really?..
really?..
out of all the people on earth..
out of all the people on earth..
why the hell would YOU specifically use the term "sub saharan"?..
i didnt ask for you to define it..
I live in the sub-sahara. not the desert.
sub-Saharan
sub-Sa·har·an
[suhb-suh-har-uhn, -hair-uhn, -hahr-uhn] Show IPA
adjective
of, pertaining to, or in Africa south of the Sahara Desert:
It doesn't divide the continent at all. What the hell are you talking about? I used to the term to further clarify what the user wanted to know. There is no north vs south. east vs west. We don't use terrain to label ourselves, we use tribes. I used the term to ID the collective.i didnt ask for you to define it..
im asking why you go by that term..
its clear the term was created to divide africa for its civilization, this was all an attempt to show "how savage" southern africans were "educated" by northern "white" africans. and also to show the aids outbreak occured mainly by southern africans.
It doesn't divide the continent at all. What the hell are you talking about? I used to the term to further clarify what the user wanted to know. There is no north vs south. east vs west. We don't use terrain to label ourselves, we use tribes. I used the term to ID the collective.
Show me documentation of this northern whites educating southern blacks, with exact wording.
so then why exactly is the term nordic and mediterranean used again?
nikka ofcourse north africans didnt educate southern africams, thats the point. cacs tried this divisive shyt and created these lowkey racist terms in anthropology; which im saying the terms like sub saharan,negroid, hamitic,etc. this bullshyt is all used to claim civilization and seperate achievements of black populations.
all im saying is, we should avoid using terms like sub saharan..
nordic and meditid. classifications are not devisive over a race though, they still represent the sections within the "white race". unfortunately cacs used sub-saharan to divide africa into two sects, the cac northerners known for a more "prosperous" civilizations and the "savage" southern black africans.so then why exactly is the term nordic and mediterranean used again?
and how exactly would you categorize the people from the sub-sahara with those from the sahara?
You dumbarse, its because their are different terrains within the continent.
Their are sub divisions in europe. Slavic, Nordic, Mediterranean, etc. Each coming from different environments.
i didnt ask for you to define it..
im asking why you go by that term..
its clear the term was created to divide africa for its civilization, this was all an attempt to show "how savage" southern africans were "educated" by northern "white" africans. and also to show the aids outbreak occured mainly by southern africans.
You have no idea what you're talking about.nordic and meditid. classifications are not devisive over a race though, they still represent the sections within the "white race". unfortunately cacs used sub-saharan to divide africa into two sects, the cac northerners known for a more "prosperous" civilizations and the "savage" southern black africans.
terms like this are just used to devide and has no good intent whatever the purpose.
Sub merely means 'below', as in, below the sahara. Is english your first language?You are the one who doesn't get it you fukkin ignoramus. My point was that they are not denoted by "sub-X". Understand now you dope? Did I break your fish sticks into small enough pieces for you?