posted
I see alot of amateurists making believe they are scholarly knowledge givers who bandy on and on about "north, southern, east, west, and central" Africa, yet do not give any reference as to what these terms mean. Is it because these they themselves don't know what these terms mean?
Well let us see.
Anyone is free to answer either one or both of the following questions.
What nations makeup these areas?
Or
What are the boundaries for these areas. (you can just list 4 countries)
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
------------------------------- You get the picture now -------------------------------
hmm, not quite because the largest is not one of the questions that I asked. It still leaves vague what those areas are.
Lets try again Barry
Anyone is free to answer either one or both of the following questions.
What nations makeup these areas?
Or
What are the boundaries for these areas. (you can just list 4 countries in each area that you think make up the boundaries for that area)
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The crucial thing to keep in mind is east and west, north and south are determined from the Prime Meridian (0° longitude, 0° latitude.) This position can be seen on any globe representing the earth, or at least ones that are 12 inches or more in diameter.
Since the topic of this thread is east and west Africa then any position there will be reckoned from that 0° longitude/latitude starting point.
If you isolate Africa and divide it down the middle, as a continent, then you will have a starting point for west and east. As long as the longitude line is understood as an operating point then west and east Africa present no demarcation problems; same for north and south.
Libya west/east; Egypt is east, Sudan east, Ethiopia and Somalia are also east but more south; but still north of the equator.
More specifically all those countries (as elsewhere, obviously) have west/east/north/south positions as well. So the thing is context.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grumman wrote: ----------------------------- Since the topic of this thread is east and west Africa -----------------------------
What part of "north", "southern", and "central" do you not understand? Why does your response give the impression that you view Africa through a racialist eurocentric lens?
Now I will address other content of your post. You say that Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Somalia are "east".
Do you think Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique are a part of "east" Africa?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
What are the boundaries for these areas. (you can just list 4 countries in each area that you think make up the boundaries for that area)
good question.
^True that. East West North South and Central aren't agreed-upon regions with discrete boundaries of discrete areas and perimeters.
They're relative terms, usually accompanied by specific things like groups (lingual, ethnic, cultural), monuments, geological reference points (rivers, mountain ranges etc), etc.
My concern has always been with contradictions/inconsistencies in use of the terms and with when politics or ideology serve as the basis for these errors:
What is "north", "southern", "east", "west", and "central" Africa?
And yes I see where I made a slight error when I posted this:
''Since the topic of this thread is east and west Africa then any position there will be reckoned from that 0° longitude/latitude starting point.''
...there is also a clue for you in that error (above) that should have alerted you to the north and south aspect also, i.e., latitude...but it didn't.
''Why does your response give the impression that you view Africa through a racialist eurocentric lens?''
Why is it racialist?
''Do you think Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique are a part of "east" Africa?''
Argyle 104, if you run the longitude line from 90 degrees north to 90 degrees south, down the middle of the continent, as a new starting point you will see Kenya and Uganda are on the east side of the longitude line, with Kenya and Uganda straddling the equator. This means both Uganda and Kenya are in the northern and southern hemisphere. Tanzania is also east of the new starting point but in the southern hemisphere entirely.
Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe are in the southern hemisphere, that is, below the equator but east of the new starting point.
Expressed another way those last three countries will be seen as being in southern Africa, with a further technical location of east thrown in. It's called location.
Now a mathmetician will tell you you don't need a new starting point (see above) because he will break out the calculator and add and subtract degrees and minutes and seconds to come up with a precise dividing line for the entire middle/center portion of the African continent―all from 0 degrees latitude and 0 degrees longitude...east and southPosts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by MaximallyAbstract_Faith: East West North South and Central aren't agreed-upon regions with discrete boundaries of discrete areas and perimeters.
They're relative terms, usually accompanied by specific things like groups (lingual, ethnic, cultural), monuments, geological reference points (rivers, mountain ranges etc), etc.
My concern has always been with contradictions/inconsistencies in use of the terms and with when politics or ideology serve as the basis for these errors:
The new topology of the E3 haplogroup is suggestive of a relatively recent eastern African origin for the majority of the chromosomes presently found in sub-Saharan Africa.
Of course there's always been contradictions and inconsistencies in how data on African populations are handled. The entire notion of "sub-Saharan" is one of them, as noted so eloquently by S. Keita below. The basic thrust is to minimize or deny African genetic diversity by the creation and manipulation of inconsistent/contradictory barriers, classifications or definitions.
"The living peoples of the African continent are diverse in facial characteristics, stature, skin color, hair form, genetics, and other characteristics. No one set of characteristics is more African than another. Variability is also found in "sub-Saharan" Africa, to which the word "Africa" is sometimes erroneously restricted. There is a problem with definitions. Sometimes Africa is defined using cultural factors, like language, that exclude developments that clearly arose in Africa. For example, sometimes even the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea) is excluded because of geography and language and the fact that some of its peoples have narrow noses and faces.
However, the Horn is at the same latitude as Nigeria, and its languages are African. The latitude of 15 degree passes through Timbuktu, surely in "sub-Saharan Africa," as well as Khartoum in Sudan; both are north of the Horn. Another false idea is that supra-Saharan and Saharan Africa were peopled after the emergence of "Europeans" or Near Easterners by populations coming from outside Africa. Hence, the ancient Egyptians in some writings have been de-Africanized. These ideas, which limit the definition of Africa and Africans, are rooted in racism and earlier, erroneous "scientific" approaches." (S. Keita, "The Diversity of Indigenous Africans," in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Clenko, Editor (1996), pp. 104-105. )
As can be seen from the map above, Ethiopia is itself 'Sub-Saharan' as is Somalia, but somehow they too often get classified elsewhere. The use of geographic manipulations is linked to the "true negro" model, drawing as narrow and stereotypical a picture of "Africans" as possible, thus enabling all not meeting the extreme narrow stereotype to be reclassified as Caucasoid or some other race. The use of "Bantu" speakers as a model for "true blacks" is typical of this manipulation. Another associated tactic is biased sampling, drawing samples from the far north of Egypt for example near the Mediterranean and claiming them as "representative" of all Egypt, and the use of slippery labeling particularly the terms "Middle Eastern" or "Mediterranean." Such sleight of hand occurs in both cranial/skeletal studies and DNA studies.
Keita (1990, 1992, 1993) refers to excavation reports where the workers digging up the old bones for example could clearly identify them as Negroid using the criteria of the time, but somehow they were later on classified as "Mediterranean" or excluded altogether from published summaries on an area because they were not "really" "supposed" to be there according to the reckoning of the Egyptologist at hand. Keita had to go back and read the old excavation reports (some over a century old) first-hand to see what was really going on.
"Nutter (1958), using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nubian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded "clear negro" crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Morant (1925), implying that they were foreign.].." (S.O.Y Keita, "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 83:35-48 (1990))
The writers here at Egypt Search generally do an excellent job in exposing this inconsistency and hypocrisy.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
''True that. East West North South and Central aren't agreed-upon regions with discrete boundaries of discrete areas and perimeters.''
The four cardinal points are discrete. The 'central' location isn't; it's non-discrete...yet central. Argyle 104 formed his argument around cardinal points whether he realized it or not. And maybe that isn't what he intended. If so then he will have to change it to get away from specific latitude and longitude in terms of where each country lies. If he insists, somehow, that his aforementioned countries can be physically located someplace else other than where they actually lie then I'm sure scientists will be interested in his explanation as well.
''They're relative terms, usually accompanied by specific things like groups (lingual, ethnic, cultural), monuments, geological reference points (rivers, mountain ranges etc), etc.''
Cardinal directions are not relative, they are discrete. Lingual, ethnic and cultural parameters aren't static and can't be used in the equation. And yes mountains, rivers and monuments are specific. They can be located wherever they may lie: north , east, south and west. Therefore they are not relative in terms of location; they can be located on a latitude and longitude basis even though the mountains may meander in one direction or the other.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
''Why does your response give the impression that you view Africa through a racialist eurocentric lens?''
Why is it racialist?
''Do you think Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique are a part of "east" Africa?''
Argyle 104, if you run the longitude line from 90 degrees north to 90 degrees south, down the middle of the continent, as a new starting point you will see Kenya and Uganda are on the east side of the longitude line, with Kenya and Uganda straddling the equator. This means both Uganda and Kenya are in the northern and southern hemisphere. Tanzania is also east of the new starting point but in the southern hemisphere entirely.
Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe are in the southern hemisphere, that is, below the equator but east of the new starting point.
Expressed another way those last three countries will be seen as being in southern Africa, with a further technical location of east thrown in. It's called location.
Now a mathmetician will tell you you don't need a new starting point (see above) because he will break out the calculator and add and subtract degrees and minutes and seconds to come up with a precise dividing line for the entire middle/center portion of the African continent―all from 0 degrees latitude and 0 degrees longitude...east and south
Where is the "middle" of the African continent; and how was it arrived at?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
''True that. East West North South and Central aren't agreed-upon regions with discrete boundaries of discrete areas and perimeters.''
The four cardinal points are discrete. The 'central' location isn't; it's non-discrete...yet central. Argyle 104 formed his argument around cardinal points whether he realized it or not...
At the very least, i.e. when putting the question of geographical precision aside, if regions are to be typified by latitudinal/longitudinal directional indicators like "north, south, east and west", then there should be consistency in grouping regions that occupy the same general latitudes and longitudes respectively, with a single standard respective to the said parameters -- which in this case, either are geographical in nature; likewise should be the case, when the "Sahara" [which for some "odd" reason, became THE main geographical marker/divisor in "Western" discourse, pertaining to African affairs] is applied as a [geographical] dichotomous tool -- for instance, one can't say that say, Nigeria, is "sub-Saharan" and that Ethiopia isn't. That amounts to applying a double standard using a singular parameter -- "the supposed location vis-a-vis the Sahara" as the basis of classification.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: The four cardinal points are discrete. The 'central' location isn't; it's non-discrete...yet central. Argyle 104 formed his argument around cardinal points whether he realized it or not.
You have a good point there.
For certain though it's a mistake to forget that these are relative terms when applied regionally and denote areas with vague boundaries.
Whoever came up with "The Middle East" clearly didn't have "far Easterners" like Indians or Filipinos in mind when thinking up the term.
Asia ends at Europe which is why "South West Asia" is superior to "the near East" the I recall some forum members who use "the middle east" complain that SW Asia is just as long and a whole 3 letters longer than TNE.
The same member used "North West Africa" instead of the Maghreb (which is fine, but weird for a person who doesn't like to type).
Really, even "North Western Africa" can be unclear: some use it to refer to the Maghreb which often includes Libya which is East of alot of Africa. The Maghreb Extends South as far as Morroco Algeria and even Mauritania do but what about Senegal, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Gambia?
Or why stop there? Why not add everything from nigeria to Cote D'Ivoire?
So yeah, E W N and S denote discrete compass directions.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is interesting to see how no one has still not either:
Listed the countries that are in these supposed regions
or
Listed the boundaries for these areas using just 4 countries in each area that is thought of making up the boundaries for those areas
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: East West North South and Central aren't agreed-upon regions with discrete boundaries of discrete areas and perimeters
So basically you are saying that when people bandy about these so called regional names, they are based upon principly their personal fantasies.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may be that Europe is seen as a more unified contient argyle. While there are differences fron one region of Europe to another they are minor. It is a much more unified cultural and racial area as opposed to Africa which is negroid south of the desert and caucasian in the north. Africa has more religious diversity as well.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ "Caucasian/Caucasoid" means nothing, it's just a modern smoke screen in an attempt to relate many unrelated people through superficial measurments. If you want to know who is more related to who then you should check their blood not their nose shape. Phenotype can be easily adjusted depending on your environment, your physical look is a function of your environment and time not your basic origin.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Explorer asks: ''Where is the "middle" of the African continent; and how was it arrived at?''
A cartographer will take into consideration the widest points east and west and do the calculations accordingly to arrive at the center.
As noted above latitude and longitude represent scientific measures and can locate any place on earth as having a middle. It doesn't matter that 0 degrees north and south, east and west are dertemined from that position and was decided on in the late 1800s I believe. What does matter is a circle comprises 360 degrees but actually isn't perfectly spherical, it has some bulge at the equator, but even that is taken into consideration when doing measurements on the earth. Since a circle is 360 degrees then a starting point can be shifted anywhere from the above mentioned 0 degrees north and south east and west to accomodate land masses and determining a middle position.
At this point you will note the southern portion of Africa will not fall into the precise upper portion middle and there is where measurements will have to be decided arbitrarily; the same goes for all other land masses. And I don't have a clue what a cartographer will say in defining the larger upper portion of Africa as it relates to the smaller southern part other than to say it falls into the eastern boundaries of the 20 degree east longitude. Clearly Africa is no square box so that will be taken into consideration when it is said the upper portion of Africa falls into the middle position of 20 or so degrees Longitude (not latuitude).
You will also take note that I have mentioned no scientists in my post because it isn't necessary to do that when the facts will show as per cardinal locations that a middle can be found anywhere on this planet.
''At the very least, i.e. when putting the question of geographical precision aside, if regions are to be typified by latitudinal/longitudinal directional indicators like "north, south, east and west", then there should be consistency in grouping regions that occupy the same general latitudes and longitudes respectively, with a single standard respective to the said parameters -- which in this case, either are geographical in nature; likewise should be the case, when the "Sahara" [which for some "odd" reason, became THE main geographical marker/divisor in "Western" discourse, pertaining to African affairs] is applied as a [geographical] dichotomous tool -- for instance, one can't say that say, Nigeria, is "sub-Saharan" and that Ethiopia isn't. That amounts to applying a double standard using a singular parameter -- "the supposed location vis-a-vis the Sahara" as the basis of classification.''
None of that is my argument. That is political as already hinted at earlier. That said I do understand what you are saying. And I agree politics can be a disconcerting business.
Argyle 104 says: ''It is interesting to see how no one has still not either:
Listed the countries that are in these supposed regions
or
Listed the boundaries for these areas using just 4 countries in each area that is thought of making up the boundaries for those areas''
Argyle, you're talking politics, I'm not. See my comments. You will have to search elsewhere for that. I already laid out for you what areas the countries you gave me fall into from a latitude and longitude perspective. I have no interest in politics in this matter.
Argyle attributes this post to me.
''See East West North South and Central aren't agreed-upon regions with discrete boundaries of discrete areas and perimeters.''
...actually it was MaximallyAbstract_faith's post so maybe he will answer your response below, for you.
''So basically you are saying that when people bandy about these so called regional names, they are based upon principly their personal fantasies.'
''Also of quick note, why has no one noticed that you never hear about:
I see nothing to argue about here. It seems to me it's a general location that people describe.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
The Explorer asks: ''Where is the "middle" of the African continent; and how was it arrived at?''
A cartographer will take into consideration the widest points east and west and do the calculations accordingly to arrive at the center.
Good; now tell me about what I had asked; where is the "middle' of the African continent, as represented by what figure for latitude and longitude respectively. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
''At the very least, i.e. when putting the question of geographical precision aside, if regions are to be typified by latitudinal/longitudinal directional indicators like "north, south, east and west", then there should be consistency in grouping regions that occupy the same general latitudes and longitudes respectively, with a single standard respective to the said parameters -- which in this case, either are geographical in nature; likewise should be the case, when the "Sahara" [which for some "odd" reason, became THE main geographical marker/divisor in "Western" discourse, pertaining to African affairs] is applied as a [geographical] dichotomous tool -- for instance, one can't say that say, Nigeria, is "sub-Saharan" and that Ethiopia isn't. That amounts to applying a double standard using a singular parameter -- "the supposed location vis-a-vis the Sahara" as the basis of classification.''
None of that is my argument.
Never said it was. Can't sense when something is being argued or not, and when something is being supplemented? I was going to cite just Alive/what box when commenting, but since you were discussing the same matter, I decided to add on to your exchange. Hope that helps.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
It may be that Europe is seen as a more unified contient argyle. While there are differences fron one region of Europe to another they are minor. It is a much more unified cultural and racial area as opposed to Africa which is negroid south of the desert and caucasian in the north. Africa has more religious diversity as well.
Just about everything is fact-free about this mumbling, save for that last bit on 'religious diversity'. Europe is just about as unified as Africa is. Sure, it's a smaller territory and has a far reduced diversity [though clear diversity does exist] than the *cradle of humankind and its culture*; that's a given. You might have more credibility, if you said that they do so, to give the "appearance" [though not in reality] of supposed European unity; after all, notwithstanding real political and cultural differences, Europe is still a minority entity in the global arena.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
And oh, religious diversity in Europe is also a reality. Notwithstanding the "loud" Christian sections, you also have European Muslims, Jews, Budhists, Atheists, Satanists et al.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
From The Explorer: ''...if regions are to be typified by latitudinal/longitudinal directional indicators like "north, south, east and west", then there should be consistency in grouping regions that occupy the same general latitudes and longitudes respectively, with a single standard respective to the said parameters -- which in this case, either are geographical in nature; likewise should be the case, when the "Sahara" [which for some "odd" reason, became THE main geographical marker/divisor in "Western" discourse, pertaining to African affairs] is applied as a [geographical] dichotomous tool -- for instance, one can't say that say, Nigeria, is "sub-Saharan" and that Ethiopia isn't. That amounts to applying a double standard using a singular parameter -- "the supposed location vis-a-vis the Sahara" as the basis of classification.''
None of that is my argument. Is that better? I recognized the opening sentence but decided to leave it alone. My bad, I should have deleted it when I thought about it initially.
''Good; now tell me about what I had asked; where is the "middle' of the African continent, as represented by what figure for latitude and longitude respectively.''
Since we (not you )were talking (generally) about longitude in terms of a middle division I said 20 degrees give or take a few. Now that you are more specific then latitude coordinates will be approximately 35north. Now the middle position as represented by both coordinates will read 35n latitude, 20e longitude. And A military satellite will give the minutes and seconds within those degrees for precision.
For informational purposes there is no doubt any individual on this planet represents a degree of location with the precison of minutes and seconds thrown in.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
From The Explorer: ''...if regions are to be typified by latitudinal/longitudinal directional indicators like "north, south, east and west", then there should be consistency in grouping regions that occupy the same general latitudes and longitudes respectively, with a single standard respective to the said parameters -- which in this case, either are geographical in nature; likewise should be the case, when the "Sahara" [which for some "odd" reason, became THE main geographical marker/divisor in "Western" discourse, pertaining to African affairs] is applied as a [geographical] dichotomous tool -- for instance, one can't say that say, Nigeria, is "sub-Saharan" and that Ethiopia isn't. That amounts to applying a double standard using a singular parameter -- "the supposed location vis-a-vis the Sahara" as the basis of classification.''
None of that is my argument. Is that better?
Nope, it ain't better; as I had already informed you in my last post, that I never said any of what I posted was your argument to begin with. Am I any clearer now?
quote:
''Good; now tell me about what I had asked; where is the "middle' of the African continent, as represented by what figure for latitude and longitude respectively.''
Since we (not you )were talking (generally) about longitude in terms of a middle division I said 20 degrees give or take a few. Now that you are more specific then latitude coordinates will be approximately 35north. Now the middle position as represented by both coordinates will read 35n latitude, 20e longitude. And A military satellite will give the minutes and seconds within those degrees for precision.
Are you saying that the "Middle of Africa" is 35 0' N, and 20 0' E ? How did you arrive at that, mathematically?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I speed read. It should read about 10 degrees north latitude and 20 degrees east longitude.
When you posted this: ''Can't sense when something is being argued or not, and when something is being supplemented?''
I was thinking your issue was with the initial part of the sentence and the supplementary material and not distinguishing between the two. That's all it was about. That's why I deleted it in a return comment.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Hmmm. Better than the last, but still questionable, but I'll let it go, lest we digress further...but if you wish to demonstrate how you arrived at the said figures, then I won't hold it against you.
Btw, I see two ways of determining the 'middle' of the African continent. One is by determining the area of the landmass, and thereafter its centroid, which is essentially a relatively less accurate way of looking at it, since it would invoke a two dimensional viewpoint, or one can go about it via the trigonometric way, taking into consideration the latitude and longitude coordinates and the radius of the earth's sphere.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You will recall my coordinates weren't mathematical, just looking at the globe and drawing the longitude lines down what I perceived to be the middle position of the upper portion of the landmass then doing the same with latitude then proceeded from that to identify the coordinates in a non-mathematical way, as already noted earlier. Unless you can identify contradictory positions for those coordinates then mine will hold up quite well, in a non-mathematical determination, that is, sans the satellite precision.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I might want to mention again, that Argyle tends to give europeans much more credit than they deserve. The term "black" is one. Deciding what countries are in which regions are another.
African people actually do decide some things for themselves you know?
Posts: 100 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: It may be that Europe is seen as a more unified contient argyle. While there are differences fron one region of Europe to another they are minor. It is a much more unified cultural and racial area as opposed to Africa which is negroid south of the desert and caucasian in the north. Africa has more religious diversity as well.
Can you please outline exactly what is a "negroid"?
Posts: 100 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
''Btw, I see two ways of determining the 'middle' of the African continent. One is by determining the area of the landmass,...''
...yes, at its widest points, north and south, east and west, and in this case the upper portion, then doing the necessary math to reduce the land mass into its equal components at the center position. However this will be a tall order with the southern, eastern portion of the continent because of the way its geography is and still maintain it within the northern portion's position. That said a trigonometric way probably will, somehow, place the total African landmass together for that purpose but it will leave undecided the center position of the lower part because of its easterly offset. Kind of like hammering the total mass out on a flat board and then trying to reassemble it into its original location and at the same time trying to maintain the center spot.
''...which is essentially a relatively less accurate way of looking at it, since it would invoke a two dimensional viewpoint'',
Yes. Looking at a map will give a two dimensional perspective in trying to sort things out. A globe however is three dimensional so this alone ups the 'marksmanship.' That said, as noted, it still leaves imprecision because of its smaller stature (12 inches). Yet that small stature can be rewarding in locating places, not individual positions, on a globe with reasonable accuracy, without the minutes and seconds to be sure. And that's where the real precision comes in via satellites transmitting coordinates to a handheld GPS receiver.
''or one can go about it via the trigonometric way, taking into consideration the latitude and longitude coordinates and the radius of the earth's sphere.''
Actually it would be more than a consideration if you're looking for precision. And yes it is a radius, also known as angular distance as measured from the center of the earth, i.e., equatorial plane and the axis (90x4) degrees).
Actually a 12 inch globe is interesting because of its ability to give coordinates, or angular distances. Obviously the larger the globe is the more information that will be on it.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
''Btw, I see two ways of determining the 'middle' of the African continent. One is by determining the area of the landmass,...''
...yes, at its widest points, north and south, east and west, and in this case the upper portion, then doing the necessary math to reduce the land mass into its equal components at the center position. However this will be a tall order with the southern, eastern portion of the continent because of the way its geography is and still maintain it within the northern portion's position. That said a trigonometric way probably will, somehow, place the total African landmass together for that purpose but it will leave undecided the center position of the lower part because of its easterly offset. Kind of like hammering the total mass out on a flat board and then trying to reassemble it into its original location and at the same time trying to maintain the center spot.
Which in plain English would be...? LOL.
BTW, finding the area of the continent takes (supposed to) into account every part of its width across the entire landmass's figure or within that familiar curvature of the continent, so I'm not sure where you are going with this...
at its widest points, north and south, east and west, and in this case the upper portion, then doing the necessary math to reduce the land mass into its equal components at the center position.Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Argyle, you're talking politics, I'm not. See my comments. You will have to search elsewhere for that. I already laid out for you what areas the countries you gave me fall into from a latitude and longitude perspective. I have no interest in politics in this matter.
Strawman deflection attempts won't work, I asked for names of countries and you are not intellectually capable of providing an answer to such a basic request.
quote: I see nothing to argue about here. It seems to me it's a general location that people describe.
Well if you can't see the ruse of:
-- Not dividing Europe by using "northern, southern, eastern, and western"
and
Dividing Africa using "north", "west", "central", "east", etc as if those so called areas are actually countries --
then that is a testimony of a lack of logic, ability to analyze, critical thinking, commonsense, and intellect on your part.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
''Strawman deflection attempts won't work, I asked for names of countries and you are not intellectually capable of providing an answer to such a basic request.'
No strawman deflection attemps at all. Your question/s has/have already been answered but you can't see it.
''Well if you can't see the ruse of:
Not dividing Europe by using "northern, southern, eastern, and western"...''
Until 1989 or so there was an actual political entity called East Germany. The western political body dissolved the eastern political body. The geography remained the same. Now Germany is just Germany.
''...and
Dividing Africa using "north", "west", "central", "east", etc as if those so called areas are actually countries --
then that is a testimony of a lack of logic, ability to analyze, critical thinking, commonsense, and intellect on your part.''
Here's something to consider. Geologists, and politicians too in the U.S. describe a portion of the country as southwestern United States, or the southern states, or the eastern states or the northern states. What does that mean to you? Are they describing a country or a general location? If you consider this to be a red herring since we are talking about Africa then show me where any country in Africa is called east, west, north, or south as a real political entity and not referenced as a location; keeping in mind even some African politicians will mangle geography just as their white counterparts and use it to their advantage.
Politics come and go, not so the geography, that is until politicians mangle their understanding of it. So, if you can show me a country in Africa that self-identifies as one of the four cardinal points, e.g. West Rwanda, or North Sudan, etc. then show me which one it is, or two, or three, and I will apologize to you. Now don't confuse this with some politicians in some countries in Africa who may want to identify as such, but they don't count if it hasn't been politically established. I'm saying this just by looking at my 12 inch globe. Now I haven't perused my $100 world Atlas (book)...and it may prove me wrong. But you can do that for me if you like. Fair enough?
Now, with this in mind, if there is a country named that way why do you think it would be called that if it wasn't in reference to a location?
And Mauritania is above the equator, hence it is in the north... but west. Kinda tough gittin' away from directions ain't it.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
This is a silly semantic argument that you are passing off as racism. Trust me. I know there is a lot to dsicuss when it comes to racism and it's effects on the continent...but this is NOT one of them.
Morrocco and Algeria are named as "North" Africa because it is clearly in the most northern part of the continent. The same way Georgia is considered to be a southern state and not an eastern one. Ohio is considered a "midwestern" state, even though it is clearly in the east of the United States.
You also have to consider the shape of the place (continent) in question. There is also the cultural aspect of the people who live in these areas as another deliniator, but this less to do with the almighty, all credit worthy white man, and more with basic geography.
Now whether people in "north" Africa are to be considered "caucasoid" (i.e. part european/eurasian) is another story. Short answer is NO!!
Posts: 100 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
This is a silly semantic argument that you are passing off as racism. Trust me. I know there is a lot to dsicuss when it comes to racism and it's effects on the continent...but this is NOT one of them.
I beg to differ; so-called "Western" scholars do get into play of geographical appellatives that bespeak either shallow and/or deep-seated racialism. An example can be found right here: Link!
Take for instance, why the Sahara has to be such a big deal, that the African continent has to be artificially hacked into two pieces on the account of this "marker".
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Not dividing Europe by using "northern, southern, eastern, and western"...''
Until 1989 or so there was an actual political entity called East Germany. The western political body dissolved the eastern political body. The geography remained the same. Now Germany is just Germany.
I believe, the subtleties below, i.e. with the "suffixation" in particular, and how that differs with approach to the African continent, is what he's alluding to:
quote:Originally posted by argyle104:
Also of quick note, why has no one noticed that you never hear about:
As for occasion of west and east Germany; it played into the only major geographic-invoked "dichotomization" of Europe, against the backdrop of the geopolitical-construct camps of the West capitalist "free market" bloc vs. Eastern "Communist" bloc.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Until 1989 or so there was an actual political entity called East Germany. The western political body dissolved the eastern political body. The geography remained the same. Now Germany is just Germany.
East Germany was a country born from end of WWII where the U.S., France, England, and the Soviet Union physically divided nation of Germany into two parts.
This is totally different from subjectively dividing Africa into regions using junkscience racial mythology. You're not smart enough to see that?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: And Mauritania is above the equator, hence it is in the north... but west.
Well since you have accepted the junk science notion that there is a "north", "south", "east", "west", and "central" Africa which are seperate from one another, go ahead and tell us whether Mauritania is in "north" or "west" Africa.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Morrocco and Algeria are named as "North" Africa because it is clearly in the most northern part of the continent. The same way Georgia is considered to be a southern state and not an eastern one. Ohio is considered a "midwestern" state, even though it is clearly in the east of the United States.
Is Mauritania in "north" Africa?
It is very noticeable and telling how you keep leaving this country out of your regional designations.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Morrocco and Algeria are named as "North" Africa because it is clearly in the most northern part of the continent. The same way Georgia is considered to be a southern state and not an eastern one. Ohio is considered a "midwestern" state, even though it is clearly in the east of the United States.
How and by who is the most northern part of the continent determined?
Why acknowledge that they are in the "north" of the continent. But a hesitation bordering on a psychotic denial that they are also in the "west" of the continent. Further "west" than any other country on the continent I might add.
Does "north" have more valuation than "west" so much so that if an entity is both "north" and "west", "west" should be discarded and "north" shouldn't?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Argyle 104 says: ''Germany was a country born from end of WWII where the U.S., France, England, and the Soviet Union physically divided nation of Germany into two parts.''
Yes that is historical.
''This is totally different from subjectively dividing Africa into regions using junkscience racial mythology. You're not smart enough to see that?''
Are you suggesting there is some intelligence barrier on the continent of Africa? Is this what you think people mean when they say east and west, etc.? And if so why do you see a need to defend that foolishness?
If Yonis(?) gets under your skin then I don't know what to tell you, other than you're weak.
''Well since you have accepted the junk science notion that there is a "north", "south", "east", "west" "central" Africa which are seperate from one anothergo ahead and tell us whether Mauritania is in "north" or "west" Africa.''
My non-comprehending little brother you are the one saying I said separate. I said reference to a direction/location.
While I'm at it you might want to take a peek at Central African Republic. (I didn't bring it up the first time around assuming you would help yourself on some of this but you haven't.) This is a real place. A place that has borders; a place that has a name. Now, if you don't like the name, gather up a band of brothers and do the guerilla thing and make known your displeasure. While you're at it make sure the local authorities will be in agreement with you.
''go ahead and tell us whether Mauritania is in "north" or "west" Africa.''
Great, now you really screwed me up. It's next to Angola?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's what I've been trying to tell the brother but he won't listen. I even changed horns on him in both cuts and he still won't listen. I went from a smooth, rhythmic, pulsating beat all the way to the staccato rhythm of the trumpet but....
And too bad you don't own a record store because you definitely got a sale on those two. Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: If Yonis(?) gets under your skin then I don't know what to tell you, other than you're weak.
What the hell are you talking about? What does Yonis have to do with european descended people dichotomizing Africa into faux regions as if they were countries using the terms "west", "east", "north", "central" and not dividing Europe by using the terms "eastern", "western", and "southern"?
You see folks, this is what happens when one realizes he is receiving a scholarly beatdown. This Grumman character is trying to escape his by using strawmen and red herrings. It won't work.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chill out Arglye104. You had some words with Yonis and considering he tries to distance himself from black folks I thought he was under your skin. My bad. I take it back. Please don't beat me up; unless I tho' mo' hands than you. Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
How did you arrive at that, mathematically?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic