Rethinking the Term “Sub Saharan Africa”
My big criticism of the term SSA is that it divides Africa according to white ideas of race making North Africans white enough to be considered for their glories, but not really white enough.
As politics and culture change, rarely has linguistics shifted to accommodate the new changes. Some words and expressions are backed up by agency and have the potential to change our perceptions. This is the case with the term “Sub- Saharan Africa” (herein referred to as SSA).
Western agency not only has unilateral access to international platforms, but additionally maintains the power to ensure meanings are normalized across diverse linguistic and geographical communities.
The power of Western agency means that they can construct words which speak exclusively to their perceived reality. The UN, EU, World Bank, IMF or any other big institution that you might think of has been leading in using the term SSA. It must be pointed out that even many governments and organizations in this region also use the term SSA without really interrogating the meaning or implied meaning of SSA. This has been useful in setting up a false dichotomy and systematic normalization of the term.
It is important to emphasize that these deeply embedded assumptions and stereotypes about Africa not only stand in the way of effectively learning about the continent, but also have been the basis of ill-conceived academic research and policies.
Six years ago the Nigerian born Chikia Onyeani of the Celebrate Africa Group argued that the
term sub-Saharan Africa is demeaning to Africa and must be rejected. He rightfully argued that there is no other continent that has sub something, there is no Sub-Europe or Sub-America. We should be concerned that it’s only the people who were considered as sub human in history who are being referred to as sub-Saharan Africans. The concept of some invisible border, which divides the North of Africa from the South, is rooted in racist thought. A black and white view of African culture only serves racist generalizations. There are more serious issues to be concerned with, but we cannot exclude identity and terminology from conversations on race.
As Onyeani warned, to win these big wars we need to win or at least uphold a conversation on the small ones.
It baffles me how we never question the use of the term SSA. It is becoming clearer to me that SSA refers to the entire African continent, with the exception of the five predominantly Arab states of the North. The concept ‘sub-Sahara Africa’ is ludicrous and disingenuous, if not a meaningless classificatory representation. The use of the term defies geography and focuses more on racist labelling and stereotypes. It is undoubtedly a racist geopolitical signature in which the users (from the onset) aimed to depict the image of dilapidation, squalor and hopelessness. This is despite that majority of Africans do not live anywhere near the Sahara.
What does it really mean in practice to say “SSA?” It is a way of saying “Black Africa” and talk about black Africans without sounding overtly racist.
What should also be considered is the racist stereotypes that are associated with Black Africa. When one uses the suffix “sub” to refer to “below,” images of Africa as all poor, suffering from AIDS (not to demonize the victims) and in a state of disarray are reinforced. These problems and stereotypes are perceived as endemic to blacks.
If it was truly about the Sahara and not race, Mauritania would never be counted as sub-Saharan: Its capital, like most of the country, is hardly south of the Sahara.
If it wasn’t about race prior to the formal legitimate people’s rule in South Africa in 1994, then why was South Africa never considered as part of sub-Saharan Africa? It was either referred to as White South Africa or South Africa Sub-continent. After the legitimate people’s government which was largely a majority black government there was a sudden change in the representation. South Africa was now part of sub-Saharan Africa. Nothing happening to South African geography for it to be differently classified and rendered SSA.
My big criticism of the term SSA is that it divides Africa according to white ideas of race making North Africans white enough to be considered for their glories, but not really white enough.
www.africanexponent.com
No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't do anything at all. Don't kid yourself, kid.
