of being labelled as "racist" or "Eurocentric" by troublestirrers like you, so they will give in to your "Afrocentric" nonsense. Also the diea of saying "all indigenous Africans are black" would be akin to saying "all indigenous Asians are yellow", utter crap. Also, note that ALL anthropologists agree that the continent of Africa has more than twice as much genetic variation than the rest of the world combined, thus claiming a single "African" race or people is ludicrous......7 April 2007

So yes, there IS such a thing as "looking Sub-Saharan" or "North African", if you has ever seen real Africans, and not the mixed-race dregs such as Halle Berry and Dwayne Johnson you would realise that in an instant.....7 April 2007(same guy as above)

All of these are common logical fallacies, all I care about is recent common ancestral origins, phenotype varies. Australoids have so-called "Negroid" skulls and phenotypes, but have the most distant common origins in genetic comparison. You can't have your cake and eat it too, does phenotype or genotype constitute race? The first Africans were not a Caucasoid people, if that's the case, Northern Europeans should have some of the oldest lineages, that is just absurd! Haha, owned! You lose on the count of double standards..

Again, things were discovered after the death of these outdated race scientists you cite, no credible anthropologist today supports these notions of any "Caucasoid race" native to Africa, nor do they emphasize any imaginary race barrier.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheikh_Anta_Diop#Criticism_of_the_racial_clusters_approach And again, many Sub-Supra Saharan (West, East, North) Africans are simply more closely related to each other than any outside recent invaders, regardless of any phenotypical variation, concept of race, or some desert.

Quote:

"you've obviously been living under a rock for the past 10 years and haven't heard about the Pn2 clade (that unites all Africans, north, south, east, west, and doesn't include so-called "Caucasoids") that I posted in the section above you." http://mbe.library.arizona.edu/data/1994/1105/4hamm.pdf

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/Northeast_african_analysis.pdf Taharqa 05:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ZZZZZZ. When I produce quite a few respected anthropological studies, they are "outdated", and "racist", yet your ONE citation os the 60's wacko Diop, and you are right? Look ALL genetic studies indicate that there is more gentic variation on the continent of Africa, then the rest of the world combined. ALL non-African people are closer related to each other than to "black" people. And North Africans do, and have always fallen within this "rest of the world" grouping. I never said that North Africans were blue-eyed, blonde-eyed "Aryans", that would be ridiculous! I merely stated that(as all realiable anthropological studies show) North Africans, both original settlers, and present inhabitants, are far closer related to "whites" than "blacks". Also, all original inhabitants of Africa(back when it meant simnply Tunisia and western Libya) were similar "Middle Eastern" types, not "white" as in Scandinavians, but much sloer to whites than to sub-Saharans. You can twist my words to make it sound like I'm saying soimething I'm not, but all you've preoduced so far is Diop(hey what about Clyde Winters or whatever that other psycho's name is?:)) and some ranting about "colonialism", and "white supremacism" blah blah blah. North Africans are not "North European white", they are not "black", but they are much closer genetically to the North Europeans than the Sub-Saharans.....18 April 2007

ARE YOU SERIOUS? Are you really using white-history.com for a source? Are you a White Supremeist? Do you worhsip and masturbate to photos of Hitler. Bottom Line: Just as the south was built on the backs of Black slaves for the benenfit of the white slave masters, BLACK AFRICAN HISTORY has been HIGHJACKED by WHITE tyring to prove their superiority over the black race. WHY is there DARK BROWN FACE PAINT on the Spinx? IT IS NOT FOR COSMETIC REASONS. Those ARABS are NOT TRUE AFRICANS...the whites who live there ARE NOT TRUE AFRICANS. Egypt, Meroe, Dohomey, Ethiopia has been STOLEN from Blacks becasue of the RACIST HEREMEUTICAL APPLICATON of Genesis 9 "The Curse of Ham' which was used to justify slavery and take away AFrican History. For you to believe it is to deny true history. BUT AFRICA KNOWS HER TRUE CHILDEN and who will turn their backs on that SUBSTITUE COUNTRY to DEFEND HER AND HER BLACK CHILDREN.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia can be changed by anybody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.110.181.210 (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Sub-Saharan Africa

Surely Sub-Saharan Africa is an oxymoron?

Funny absurd suggestion. North Africa is almost a continent apart. Those who deny this reality are sadly mistaken. Fact is, the term Africa would not be used today if both sub-saharan africa and North africa were discovered simultaneously. Upon discovering sub-saharan Africa, the emphasis on the Sahara serving as a divide greater than an ocean or sea was noted by many scholars of the time. Today, these labels are blurred by some eccentric absurd being, but wikipedia is not the venue for wishful thinking. Mariam83 12:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete critic of a term

One person two person three person, a term which is validly critic belongs here. This is wikipedia not your POV, this site and this page represents a broad version of valid arguments in all directions. It is not about your argeement or disagreement that dictates what goes on this site. All opposing views need sources. p.s. Noam Chomsky makes films? Henry Louis Gate makes films. I would like to think the person making the critic is more than qualified academic to make this stance.--RastaRule 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia does not consider "Original" sources encyclopedian. The filmmaker whose ideas you source as encyclopedic claims the divide is imaginary though it is very real, geographically, racially, culturally, politically and economically. It is absurd to suggest that the divide is imaginary. This would be like suggesting that Russia and South Asia do not differ and that the difference between the Russians and Pakistanis is imaginary. Simply unacceptable, please do not impose wishful original ideas on an encyclopedic format. Mariam83 12:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of User talk:Mariam83

THIS IS A MESSAGE FOR User talk:Mariam83(see talk page). DOnt delete valid content. This is how wiki works.

• Add a dispute TAG if possible
• USe the talk page and dont remove content, especially age-old content (this section is very old)
• Use wiki rules by citing them before using your OPINION on what should be added or poor arguments

Now I will address some issues. This content from Shahadah is used many times on wikipedia the paper by this PHD in African History is published widely. If it is so adsurb then what you need to do is use evidence not OPINION to contest the claim. Follow the rules, check this definition of original research because i dont know how a well cited statement can be original research. I dont think anyone who has travelled or lived in Africa would dare to compare (Russia (a country) with Pakistan (another country). My friend Africa is not a country, there is no Flag for Sub-Saharan Africa, The organization is called AU not SAU, There is no historical reference to a Sub-Africa. If this is real to you, then add your content but just because you disagree doesnt give you any right according to how this site works to delete it! I state again this site is about reflecting all valid perspectives, the section is called critic and i have now added and expanded that critic. Thank U Collounsbury 4 keeping the balance.--RastaRule 13:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this mate, I have to say that while Mariam83 (who is currently blocked) was engaging in racially motivated editing, I am not particularly comfortable with the extensive critique of the term quoting in extenso Shahadah (whose critique quite frankly strikes me as absurd on its face). I am sensitive to the ... tensions in viewpoints in re pan African views and many (although not all) North Africans distancing themselves from continent identification. However, your removal of the item re clear differentiations or divergences due to the Saharan divide strikes me as unjustified.

I have reverted to the last version I reverted to before. I frankly think the critique should be summarized without the extensive and rather prejudicial language from the quotation. It seems enough to say certain pan-Africanist (and reading between the lines, I gather "Afro-centric") authors find the term Sub-Saharan objectionable due to perceived colonial and racial implications, but that the term is in widespread use and largely geographically motivated. collounsbury 13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

Please do not take out my work, I didnt add this section but as a valid editor here i want to expand it. I have done so and if you wish to sum it you can do so. Statements like widely use term is a POV. It is not used in the AU, or by most Africans. Most African writers dont use it. Anyway, I dont think all of those people are Afrocentrics, like it or not all opinions from rep people are valid. This is the only section which has in proper references. Allow others to expand it. If you have an opinion it is for the talk page. I have researched and added expert opinion representing a different perspective. It is very stubborn to believe that old colonial terms are to the fancy of everyone. you cannot delete work just because you dont like it, that is your argument about the term. Not that of the History guy from California who i think must be given value.--RastaRule 14:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

PAN AFRICANIST DONT USE SUB AFRICA

If you look at the very concept of Pan-Africanism it is clear that the term is not in favor. Why would you have a concept called PAN (ALL) Africa and then chop up Africa into some colonial view?. FOllow wiki policy when making edits. My edits have references and you are free to work on making it better, but better doesnt mean deletion or pointless reversion. And quotations are valid in a critic of a term. lets just stick to the rules of this site. Doesnt matter how you label people, clearly there is an argument against the term, i have expanded it so shahadah doesnt appear to be the only one, because then if he is mad why is there other serious academics like Nehusia, Diop, supporting this view (or are they not valid because of a lable you put on them?). This site isnt about what we like "absurd" is not a encyclopedic critic, use sources references to validiate anything you are saying rather than "feel". And use the talk page. here is another widly used term Negro, Black Africa, Eskimo (widely used is not proof of correctness)--RastaRule 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are on about here, other than you love your edit. I reverted to the prior version as I would like to hear a coherent explanation of why you removed the cultural barrier item, which seems a valid observation, and why in extenso quotation from one critic re a widely used term is needed. I don't see that. So, reverting and waiting for the same. (Eskimo mate is not a good example of your point, bit of a myth the objection). collounsbury 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

I didnt remove cultural barrier? I wanted to cut down the Shahadah quote? Why would i want to remove a valid argument? Cultural barrier is good, linguistic is good, Ethnic is also good. Because both North And South you get all 3 things. No just follow the rules, the one reverting needs the explanation because that is called edit warring and is poor skills. the burden of proof is on you. I have made valid researched taken the "opinion" from Shahadah and introduced other peoples views. that is called an improvement.--RastaRule 14:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mate, chill out. I may have misread your edits. I reverted once to the prior consensus edit as frankly you did not explain in a lucid manner your edits. Rereading the current edit, I still have issues, insofar as "citations" or not, the criticisms are clearly marginal, and rather extreme, for a term that is widely applied in region and generally. I can easily see objections to Dark Continent, etc., but Sub Saharan is merely descriptive, it hardly needs a paragraph of marginal critiques. collounsbury 14:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

the section is valid, i have added much content to wiki for years now and it doesnt violate anything and doesnt need to be stubbed. I do agree it can be reduced a little to avoid any rep, but it must show the full arguments as to inform readers and allow expansion and retort.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 15:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am more than familiar iwth your incoherent editing re Zanj, for example. But whatever, if the axe grinders want to add exagerated whanking, let them. collounsbury 15:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss editing this article. i suggested deleting rep content. i think that is fair. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 15:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Then a short, concise, non repetitious statement of criticism without extensive block quoting would be a vast improvement. collounsbury 17:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

I think some quotes help the reader understand the objections. But i think "the term is racist" is rep more than once like 3 times, here it can be stated "Some think the term is racist" followed by three references to show the sources where they think it is racist. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 19:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have cut it in half and it says the same thing, I think the comp should b acceptable to all. but it is far better than b4, it is expanded in content without expanding in space.lets beef up the rest of the article.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 19:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you believe the term is racist is your problem. Unfortunately, the world cannot rewrite geography, history, culture etc, to appease you. The fact is North Africa is distinguished from Sub-saharan Africa for a reason, and the two cannot belong to the same label. Pan-Africanism is not a fact. Many North Africans do not believe in it, in the same way that many Muslims do not believe in Terrorism or an Islamic Ummah. If this were an afro-centric Black-O-pedia then you could perhaps redefine reality, insert Original ideas etc. but it is not and as such cannot accomodate such nonsense. We are not here to present myth but fact! Please do not include ANYMORE ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU SPENT TIME INSERTING THIS ORIGINAL IDEA but unfortunately Rasta it is a free encyclopedia that anyone cant EDit! complain to wikipedia if you object and wish to riegn supreme :-) Mariam83 23:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please others have warned you about your edits. Please go and see the def of original research. And how wiki works. How can something be an original idea from multi-sources. What is original about it? when academics contest the term with valid clear explanations. Agree or disagree it stays per the rules of this site. The fact is North Africa is distinguished from Sub-saharan Africa for a reason, and the two cannot belong to the same label still this big reason for the difference between north and south myths me (as it is not explained in this article and maybe you should focus on that), so please state it. And then explain how my country Ethiopia fits into the southern notion (lingusitically, culturally, ethnically, historical). Islam has more followers in Africa than in north Africa so religion is out as a divide. Pan-Africanism greatest adherent is from North Africa. please use the talk page.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

wrong. Gaddafi does not represent North Africa, in fact, he is considered a psychopath in North Africa and his days are numbered. In Libya, black illegal immigrants are often attacked and killed. As a North African, I believe pan-africanism is suicide and absurd and unacceptable. If you study history, you will understand. The fact that North Africa advocated slavery and was involved in the slave trade should clarify things for you. You should become more realistic and understand that afrocentrism relies on myth rather than fact. Mariam83 16:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Halaqah, there is a very clear division, always has been. Remember, this ia an encyclopedia and a free one at that. Mariam83 14:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what this CLEAR division is then- I beg you.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 15:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Halaqah, it is a geographical one, a cultural one, a historical one,a racial one etc. The continent is the second largest continent in the world. North Africa is a region apart, a region that is more than twice as large as europe. It is a region that differs from sub-saharan black africa in every possible way. Recent economic contrusts and the afrocentrist absurdist movement cannot change this fact. It is a region whose people believe should never integrate with an alien culture and far away region. Once the dictators are removed, this view will eb asserted. And how can you say that the sahara is imaginary? again, why does europe begin with spain? if a desert is imaginary then so is a sea, esp a strait. Mariam83 16:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH EXPLAINED

Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified). Thus the section which sums up 4 sources cannot be original research. original research is you stating The fact is North Africa is distinguished from Sub-saharan Africa for a reason, and the two cannot belong to the same label from your own mind as opposed to a valid external source.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Haliqah, that's not original research, it's history and geographyc. Afrocentrists are easily refuted..so let me explain something to you. If the Sahara is a myth, and the division a myth (RACIAL, CULTURAL, HISTORICAL) then the mediterranean sea is also a myth, as one could swim ? and why does Europe start with Spain? one can easily jump over? shouldn't it start with North Africa? yes..I think you are right..and why shouldn't Ethiopia be Saudi Arabia and Yemen too? they're right next to each other. You are not very reasonable. And adding OPINION IS not encyclopedic. I don't see sharaha in the Britannica, discussing his films and why he should be able to appropriate a civilization that enslaved him because of his inferiority complex. Be proud of your sub-saharan roots. Wa allah yel3anak. Mariam83 15:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Halaqah, okay, that is fine. I will add critics who believe that a division exist, always has existed and ought to be reasserted. Good luck. Mariam83 14:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes

As no one has responded, I have taken it upon myself to edit the article (it is my right). I removed all POV "ideas" that are presented as fact. I don't think that African "Holocaust" is encyclopedic by any means and as such, ought not to be used on wikipedia, as wikipedia aims to be encyclopedic (questionable). It should at least not be used in the opening paragraph. References to the African holocaust have been left in the critics section. Whether or not a filmmaker/writer accepts reality is not of concern to the general reader. There is, however, no point in deluding people by inserting POV, eccentric ideas in this text. Why not use KKK as a source? Please try not to distort reality. I added some text to the critics section to balance things out. However, the blurring of lines and manipulation of language etc. has been removed. The author tries to present the label, which is not only geographic but historic, racial, cultural etc., as solely a geographci one. That is not objective and not factual. Mariam83 16:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So not factual is it that you have never answered the question nor has any of your sources why the TWO AFRICA's.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We do not have the "right" to edit Wikipedia, merely the privilege. References are not required to be encyclopedic, or even neutral, but reliable and verifiable. For example, we rely heavily on newspapers as references. Give me an example of an encyclopedic and neutral newspaper. --Ezeu 17:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your changes have been reverted because they are unencyclopedic and full of weasle words. Please see wiki policy, critic of a term should deal with critic not some Eurocentric retort. I dont think the angle about the holocaust site is going to wash since it is used all over wiki. It is clear you have a hatred for African people but keep the hatred outside of wiki. Sources must be balanced which means that they must not all come from CNN. I see not similarity between and African history site and the KKK. actually the comment doesnt even deserve a response.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going to add to the critics section until further review. Please do not remove an opposing view that renders the text more objective. I was adviced to add it, you do not own wikipedia. thank you.. And it is not a eurocentric retort, it is an academic and brave retort. I don't know what you mean by "African" people, but my reverts have nothing to do with black people, and the fact that distortion is widespread means nothing. Mariam83 18:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

removed POV ranting

Most scholars, however, vehemently reject (not allowed this language on wiki, who is most?, says who?)this distortion of reality and believe that such mythicizing appeals to "black activists who could not care less about the serious ethnographic, linguistic, and anthropological questions such ideas raise."(SAHARA IS A DESERT, SUB SAHARA AFRICA IS A CREATION LIKE MIDDLE EAST) David Gress, a fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, feels that "In this era of galloping anti-intellectualism... NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ARTICLE BUT THANKS. such accounts, and the political circumstances in which they appear, raise some important questions about scholarship and propaganda in the academy and, a fortiori, in what remains of the general culture." According to Gress, such myths (WHAT MYTHS IS HE ON ABOUT)are based on deception and appeal to anti-intellectual activists. Gress feels that the allowance of such mythicizing is due to academe "suffering severely from anti-European cultural arrogance, or, to speak frankly, from black racist attempts to impose indoctrination in the place of teaching and scholarship."[15] VERY EDUCATIONAL NOTHING TO DO WITH SUB-AFRICA.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You may not remove such pertinent information. We need to KNOW who this critic is, I will add it again. Please Halaqah don't try to distort reality! Mariam83 17:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been removed because it has nothing to do with this article or this website, it is better on one of your forums.critic the term not the people--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Halaqah, you are on a mission to distort reality, aren't you? It looks like we are going to need some help here. I am going to refer this article to the Geography specialists. I highly doubt the "african holocaust" is a reputable, encyclopedic source!!!!You are writing about a region and including eccentric afrocentrist bits in it! that is unacceptable! that would be like me writing about China and claiming that russia and china belong to Asia and that the divide is imaginary! or that the mediterranean sea were imaginary etc. Totally unacceptable. Mariam83 17:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It does have something to do with this POV, inaccurate article! I added a critic to the critique section to counterbalance the afrocentrist views you included in this already inaccurate and unencyclopedic article! Yet you removed it because he is accurately rectifying these eccentrics. Mariam83 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

PLease stick to discussing this article and how we can make it better. According to you no African source is "acceptable" when it speaks positive of Africa. I would love to know why it isnt "acceptable" is it the design or the colors they use? Everyone has a bias, should we add more Eurocentric bias? And if someone has an argument against something then it is called a critic, hence the word critic. please tell us why Ethiopia and Ghana are in Sub Africa, what is similar between the two? What about Sudan 1/2 is in North 1/2 in SOuth. Maybe they should cut the country in 1/2. Answers these questions. ohh yeah lets divide USA according to one of its deserts.shall we?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, an academic Sub-saharan african source would be acceptable, one that accepts commonly used and factual definitions. However, the source you are using is not factuaal, it is eccentric and inaccurate. It isn't acceptable because it is unencyclopedic and also absurd. Sudan is not in North Africa, it is a sub-saharan country. If people stuck to encyclopedic definitions, you wouldn't think Sudan was in north Africa. Remember, North African countries are also Mediterranean countries. Also, what differentiates the North is not only geography. It is a host of other factors: History, Race, Culture, language etc. This is what you are overlooking. Again, the source you're using is absurd. It would be like me sourcing the KKK on some other article. It is an extreme view point that is not academic, as it is not in keeping with facts. The USA is one country, traditionally homogeneous. North Africa has always been apart and separate. The slave trade is what established links..perhaps you are confusing North Africa with Egypt? Egypt is another matter due to the Nile River. Mariam83 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The sign of weakness is to rely on words like "absurd" Apply : History, Race, Culture, language etc. to Ethiopia and tell me what does Ethiopia and Ghana have in common? why dont you just stick to refuting the content with sources and not Opinion.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Halaqah, I totally agree with you. Most sub-saharan african countries have nothing to do with each other and their blackness in no way makes them similar, just as european countries, in their whiteness, are all unique and different and have diff. origins. However, North Africa is not in anyway part of the sub-saharan african world, and the Sahara has separated the two. In fact, a classic historian has commented on the formidable barrier that it is, and likened it to a sea. I have already added a source, I added a critic to the critics section that you have removed. I personally feel that the source you keep using is unacceptable. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so I think we should respect facts. The fact is, North Africa, that is, Mediterranean North Africa, is not part of nor can it ever be part of Sub-saharan africa and vice versa in the same way that Russian will never become China, and vice versa. Mariam83 17:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is claiming that North Africa is part of Sub-saharan Africa? Sub-Saharan Africa is a notoriously ambiguous term. Your attempt to push a specific definition is unacceptably POV. --Ezeu 18:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

How is Sub-saharan Africa an ambiguous term and to whom? Please explain. And to answer your question, read the article. Mariam83 18:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have. Now, you read the article. Start with the first paragraph. --Ezeu 18:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ezeu, I have not "attempted" to push a POV definition, I have merely attempted to render this article more encyclopedic. If you are unfamiliar with the nomenclature, please refer to such reputable academic sources as Britannica. It is not an ambiguous term. If the term Sub-saharan is politicized and deemed ambiguous, then all labels can be questioned, such as Europe, Asia etc. The fact is, Sub-saharan is knowable, understandable and blatantly and unmistakably obvious. I have referred this article to the history/geography page. It is in dire need of review. Mariam83 18:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sub-Sahara is an oft used term, but it is not precisely defined, not even by Britannica. --Ezeu 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It has never been defined because it is motivated by ill content for Africa, even shahad said it jumps and slides around to fit negative generalizations. Also the term is in conflict with terms like Arab world and Middle East, so how can be so obvious?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It refers to Black Africa. to wit, the inhabited regions of Sub-Saharan Africa, as separate and distinct from the Mediterranean Arab region of North Africa. Mariam83 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So what happens to all the Millions of "Black Africans" that live for thosands of thosands of years in North Africa? What about The Fulani and teh Turag, what Arabs? Arabs only showed up in the 7th century, North Africa is as mixed racial as South Africa today.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

there aren't millions, unless you mean the million illegal blacks who have illegally crossed the borders of libya and who are often times killed and attacked. And the Tuareg from mauritanian are not North Africa, they are black, as mauritania is a sub-saharan black country. North Africa has never been black and the first arrival of blacks to north africa as well as the rest of the arab world and europe was through slavery. North africa is not at all mixed LOL like south africa, you are very wrong and sadly, have an inferiority complex. Black people are from sub-saharan africa. You can't possibly believe what you just said? do you also believe that Beethoven and Ghandi were black? lol =) I urge you to visit a REAL north African country and you will very quickly change your mind. Mariam83 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Beethoven and Ghandi? Nice straw man setup. --Ezeu 19:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

One question before i delete your content

David Gress is he or it disussing the concept of Sub-Sahara Africa or making a generic attack on a group of poeple (whom i am sure Shahadah an non-Afrocentric is not one of, nor the Dr. from California state). Please just read the rules, please. the content must discuss the article not those referenced or other topics. Please do teh honors and remove your own content. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Halaqah, you have no right to remove my additions. I was advised to add this material by wikipedia. The article will be reviewed soon, so please be patient for now. I have NOT removed Shahada's commentary, you have no right to remove sourced, academic material. Mariam83 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

He is discussing the work of peoeple like Shahadah, who attempt to distort reality and history in an effort to assert their viewpoints, that to most, deviate from accepted norms, to say the least. You have no right to remove material that offers an opposing view. further, there is no point in distorting fact, such as , the fact that Mediterranean people are not always white. This does not render them black. In fact, a black person is unmistakably black, while a Mediterranean person, even after laboring in the sun for decades, remains Mediterranean. Please be reasonable! Mariam83 18:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

so He is discussing Shahadah then please add it to Owen Alik Shahadah, this section is for Sub-Africa. Then you can add him to all the other people who he is discussing. Please just follow the rules before editing. Discuss Sub Africa bring sources which discuss what it is, and who supports it.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, he is discussing such eccentric interpretations and as such, belongs on this page. Stop hijacking wikipedia! You are compromising its content. Mariam83 18:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My friend, we want to only discuss Sub-Saharan Africa. Not who is doing what to who or who is a black radical. let all views about SUB AFRICA be heard. Just go and do better research to develop your argument. and no he isnt discussing Dr. Californias opinion,or shahadah's or Kimani Nehusi's he is being vague and non-specific. David Guess is guessing, he isnt an African historian, he dont know nada about Sub Africa to be commenting about it.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In the same way that Shahada is being vague, inaccurate and unrealistic. However, he is discussing their tactics. Besides, stop trying to efface Black Africa's blackness or aligning it with North Africa. Mediterranean people are not black, and black people are not white. Why are you desperately trying to blur the lines? Be objective and most importantly, realistic. Accept the fact that black africa is black and that the Mediterranean is a world apart. You cannot claim other people's identity and culture. Accept yourself and your culture and celebrate black achievements. Mariam83 18:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sister Mairam I am white, Please do research and find content ONLY about SUB Africa so people can learn more about SUB Africa, not the mental state of Shahadah who was pretty clear in his linguistic, cultural, political, ethnic, historical objections backed up by the good Dr. from California. and Kimani Nehusi a serious heavy weight on Africa. U must hate the leader of Libya then, cuz M G loves black Africa.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your race is irrelevant. The sources you use are not academic, and unaccepted by the scholarly community as they deviate from normalcy and accepted, commonly used labels and definitions. Furthermore, their explanations are unrealistic and sadly, absurd. Tragically, they also betray an inferiority complex. However, the mental state of eccentrics is not an encyclopedia's concern. Please do not impose eccentric views here. This article should be reviewed soon. Mariam83 18:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned Mariam83, you are just as twisted as these biased Historians. Not only to you want to take the Queen of Sheba out of her originis, when Heroditus clearly calls her the Queen of Egypt and Ethiopia, but now you want to take North Africa. You Arabs jihaded your away across their in the 7th century, just as you are jihading the world right now. There are still BLACKS in that area...how do I know? The children attend school here in America. Face it; you are not better than the White Apartheid government of South Africa. You still the native's history to boost your ethnocentric self-esteem and created a White Pharoahic line to give yourself more credit over the darker races. We see through you. YOu are not a native of Africa period, but an unwanted Islamic guest. I am sorry to be so mean about this, but there is a new nationalistic tide sweeping Black America and we are taking back WHAT IS OURS and what has been taken away by the Hamitic Hypothesis from Genesis 9. You can claim DNA and genetics all you want. Fact of the matter is, there is black face paint on the Spinx, the Pharoah is reminiscent of the Watusi warrior and AFrica is a beautufil black land.

Your problem is that you are wholly uninformed and ignorant. You obviously don't know much about the region. You are mistaking Egypt with other Southern Mediterranean countries and using the label "african" rather carelessly. The fact is, the only black people in North Africa are descendants of slaves or illegal immigrants. You need to understand that Africa is the second largest continent in the world, that the label Africa is just a label that is used alongside Sub-saharan Africa and that black people are from sub-saharan africa, though as I have stated before, the case of Egypt is different esp. in regards to Sudan etc. I am frankly not interested any longer in discussing this with people of very little comprehension it seems but will remain vigilant. Mariam83 20:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont Mariam is an Islamist, just someone who has a very negative view of Africans and believes white people are a serious authority and thus black people have no history unless agreed by whites. basically blacks are inferior and shouldnt over step white historians. moreover adding any comment about black academics which has nada to do with the critic and saying that that german guys critic of black people, some black people applies at ALL black people is madness. I wish more people would revert this kind of bad editing to make wiki a better place. do not just read get involved! --RastaRule 14:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This argument is getting a little silly. Firstly Herodotus says nothing about "The Queen of Sheba" at all. He mentions a queen called Nitocris, that's all. Her life as he records it has no obvious resemblance to the biblical Queen of Sheba. Secondly the great majority of modern scholars identify Sheba with Saba, which was based in Yemen, but which also included parts of Eritrea/Ethiopia. Thirdly, there is no "face paint" on the sphinx, a sculpture that has been permanently sand-blasted for 1000s of years! No face paint could survive that. However, Miriam83, you are going to have to find a better source than a commentary on Bernal in a magazine, since that does not address the North/Sub-S difference at all. You need genetic studies. It is also meaningless (and unnecessarily provocative) to say that dark-skinned North Africans are descendants of "slaves and illegal immigrants". Firstly the concept of "illegal immigrant" is meaningless in the context of ancient history. Secondly, the Nile is a continuous river extending into Ethiopia (Blue Nile) and central Africa (White Nile). People live at all points along it and have moved up and down it throughout history. Paul B 08:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all meaningless if you study Arab history and the region's history. It is a fact. What is the point of genetic studies? Just visit the region. Sure, there are black people in Egypt and Yemen and Morocco, but they are sub-saharan africans who have migrated, in some cases illegally. And again, Egypt, because of the Nile, is peculiar. However, the addition of Barnel is most appropriate. The critics cited are already rather unencyclopedic. Has anyone bothered to check our the source?! A bizarre looking Holocaust website. Wikipedia is a joke. Mariam83 19:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What 'holocaust website'? Migrations have happened throughout history. They are not recent. They happpen all the time, and they happened in the ancient world too. Paul B 22:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, that may be the case all over the world, but in this region the Saharan is what prevented such migrations from occuring UNTIL the Arab caravans engaged in slavery. Please read and use reliable sources: Britannica for instance. Mariam83 03:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Aha! I am not at ALL surprised that you didn't even bother to check the source that the "editors" cite in this article. Please do your research in advance. The holocaust website is the source that is cited on this article and why I believe it should not be used, as it is UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Mariam83 03:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You are, I assume, referring to the website that refers to the so-called Maafa, or African Holocaust. It's not a good citation, but it's at least on topic. Of course the Sahara is important. That's why I said that you need to use evidence from genetics, not a totally irrelevant passage about Bernal, geddit? However, the Sahara has not always existed (it was once verdant), populations were never static and coastal and Nile regions have aways aloweed movement. Try to be less unnecessarily argumentative. Paul B 08:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Sure, there are black people in Egypt and Yemen and Morocco, but they are sub-saharan africans who have migrated, in some cases illegally." What? There was no such thing as "illegal" migration in ancient Egypt and Sheba. Sheba extended across from Yemen to Ethiopia. There was constant movement back and forth across the short stretch of water. When you go back that far the distinction between "natives" and "immigrants" ceases to be meaningful. Paul B 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Article flawed

I disagree. And to you rastarule, I will never respect four misinformed, propagandist editors. I have noticed, however, that on wikipedia, content is almost always the last on everyone's agenda. The fact is, this article is flawed and UNENCYCLOPEDIC. This is not an afro-centrist pedia, hence, all references to eccentric, unscholarly "ideas" should be removed at once. The article was also written from a sort of apologetic perspective, as though the Sub-saharan African that wrote it were searching for ways to efface Sub-saharan Africa's sub-saharaness and blackness. Mariam83 20:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection of this article

I have protected this article in response to a request from User:Ezeu on WP:RPP. I took a brief look at the edit history and saw a bunch of reverts that looked like edit-warring over content so I granted the request.

Subsequently, User:Mariam83 left a message on my Talk Page arguing that this page did not, in fact, need to be protected. Among other things, she argued that nobody had violated the WP:3RR rule. The 3RR rule does not apply here. Violating that rule will get you blocked. Edit warring without violating the 3RR rule can also get you blocked. However, page protection is a way of saying "OK, let's not point fingers and try to determine who is at fault here. Everybody cool down and discuss your differences without non-productive edit warring."

I suggest that you list the points of contention here and then try to find a compromise that you can form a consensus around.

If necessary, follow the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. Ask for a third opinion. If that fails, post a request for comment. Ask for mediation through the mediation cabal or the mediation committee.

When you feel that a consensus has been reached and that editing can continue without further edit warring, contact me or leave a request on WP:RPP and some admin will unprotect the page if they feel that is appropriate.

Good luck.

--Richard 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Afraid resolution is not likely with this particular person. collounsbury 10:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

You are absolutely right, as I am unwilling to compromise with ill informed editors who are more interested in imposing their nonsense than in bettering the quality of the content, cultural differences aside. Mariam83 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you summarize the issues that are contentious, using not more than a sentence for each issue? Everyone else, please let Mariam83 respond first. --Richard 21:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources cited in this article are unencyclopedic, not accepted by the scholarly community and absurd at best. They contradict history, reality and scholarship. The article is also written in an afro-centrist vein, but one that seeks to efface the black identity of sub-saharan africa. The sources cited are further proof of the unacceptability, on an "objective" forum, of the anti-intellectualism of this article, the blatant inaccuracy and distortion of fact. Mariam83 08:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Will u realize when you have lost? answer these questions.

• scholarly community (please tell us who is this community)
• afro-centrist vein (please list all of the Afrocentrics cited here)
• contradict history (which history is being contradicted)
• blatant inaccuracy and distortion of fact (what facts are being distorted)

If all of the above is true then you should have no trouble getting a retort from the 'schorlarly community' and you should have no trouble 'factully and historically' defining Sub-Africa.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 09:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not "lost" which by the way is quite an amusing attitude. One does not lose in the battle for truth! Nor do people wage battles in discussing facts! However, your tone befits "wikipedia", a ridiculous joke of a project that allows uninformed people like you whose only purpose in life is to distort fact and reality to "edit and write" make-belief. I encourage you to embrace your identity, and not to look for approval in alien cultures. Your source is a JOKE! The fact that only I have noted this is further proof of how silly "wiki" is. I needn't add the "pedia" as it does not deserve in anyway to be associated with scholarly, objective formats. What retort from the scholarly community?! The scholarly community does not take wiki seriously, they in fact complained about failing students in the news not too long ago because of this project's existence. Besides, the scholarly writing is there. Simply look it up, study about Chaka Zulu, watch a film about Mozambique. All your answers are there! Embrace your sub-saharan heritage and roots. I have not "lost." You're just so in denial that you and your fellow afrocentrists, Ezeu, have been working overtime to protect this distorted page because you disliked the fact that I questioned your anti-intellectualism, your distortion of reality and your questionable sources. You will lose in the end however, as you have already lost in reality! Mariam83 09:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Ya juhal yelli shay ma tifham! masalama

I am not an Afrocentric, and I do not feed trolls. --Ezeu 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What does Islam say about Sub-Africa? Is it in the Quran, Does the Bible talk about Sub-Africa? What about the Jewish text, does that talk about Sub-Africa. What about Kemet? What about Nubia, What about Axsum. No where in history can it be found. Jahiliyah haraam --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 09:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Koran?!?! the bible?!?! these are your sources loool this is where you get your historical facts from>? loool Content police, we have a PROBLEM! But thank you very much for proving my point. When I have time, I will ask for intervention. And by the way, sub-saharan africa exists and has always existed, it is known as black africa. Mariam83 09:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I know I know, in the article you say, but tanned people live in North Africa too. Yes, also in Asia, South America and even Europe. In fact, more dark-skinned people live in the Americas than in the Mediterranean region though Mediterranean people are known to be tanned and olive-toned. But there is a reason why the Arabs, who are a dark people, labeled the Sudanese "Sudanese" meaning black. There is no point in discussing this any further..that is, unless Jesus or Mohammed helps us out. Mariam83 09:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not go and work on slavery in islam? and contribute something--please. Still i am waiting for YOUR SOURCES. show me the source from history where it exist, try looking at ROme, Greece, Kemet, Axsum.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 10:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

why is this going on, everyone is against mariam83, mariam it is only a little critic section why do you bring this pov to every article you work on? it is a personal axe to grind. not everyone can agree let the masses decide without telling them how you think. And yeah where are your sources?--RastaRule 15:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

this will go on FOREVER! Except I am going to involve others. The only people against me are Rastarule, Ezeu and Halaqah. The three obviously believe in the same dogma and have a blatant disregard for reality and facts. I don't have time now though, will be back later. Mariam83 18:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You will not succeed in using Wikipedia as a soapbox for a racist agenda (WP:DUCK: 68.90.246.113, especially this one). --Ezeu 20:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

well WELL WELL, Mariam83 you should really move on from wiki now. Admins should be made aware and this user banned. The real issue is our time is being wasted and the racist motives.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 07:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are both black and that I am not does not make me a racist. Most people are afraid of voicing their opinions because they fear ignorant people like yourselves will label them racist, however, as I am not at all racist, I fear you not. Your inferiority complex does not legitimize your distortion of reality, history and fact. Your wish may be to efface sub-saharan Africa's blackness and unique sub-saharan culture, which it must be admitted is rather sedentary in nature, but YOUR racism, your anti-blackness, offends history and the many proud sub-saharan africans who probably don't wish to be robbed of their identities. As for the admins of wikipedia involved in this, there are none, at least not who are involved objectively. They protect pages etc without even reading the contnet, it's rote action. I am basically being attacked by four editors, four black editors who obviously have an inferiority complex: Rastarule, Ezeu, Halaqah and Collousbury. And Halaqah, the Koran and bible are not annals of history lol :) Mariam83 19:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What makes you a racist are opinions such as this and this. --Ezeu 19:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

don't you get it, ezeu, you need to embrace black africa and focus on that. Blacks cannot escape their condition by appropriating Arab civilization or Arab lands. And deecee is a well-known lunatic who has been involved in quite a few battles. I suppose like her/him, you believe that Beethoven was black and that Egypt is in actuality Uganda, and that white Mediterranean peoples are just an illusion and that they are in actuality quiet similar to chaka zulu, does that make you white? nope. Nor does the sentence in this article, that there are "dark" or tanned people in North Africa makes them similar to negroid blacks. The fact is, black is black. Must we play along with your pity game? In the end, you are the real anti-black racist who associates black with bad, not good enough etc. and this aims to efface it. Mariam83 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is archived from Talk:Sub-Saharan Africa. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.