Rur roh. I’ve used the term “Sub-Saharan Africa” both in teaching and in my research many times. However, I just learned that the phrase is neither politically or geographically correct. Yikes!
A recent Quartz article makes the following points:
First, the term isn’t geographically correct in some cases. For instance, “The UN Development Program lists 46 of Africa’s 54 countries as ‘sub-Saharan,’ [but] four countries included are on the Sahara, while Eritrea is deemed “sub-Saharan” but its southern neighbor Djibouti isn’t.”
Second, development agencies aren’t consistent in their labeling. In its definition of Sub-Saharan Africa, the World Bank includes the 46 countries as the UN Development Program but also includes Sudan and Somalia.
Third, instead of treating Africa as a single country (sadly still commonplace in the media), we tend to treat it as two (Sub-Saharan and Northern Africa).
The article also delves into the history of the term, noting that Sub-Saharan Africa replaced the more politically incorrect terms “Tropical Africa” and “Black Africa” that were prevalent in early research. Some argue that the new term is equally problematic:
Tatenda Chinondidyachii Mashanda, a politics and international affairs scholar at Wake Forest University argues that “[it] is a way of saying ‘Black Africa’ and talking about black Africans without sounding overtly racist.”
Brian Larkin, a Columbia University anthropologist, would agree, arguing that dividing Africa into Northern African and Sub-Saharan Africa reflects “‘racist’ colonial theories that thought northern Africa more culturally developed.”
Time to re-think how I will describe my data the next time I write a paper with African countries!