6 ms·
On an extremely tangential note: I wish we would stop using the term, "Sub-Saharan." The semantic quandaries should be obvious, but it also subscribes to a curi
by bsanr2 5y ago
On an extremely tangential note: I wish we would stop using the term, "Sub-Saharan." The semantic quandaries should be obvious, but it also subscribes to a curious linguistic glitch of putting the North and South into a hierarchy that only exists if you are rather incurious about the ambiguity of geographic perspective (see: the infamous "upside down" Gall-Peters projection for some mind-blowey fun). I would personally prefer something like "SOS (South-of-Sahara) Africa," or perhaps even something as provocative as "Africa Major" (riffing on Asia Minor and referring to the fact that that part of the continent is, in fact, a majority of its landmass).
- fallingknife 5y agoNobody in their right mind actually thinks placement towards the top of a map actually denotes some kind of hierarchy.
- api 5y agoThere is no top of the map since there is no objective frame of reference in space. The axis on which the Earth spins relative to its orbit is a point of orientation but which side is the "top" is arbitrary.
- fallingknife 5y agoYes, everybody knows that, and if someone asks me where Greenland is on a map, I will say "at the top" like a normal person.
- api 5y agoYou don't reference the galactic orientation by reference to the nearest superclusters? Pleb.
- nerfbatplz 5y agoThe enemy's gate is down
- cto_of_antifa 5y agoNiceee
- BitwiseFool 5y ago>"top" is arbitrary" Sure, but at the end of the day you've got to pick a frame of reference and people have settled on North being the 'top'. You can draw a map that ignores this convention and still have it be valid but you're going to confuse a lot of people. For what it's worth there's more landmass and population in the Northern Hemisphere so make of that what you will.
- bsanr2 5y agoOrienting with terms like "top" and "bottom" inherently denotes hierarchy. Whether you ascribe meaning to that hierarchy (and I think people do) is another matter. Explicitly stating direction rather than something that only refers to it with the aid of outside knowledge (the common orientation of maps) would be better. Otherwise, why don't we spin the map 180 degrees? Now the "correct" term would be "Super-Saharan Africa." Which is just as silly.
- fallingknife 5y ago> and I think people do Yes there do seem to be a lot of Eskimo supremacists around.
- bsanr2 5y agoI'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.
- BitwiseFool 5y agoDon't even get me started on the Prime Meridian. It's even more problematic than North being 'up' and South being 'down'! /s
- bsanr2 5y agoPeople seem really upset at the notion. Even you can't seem to engage with it as anything but a farce. I have to wonder why. I'm just going to start calling it Super-Saharan Africa. When people point out the issue on their map, I'll just flip it 180°. Google Maps conveniently reorients text. The real fun begins when you decide to make longitude the horizontal aspect. Is it Dexterous Africa or Sinister Africa?
- BitwiseFool 5y ago>"Even you can't seem to engage with it as anything but a farce. I have to wonder why." No need to wonder, it's because I see it as a farce. The idea that the top / bottom aspect is something that needs to be re-evaluated because it implies hierarchy is something so inconsequential that I just can't bring myself to take it seriously. And, if you really wanted to flip the hierarchy then you've got the same 'problem' just in reverse. I know you really want to change the way people think but adopting the term "Super-Saharan Africa" is just going to make you look strange. I guarantee you no one will think "oh, this person means the southern part of Africa, but from the reference point of the equator to the South Pole." They're going to think "Wait what? A bigger Sahara? Desertification? What?"
- throwaway894345 5y agoPutting aside the absurd nitpick on the "Sub-" prefix (everyone understands that this refers to "South" and not some position on a hierarchy). > (riffing on Asia Minor and referring to the fact that that part of the continent is, in fact, a majority of its landmass). Isn't Asia Minor a bit more than half of Turkey? It's certainly not a majority of all of Asia...
- QuesnayJr 5y agoThey meant "Africa Major" would be a majority of Africa.
- bsanr2 5y ago>Putting aside the absurd nitpick on the "Sub-" prefix (everyone understands that this refers to "South" and not some position on a hierarchy). Is it absurd? Do they understand? Can you show me how you know this? >Isn't Asia Minor a bit more than half of Turkey? It's certainly not a majority of all of Asia... Sorry, I can see where I was unclear. I was referring to Africa.
- throwaway894345 5y ago> Is it absurd? Do they understand? Can you show me how you know this? It is absurd, they do understand, and I know it because I'm a native English speaker and I've never been in a conversation where anyone was confused by the term nor even in which someone bothered to clarify that they didn't mean to imply a hierarchy. I'm sure you're going to understand that this is satisfactory evidence and not resort to some sort of "BuT Do YoU kNoW eVeRy SiNgLe PeRsOn On ThE PlAnEt?!" nonsense. > Sorry, I can see where I was unclear. I was referring to Africa. Ah, thanks for clarifying. That makes sense.
- bsanr2 5y ago>It is absurd. Again, how so? The two connotations are not mutually exclusive. If the goal is to avoid implying a hierarchy, why not change to a term that has no connection to hierarchy?
- selimthegrim 5y agoI’ve never heard anyone from the Indian subcontinent complain about this.
- allemagne 5y agoI don't think this is an extremely important thing to worry about, but I do think you have a point and I like the term "Africa Major."