Where is sub sahara

The region is comprised of 48 nations, many of which are among the least developed countries in the world. The area of the continent of Africa that lies south of the Sahara Desert. Politically, it consists of all Africa n countries that are fully or partially located south of the Sahara. All countries that are geographically situated south of the Sahara. The region consists of 46 countries.

Geographically refers to all the areas of the continent of Africa which lie south of the Sahara Desert. Some of the countries which fall into this category include countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa. The geographical area of the Africa n continent located south of the Sahara Desert. Is described as the physical and ethnocultural area of the continent of Africa that is south of the Sahara. The United Nations refers to it as consisting of all Africa n nations and regions that are wholly or partially situated south of the Sahara.

It is a term used to describe the area of the Africa n continent which lies south of the Sahara desert. This is the region of Africa excluding the northern part of the continent and the Republic of South Africa. Examples of countries in the region include Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, and Kenya. Within the Africa n continent the region and area which predominantly lies south of the Sahara Desert.

The southern region of Africa n that is separated from northern Africa by the Saharan desert. The World Bank also estimates that there are more than million people living in extreme poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa and that number is rising. A geographic region in Africa n continent that comprised of 46 countries. Countries within this region differ in their rich and diverse cultural heritage.

Some of the countries which fall into this category include countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, and South Africa. The geographic area of Africa located south of the Sahara. Find more terms and definitions using our Dictionary Search. Sub-Saharan Africa appears in:. Handbook of Research on Social Marketing and Its Likewise, North and West Africans are fine with their geographic unit's name. Things get a bit muddy when you talk about Central Africa because one of the countries in Central Africa is called the Central African Republic.

To avoid any confusion, I prefer using the term Middle Africa. Nobody seems to mind, although I'm waiting for an overly sensitive idiot to say that it sounds too much like "Middle Earth" of the Lord of the Rings.

Another minor annoyance is South Africa's name. Instead, South Africa breaks the parallelism and forces us to call the greater region Southern Africa. The South Africa name problem could be easily solved if we called the four compass regions of Africa the same way we call the four compass regions of Europe: northern, eastern, western, and southern.

Alas, there's no consistency. Still, the Central Africa and South Africa name problems are minor debates compared to the two Eastern Europe naming problems. Overall, it seemed to me that Africa was largely devoid of geographic name disputes. In my fourth year of traveling Africa, I learned just how wrong I was. In his Quartz article, Max de Haldevang tries to answer the question, " Why do we still use the term 'sub-Saharan Africa '? Follow those links to the Wikipedia pages and you'll see the various ways we can clump countries together in a block or just look at the green-colored maps on this page to see the debate.

On the contrary, argues Max. At the end of his article, he says that we ought to use them instead of Sub-Saharan Africa. We just saw what's wrong with it. It's subject to a similar debate that the Sub-Saharan term is subject to -- defining who is part of the group. Max's article focuses on Nigeria, which almost everyone will agree is in West Africa.

But what about Cameroon? My wife, who is from Cameroon, has heard many of her fellow countrymen argue that Mount Cameroon is the tallest mountain in West Africa. I'm certainly not suggesting that we ought to abandon these terms just because they have ambiguities.

I use them all the time. I'm simply arguing that just because a geographic term is "confusing" doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. Americans is a confusing term because it could refer to citizens of the United States or to people of the Americas. There are endless debates about which countries are in Eastern Europe, but we still use the term. Max, I'm sure, uses the broad term of Europe all the time, even though it's extremely confusing. People use the term Europe to refer to just the EU. Others say, "That food is very European," when they are really just talking about Western Europe.

Is Iceland in Europe? What about Russia? Or Cyprus? I dearly hope that Rosalind doesn't use the term Europe in her vocabulary because Lichenstein as a state doesn't look anything like Russia as a state, doesn't look anything like Greece or Norway.

After all, there's such diversity on this planet, it's confusing to use such a broad term, so those fucking Martians really ought to stop that. Max paraphrased Columbia University anthropologist Brian Larkin, who argued, "'Sub-Sahara' is too vast to shed light on those [shared] traits and can strengthen an often imagined divide between northern Arab countries and the rest of Africa. First, Brian probably uses term Middle East and North America even though some could argue that it's "too vast a term to shed light on shared traits.

Second, he's right that there is no "imagined divide between northern Arab countries and the rest of Africa. Same is true for AIDS rates. Has Brian Larkin ever traveled to the region? Is he really arguing that there is no difference no divide between North Africa and the rest of Africa? I'm sure Brian, the politically correct anthropologist, will slap anyone for arguing that all Africans are the same, yet that's what he is implying when he says that there is an "imagined divide between northern Arab countries and the rest of Africa.

It seems that "imagined divide" Brian is an academic who sees no division in Africa - it's just one big happy country. He claimed, "Sub-Saharan Africa is a pejorative term. It is a euphemism for contemptuousness employed by the continent's detractors to delineate between the five Arab countries that make up north Africa from the other 42 countries and the islands that make up the rest of Africa.

The term Sub-Saharan is not a euphemism. It is a genuine geographic term to delineate a very real physical separation between North Africa and the rest of Africa. I have driven all over Algeria and Egypt. What's clear is that there's no subtle transition from North Africa to the Sahel. Look at my tracks through the Sahara and all of Africa. The vast Sahara acts like a sea or like the Himalayas.

You don't have to be Darwin to understand that geographic separation and isolation helps give birth to distinct cultures. Of course, there was some cultural exchange across the Sahara for many centuries just like there was a significant cultural exchange between all the countries that have a shoreline on the Mediterranean Sea. Still, to deny that there is a divide is as stupid as not admitting that Ethiopia's mountains and high plateau were important factors that explain its unique culture and lack of serious colonization.

Right now, there is no other continent that you have sub-anything. Although Onyeani earned a doctorate, he's not demonstrating it with that assertion. I haven't traveled there yet he probably never did either , but I know that another name for India is the subcontinent or the Indian subcontinent. There's also the Greater Mekong Subregion , where six countries and million people create a region around the Mekong River basin in Southeast Asia.

Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe and others excitedly point out that South Africa wasn't considered part of the Sub-Sahara when the whites ruled that country. This "proves" that the Sub-Sahara is purely a racist term. According to the Encyclopedia, it was the OAU, which was run exclusively by black African leaders, who kept South Africa out of the OAU club until , when the white rulers were kicked out. So if anyone was using the term Sub-Sahara in a racist way, it was the black Africans.

Who decided on the line of demarcation between 'northern' and 'southern' Africa? When humans see a distinct pattern, we want to name it. We see a bunch of mountains in South America, we decide to brand it "the Andes. We label the Americas into four zones that are obvious to anyone looking at a map: North, Central, South America, and the Caribbean. This is similar to when you look at yourself in the mirror. You're one unified creature with four distinct zones: your head, arms, torso, and legs.

We naturally want to name these three major zones in Africa. We've already named one: Madagascar. So now we need to name that big desert. Let's use the Arabic word for desert: Sahara.

However, I've learned through DNA testing where my ancestry lies. I'm not sure of which country in Africa but I am.

I can understand your frustration, but I'm glad to learn where my roots lie in Africa and Europe primarily. I have recently found that humans are not all the same, we have Subspecies categories due to the mutations within our DNA But one thing is true, we can all try to treat each other with mutual care and respect Thank you for the article although I think you make some generalizations that I disagree with.

I've always been offended by the racist designation "Sub-Saharan. Arabs had varying degrees of mixing with the people across Africa. While they did bring Islam and the Arabic language, they did not change the race of the diverse tribes nor erase the rich heritage across the land. There are many of us who understand this, and do not consider ourselves Arab because of it, any more than an African who is Christian and speaks English and eats hamburgers would consider themselves English.

Don't commit the same error of the oppressor in trying to make your point! I don't see a problem here. I'm an American citizen of Indian origin. My wife is an American of Filipina origin. SImilarly, there are terms like "Latin America", which refer to countries in the Americas which are predominantly Spanish Speaking. Not seeing what the problem is. Every single thing does not always have to be racist, you Know. I'm not so sure the term Sub-Sahara, is supposed to be derogatory, per say, from my knowledge its main linkage is to do with DNA structures within the human Subraces?

I fail to see how this term of Sub-Saharan is considered offensive?? Very interesting article. So, it would be naive not to consider the role racism played archaeologically and politically.

Having said that, the use of the classification "Sub-Saharan Africa" does warrant further examination. The term has geopolitical racist undertones because it perceptively divides or divided the continent into three separate geographical areas according to race: North Africa non-black government rule , Sub-Saharan Africa black government rule , and South Africa pre-liberation white government rule.