It would appear that ‘sub Saharan African’ is the new black!
I’ve heard the phrase on CNN and Aljezeera, not sure about SKY (I don’t watch BBC World) but it appears that the word black is out and ‘sub Saharan African’ is in.
Now, sub Saharan African includes my family and I suppose my good friend and fellow Charioteer (our colleague presently resident in Cape Town)
If you listen to the news clip from CNN (where I nicked the pic) they start off with ‘sub Saharan Africans’ what they of course mean is black migrant workers from Chad, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria and who knows where else.
I can see the headlines now
Sub Saharan Africa team to defend world cup
I’m left wondering what the 10,380,482 non-black South Africans (source here 2011 estimates) have to say about the matter?
Like me they are probably laughing at the whole P.C. ridiculousness of it all. But if it allows some media bosses to sleep peacefully at night who am I to argue?
Boadicea's Chariot 
The little sub-Saharan African dress? No, it won’t catch on.
What really annoys me about these PC changes of language is that the new ‘non-insulting’ word is used for a few years until it becomes non-PC and another term is coined and so on and so on…
🙂
Sheona: thanks for the laugh, I needed one.
Boadicea: precisely. It also becomes very difficult at times to actually figure out what
the new term is supposed to mean. It is now, for example, no longer PC to say “disabled”.
It’s now “differently abled”. I can understand that to call someone a cripple might be a bit harsh, but it’s gone well out of any sort of reason now.
I’ve always liked ‘indigenous’ but then who are the indigenous inhabitants of England?
Janus: the problem with using “indigenous” is that it doesn’t address human movement and settlement very well.
The sub Saharan Africans referred to, are of course terrified of being mistaken for Gadaffi’s hired thugs / mercenaries.
There does appear to be an indigenous darker skinned tribe (at some time native to Southern Libya,) The Tuaregs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuareg_people
Interesting – I guess I have used the term ‘sub Sahara Africa (SSA)’ strictly in the context of the French colonisation of Africa and to distinguish it from the European colonisation of the Maghreb. It turns out that Africa doesn’t divide up that neatly and that those countries making up a supposed SSA vary from map to map, just as the Maghreb excludes Egypt and the Sudan. And presumably now, South Sudan becomes part of SSA. The link to the ‘Sahara’ doesn’t seem to provide a good ‘reference point’, maybe Christina can enlighten us on this? Perhaps we need to coin the term Supra Sahara Africa, that should kill them both off!
Morning Soutie, my fellow SSA. I confess that I use the phrase a fair bit because when talking about the ‘Trouble with Africa’ (Martin Merdeith) it is sometimes necessary to distinguish between the two predominant indigenous (thank you Janus) African races. Their histories and and achievements are very different and their status in the world is perceived very differently as well, and yet they all get lumped together as Africans.
It has often struck me as very curious how SS Africa and its leaders are so keen to advance the theory that Africa is the cradle of mankind and that all humanity stems from this part of the world. You see, that makes all of us indigenous Africans. One can only wonder what it was that led our, those of us who are melanin-challenged, ancestors to leave this continent of plenty. Why did they abandon the Savanna plains that were teeming with game and blessed with a clement climate in order to cross harsh barren deserts with soaring temperatures, to go and live in parts of the world where the seasonal extremes meant that in winter they either froze or starved to death? Could it be that they were chased away by their marauding neighbours? Were they in fact refugees? When we huddled masses return to Africa, are we not justifiably reclaiming our heritage? Do we not have as much right to live here as those whose ancestors forced our ancestors out of Africa in the first place? Should we not be seeking restitution. If I were Robert Mugabe, Jacob Zuma, Julius Malema or any ANC stalward, I think I would keep quiet about the origins of mankind. It rather undermines their rationale for taking back land from the ‘white settlers’.
I did a quick search on melanin-challenged and came upon this site http://www.dodds1.com/pc.html.
I see that one of the top rugby pundits, Darren Scott has left his job following a racial outburst. http://www.timeslive.co.za/entertainment/2011/09/08/darren-scott-quits-as-rugby-cup-radio-host-amid-racial-row He used the dreaded ‘K’ word which in this part of the world is as every bit as provocative as the ‘N’ word in the US. Now, while I am not in favour of using such expletives as, like Soutie, I have said elsewhere, there comes a time when you are so angry or frustrated that you will swear and use language that would never otherwise cross your lips. In Scott’s case I could certainly imagine that had the culprit who owed him money been an overweight white man, Scott would have called him a fat ‘C’. Had he been a thin weedy man, he would called him a skinny little ‘S’. The point about such terms is that they represent the level of disdain you feel for the person. It is not a reflection of the person’s race but his personality and behaviour, qualities that the individual can change. I very much doubt that Scott was attacking or denigrating all blacks with his outburst, just this particular one. He does after all spend a lot of time with other black pundits and sportsmen and, I imagine, socialises with them.
The thing is about racial epithets is that if one is determined to use them one can always invent new ones when the last batch has been deemed to be insulting and therefore illegal. In Rhodesia, black Africans were generally referred to as as Muntu(s), abbreviated to Munt(s). This was especially true on the farms. The word is a Shona one and means man. It has the same origin and meaning as the better known word, Bantu. In this country, South African leaders makes a great deal about the ‘Spirit of Ubuntu’ a largely mythical code of behaviour dreamed up by ANC apologists to demonstrate the apparent historical love for their neighbours that pre-colonial Africans once practised. In Zimbabwe, though, its equivalent Muntu is banned. It is supposedly a racist word that denigrates black Africans. The truth is it was very rarely if ever used as a derogatory term. Blacks would use it amongst themselves and when speaking to the whites. We were called Murungu or Makiwa (see Peter Godwin’s book of that name). It really is a bit of a mouthful to say Indigenous Sub Saharan Africans when one wants to refer to that group as distinct from whites. New words or phrases get invented all the time, though, I am afraid to say, they tend to be more insulting than Muntu ever was.
In answer to the question posed by Janus #4 regarding ‘indigenous’ – start here
I suppose we had better start calling the English sub-Cheviot British!
Antipodeans will do us fine – Aussies, Kiwis, Aboriginals and Maori. Very inclusive. 🙂
I’m with PB here, the only time that I’ve heard the phrase sub Saharan Africa is in a geographical sense, perhaps mostly when reading reports of the AIDS pandemic. Can’t quite think of any other circumstance.
All my life this continent has been neatly segmented into North, West, Central, East and South.
Howzit sipu
I was just asking yesterday what qualifications and or record did Scott have for his plumb job at Supersport? I certainly won’t miss him, surprised it took so long to be honest.
I hear that our small regional radio station have sent five of their local staff over to NZ to cover the RWC, I imagine that if other radio stations have followed suit and we add their complements to the huge crews that the TV stations have sent over we’ve probably got enough people ‘on the ground’ to rival the BBC’s usual complement for these type of events. 😉
I imagine that I’ll be sick of hearing about NZ resorts, attractions, restaurants, clubs within a week 😦
Hee hee Bearsy, I can guarantee that by 23rd October (RWC final) Antipodean won’t do, Perhaps East and West Tasmans? 🙂
Technically speaking, the antipodes of Britain are somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, south of New Zealand. I do not have a globe to hand, but I rather suspect that Australia and New Zealand, including their indigenous (thank you Janus) tribes are the Antipodes of no land mass. In other words, Antipodes, in your case Bearsy, is a misnomer. But I could be wrong.
So now right off topic – antipodean – Google Maps Mashup Shows Opposite Points On Globe ( Geez – must get a life).
Perhaps somebody at CNN reads these posts!
I have just heard Jim Clancy in a recent CNN news bulletin refer to the threatened workers as ‘black immigrants (pause…..) sub Saharan Africans’
A much more accurate description of the people depicted in the video footage.
Soutie: Lucky you do not live in the US, you could be an Sub Saharan African American here.
Sipu: New Zealand (or parts of it are antipodean to Spain). I do not know of any antipodean point on land in Australia. Not much antipodean to the US either. Only two spots in Eastern Colorado, one halfway between Cheyenne Wells and Kit Carson on Route 40, the other about halfway between Lamar and Two Buttes in the desert have any landmass, St. Paul and Amsterdam Island (both French). Useless information is a specialty of mine
Fairly meaningless, Soutie, but very PC. Who on earth thinks these things up?
Amusing though, especially Sheona’s take on it.
Soutie #13 – alas the BBC has sent only a few radio reporters, nothing more, as they don’t have the TV rights. It is left to ITV who are utterly useless and have no knowledge or expertise. Shame. Even Sky are better.