I feel like this controversy is manufactured by the proponents who argue it. Humans abstract and organize by categorization and have been doing so ever since their inception, therefore, its way more logical to conclude the term "Sub-Saharan" or "West Africa" was birthed out of the process of inventing word identifiers to specify different objects and locations within some area of space, and nothing more.
However, since some suffer from an inferiority complex and perceive the historical outputs of North Africa superior to, lets say, West Africa, they have to be obtuse and invent baseless theories about how the core intent of naming parts of Africa by whites was to somehow exclude blacks from one population to the history of blacks from another population, when, in actuality, these terms were just invented to identity different land spaces or different populations within Africa with varying levels of details.
Its nothing more than basic human abstractions; without these identifiers, how else does one speak with any sort of precision when wanting to discuss Africa without including places or populations that reside in Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Somalia, or the Sudan. You seriously can't believe that if not for whites, categorization of this kind would not have existed. To think that, you would have to think Africans lack the ability to identify and classify entities or spaces in the world around them.
where/how did you come to that conclusion
....and noone argued otherwise, hence the confusion
South Africans are "different" also.
