5 ms·

Don'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 ago
People 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?"
  - bsanr2 5y ago
    "Super-Saharan Africa" was a joke, meant to draw attention to the farce of this associative naming convention in general. Hence "Left Africa" and "Right Africa". :) Now, I'll ask you to take it seriously. If it's not a matter of concern for you, but it is for me, it would seem most fair to address my concern (since it's apparenty beneath your care). But if you do care, I'm happy to have that conversation. As stated, I would like to remove hierarchy (or the connotation of hierarchy) from the terminology altogether, and more explicitly refer to directionality. If you disagree with this course, please say why (beyond, "It shouldn't matter," because at this point we'd have agreed that it does).
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      I'm going to be honest and say that I'm reluctant to get into a debate with you on this. Simply put, I already know we aren't going to change anyone's mind on this subject. I will say this, it is perfectly fine to worry about hierarchical structures and the impacts they have on people. But the mere existence or implication of hierarchy is not a problem in-and-of itself. Especially in this context, where I am certain the impact of North being considered 'up' and South being considered 'down' has not materially harmed anyone living down under. I also see no evidence that this paradigm/convention is actually harmful. Only speculation that it could be, in an indirect way, and for reasons I don't find compelling. I'm also concerned that we're going to slip into one of the least productive kinds of argument, trying to define, redefine, and shift the meaning of words. So I'd like to avoid all of this and let bygones be bygones.
      - bsanr2 5y ago
        >I also see no evidence that this paradigm/convention is actually harmful. And that's fine. But you're putting a lot of energy into trying to convince me of that. Do you see the contradiction? You claim that the nomenclature isn't a big deal, but then you go on to defend it - and even in this defense, you make an effort to wash your hands of the entire matter as quickly as possible. It's a weird appeal to the status quo, which I don't understand. Either the terminology matters to you or it doesn't. Does it? Do you prefer to refer to a "Sub-Saharan Africa"? If you do, why? And if not, why can't we just call it something else? I am really curious. I think this sort of discourse is perfectly reasonable because it unpacks the meanings behind our initial reactions.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Bayart 5y ago
  > 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. You'll just confuse people and look like a joker when you explain to them that you've decided to change universally accepted geographic nomenclature on your lonesome because you took a whiff of maybe possibly who knows racism.
  - bsanr2 5y ago
    People could stand to be confused a bit. Sort of a, "Get out of the car and find your own way home," moment for a society that is infamously terrible at analyzing The Reasons Things Are. We used to "universally accept" nomenclature like "Nigger" for place names. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_nigger_in_proper_names https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_nigger_in_proper_name...

bsanr2 5y ago

People 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?"
- bsanr2 5y ago
  "Super-Saharan Africa" was a joke, meant to draw attention to the farce of this associative naming convention in general. Hence "Left Africa" and "Right Africa". :) Now, I'll ask you to take it seriously. If it's not a matter of concern for you, but it is for me, it would seem most fair to address my concern (since it's apparenty beneath your care). But if you do care, I'm happy to have that conversation. As stated, I would like to remove hierarchy (or the connotation of hierarchy) from the terminology altogether, and more explicitly refer to directionality. If you disagree with this course, please say why (beyond, "It shouldn't matter," because at this point we'd have agreed that it does).
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    I'm going to be honest and say that I'm reluctant to get into a debate with you on this. Simply put, I already know we aren't going to change anyone's mind on this subject. I will say this, it is perfectly fine to worry about hierarchical structures and the impacts they have on people. But the mere existence or implication of hierarchy is not a problem in-and-of itself. Especially in this context, where I am certain the impact of North being considered 'up' and South being considered 'down' has not materially harmed anyone living down under. I also see no evidence that this paradigm/convention is actually harmful. Only speculation that it could be, in an indirect way, and for reasons I don't find compelling. I'm also concerned that we're going to slip into one of the least productive kinds of argument, trying to define, redefine, and shift the meaning of words. So I'd like to avoid all of this and let bygones be bygones.
    - bsanr2 5y ago
      >I also see no evidence that this paradigm/convention is actually harmful. And that's fine. But you're putting a lot of energy into trying to convince me of that. Do you see the contradiction? You claim that the nomenclature isn't a big deal, but then you go on to defend it - and even in this defense, you make an effort to wash your hands of the entire matter as quickly as possible. It's a weird appeal to the status quo, which I don't understand. Either the terminology matters to you or it doesn't. Does it? Do you prefer to refer to a "Sub-Saharan Africa"? If you do, why? And if not, why can't we just call it something else? I am really curious. I think this sort of discourse is perfectly reasonable because it unpacks the meanings behind our initial reactions.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Bayart 5y ago
> 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. You'll just confuse people and look like a joker when you explain to them that you've decided to change universally accepted geographic nomenclature on your lonesome because you took a whiff of maybe possibly who knows racism.
- bsanr2 5y ago
  People could stand to be confused a bit. Sort of a, "Get out of the car and find your own way home," moment for a society that is infamously terrible at analyzing The Reasons Things Are. We used to "universally accept" nomenclature like "Nigger" for place names. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_nigger_in_proper_names https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_nigger_in_proper_name...