posted
Conventionally Africa's regions have been, more or less, as mapped below.
ES AE&E members being iconoclasts introduce new paradigms. How are we defining west, east, south, north, and central? Would seem simple at first take leaving out central.
The equator pretty much is the north-south divide though a little too far north for an even split.
Roughly, 17°W and 51°E are the extremes making 17°E the east-west divide.
How far out from 17°E x Equator is central and is it circular or quadrile?
So now North Africa includes * Western Sahara * Morocco * Algeria * Tunisia * Libya * Egypt * Eritrea * Sudan * Chad * Niger * Mali * Mauritania * Senegal * Gambia * Guinea Bissau * Guinea * Sierra Leone * Liberia * Cote d'Ivoire * Ghana * Togo * Benin * Burkina Faso * Nigeria * Camerun * Central African Republic * Ethiopia * Djibouti * Somalia * Kenya (mostly) * Uganda * Democratic Republic of the Congo (northern 1/3rd) * Congo (northern 2/5ths) * Gabon (northern 1/3rd) * Equatorial Guinea
And now South/Southern Africa includes * South Africa * Lesotho * Swaziland * Mozambique * Zimbabwe * Botswana * Namibia * Angola * Zambia * Malawi * Tanzania * Democratic Republic of the Congo (southern 2/3rds) * Congo (southern 3/5ths) * Gabon (southern 2/3rds) * Rwanda * Burundi * Kenya (southern 1/5th)
West Africa would be * Gabon * Equatorial Guinea * Western Sahara * Morocco * Algeria * Tunisia * Libya (western 2/5ths) * Niger * Mali * Mauritania * Senegal * Gambia * Guinea Bissau * Guinea * Sierra Leone * Liberia * Cote d'Ivoire * Ghana * Togo * Benin * Burkina Faso * Nigeria * Camerun
Leaving East Africa as * Libya * Egypt * Eritrea * Sudan * Chad * Central African Republic * Ethiopia * Djibouti * Somalia * Kenya * Uganda * Democratic Republic of the Congo (bulk) * South Africa * Lesotho * Swaziland * Mozambique * Zimbabwe * Botswana * Namibia * Angola (bulk) * Zambia * Malawi * Tanzania * Rwanda * Burundi
Or south of the equator instead of strict extreme longitude and latitude maybe a center point from either coast would better mark the east-wide divide?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Joke or not it is, more or less, the convention used in practically all Africana related disciplines to date.
OK, so let's replace it. I gave an offering for further suggestions. What's your take on it or what do you suggest as regions and nations in the regions?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I say it is a joke, because from first glance alone, it is apparent that they are not strictly going by appropriate geographical coordinates that determine said directions. Don't know how one goes about replacing it, since this is more of a Eurocentric geopolitical ordering of the world than any scholarly or objective relating. A look at "Western Africa" for instance, makes it hard to not notice what amounts to partial political boundary outlining off of certain coastal northwest African nations, in an otherwise general area that should be on the same latitudinal continuum. No clear justification is provided for what constitutes "Northern" Africa, other than to presume that the special "Sahara" is used as this justification, with land presumably on the Sahara proper being "Northern", while that on the Sahel or below thereof, depending on the political boundaries of a nation, being out of the "Northern" zone. Madagascar is presumably "Eastern" by way of color indication, but not "Southern". The rendition seems to be trying to make subjective geopolitical political boundaries compatible with quantitative geographic coordinates and associated descriptives, which is obviously not the case.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Explorer says: ''The rendition seems to be trying to make subjective geopolitical political boundaries compatible with quantitative geographic coordinates and associated descriptives, which is obviously not the case.''
And I agree with this comment.
I don't claim to know how this political determination came about but it is subjective, all the way down to that tiny strip of northern Africa, reddish color, heading down into the eastern portion. If the color of Madagascar, southern hemisphere east, means anything on the map how is it even relevant to the upper eastern portion. How that's accomplished I have no idea except by the political route. And since ''central'' is kind of a loose interpretation anyway I wouldn't have had it as far north as the map shows.
alTakruri: ''Or south of the equator instead of strict extreme longitude and latitude maybe a center point from either coast would better mark the east-wide divide?''
I don't know how one can get around latitude and longitude because to get a center point in all directions neccessarily includes coordinates. (The equator, at this point, will only serve to note which countries are in which hemisphere, that is, northern or southern.)
Having said that the map gives me a new visual perspective on the thinking behind what Argyle and Explorer were saying a couple of weeks ago. And as already noted from that same period it is political.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I say it is a joke, because from first glance alone, it is apparent that they are not strictly going by appropriate geographical coordinates that determine said directions. Don't know how one goes about replacing it, since this is more of a Eurocentric geopolitical ordering of the world than any scholarly or objective relating. A look at "Western Africa" for instance, makes it hard to not notice what amounts to partial political boundary outlining off of certain coastal northwest African nations, in an otherwise general area that should be on the same latitudinal continuum. No clear justification is provided for what constitutes "Northern" Africa, other than to presume that the special "Sahara" is used as this justification, with land presumably on the Sahara proper being "Northern", while that on the Sahel or below thereof, depending on the political boundaries of a nation, being out of the "Northern" zone. Madagascar is presumably "Eastern" by way of color indication, but not "Southern". The rendition seems to be trying to make subjective geopolitical political boundaries compatible with quantitative geographic coordinates and associated descriptives, which is obviously not the case.
Agreed. It is political and subjective. And the first map does not accurately relect the contours of the African coast, making it hard to pinpoint some countries. It seems for example to be putting most of the Sudan and a good slice of the Sahara into "North Africa", a classic Eurocentric dodge that allows an artifical seperation between the Sudan/Sahara peoples and other so-called "Sub-Saharan" locales. Hence the tropical Africans of the Badari, or the diverse physical features of Africans can be airbrushed out of the Nile Valley picture and allocated to "North Africa" which in the popular mind often means "Berbers" or 'Arabs", along with assorted Caucasoid "Mediterraneans."
A seeming plus is that it puts Ethiopia in "East" Africa, yet it runs a thin strip of "North African" color down the Red Sea coast right next to Ethiopia. Why is this thin strip "North" while inland Ethiopia, a few score kilometers away, is deemed "East"? Or is the color strip not part of the mix? It is unclear.
Keita's quote is apt:
"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.
Any reconfiguration has to come to grips with this ongoing problem in a balanced and fair way.
Britannica map below shows the Saharan dividing line as a dotted red line, also slicing up the Sudan. Most of Mali, Chad and Niger is "above" the line. Timbuktu in this map would not be "sub-Saharan". To its credit, Ethiopia, Somalia, etc are below the line, making them "sub-Saharan".
Posts: 5929 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I sometimes refer to compass designations for an African region I mostly use other means. Now as long as ES AE&E refuses to define its use of east, west. north, south, and central in regards to Africa then it will remain each readers guess what portion of the continent is meant.
We all now the old problems. This thread is dedicated to profering solutions not rehashing warmed over ****.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first map you proferred itself continued old paradigms. Why don't you draw us a map with your new model, and new dividing lines and tell us how this would be better?
-------------------- 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: 5929 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I expect when the United States Of Africa is finally enacted, the geographies of Africa will be rezoned to fit the benefits the new continental model. Until than, it's merely a jumble of meaningless geographic designations subject to change with each new regional instability.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That map was one of many I could've used to show the current aasignment of the named regions that to date have been acceptable and used by all who report Africana. It is not a map I drew up nor do I agree with it in entirety.
The extreme northwest region of Africa was dubbed Maghreb (sunset/west) by Arabic historians and geographers making it without doubt West Africa.
Since you either don't understand or are tilting windmills let me write again. We here at ES AE&E are iconoclasts. We present paradigms for the 21st century flying in the face of all that has gone on before from whoever has put it forth.
As we are breaking with old definitions of compass point regions of the continental landmass it behoves us to define as a group exactly where we mean should we continue to identify regions by compass points.
To that end I presented east-west and north-south longitudes and latitudes and gave their midpoints and a list of countries by the coordinates attained.
So far no one has essayed to define any other scheme using any criteria. I could derive another set of divisions based on the east, south, west, and north coasts of the continent but will not do so. I am interested in what concerned others propose. Myself, I can readily abandon compass points and base regions on other meaningful characteristics.
But for sure forum members will continue to use compass point regions and to avoid confusion since such use will continue it is best to come up with working definitions for such regions.
Do you understand? If indeed you do then please post your proposed breakdown or else your alternative scheme to identify regions of Africa, thank you.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: The first map you proferred itself continued old paradigms. Why don't you draw us a map with your new model, and new dividing lines and tell us how this would be better?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard since the longest river--the Nile--flows south to north on the current world map disposition, the world map itself should be flipped such that the southern hemisphere then becomes the north, and Egypt and Libya would then be in "southern" Africa.
Posts: 100 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd heard this was the way the continent used to be displayed before Europeans flipped the orientation.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough. I have no compass points to define, and most commentary so far has not focused on them. We shall see what other models people come up with.
-------------------- 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: 5929 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri says: ''While I sometimes refer to compass designations for an African region I mostly use other means.''
If you mostly use ''other means'' then why bother using compass designations? And what are your other means?
''Now as long as ES AE&E refuses to define its use of east, west, north, south, and central in regards to Africa then it will remain each readers guess what portion of the continent is meant.''
I can't speak to the presumed ignorance of other members but I know which direction is which.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no other *correct* way to interpret geographic direction indicators [e.g. north, south, west, east, central et al] than to apply the principle of geographical coordinates of longitude and latitude, as I already noted; it is not for me to reinvent the wheel, other than simply apply the damn quantitative and descriptive principles of the discipline of geography that are already in place. It is when politics is mixed with geography, and geographical principles are abandoned, that we see hair brain geographic interpretations of the continent that are not consistently applied, as shown in the example I cited. So, the "solution" should be sticking to geographic principles instead of politics, but as I noted, the maps we largely see are distributed by Eurocentric propaganda mass media apparatus. Other than reiterating facts like we do with other misinformation here, I'm not sure what else can be done to counter or rectify this misinformation distributed by Eurocentric propaganda mass media giants that we are up against.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't get it. Displeasure has been voiced over the standard convention where some expand north or west Africa to pratically boundless extremes. I'm trying to find out what they then mean by say West Africa or North Africa. Where are they drawing the lines. To that end I gave a set of east-west and north-south divides listing countries which fall within the divides and then wonder if that indeed is what they mean. I still have no answer from anyone whether it's yes, no, or maybe.
I couldn't give a care one way or the other. But since ES AE&E is pooh-poohing the standard convention then it damn sure better define its own or look stupid with each member drawing their own conclusions. I mean it's all you guys saying the convention is wrong but you're not replacing or redefining East Africa, West Africa, North Africa, and Central Africa just talking bad about their use (particularly in the case of West Africa).
Personally, when I want to restrict myself to a region, I define it by what I'm writing about it. For instance when covering 'Berbers' they dub the area where their speech is the major idiom by the term taMazhga. I use littoral North Africa when writing on the region along the shore of the Mediterranean. Sahara(n) (west, central, east, etc.) speaks for itself as does Sahel(ien).
Takrur has been used for the non-taMazight speaking Muslim area of Africa west of Lake Tschad. Gnawa is another term used that same general region but also includes non-taMazight speakers who are not Muslim.
Another example could be the entire [White, Blue and conjoined] Nile Valley (upper, middle, and lower) -- Uganda, Sudan, Egypt; but excluding the Black Nile (Atbara).
Then there's the Great Lakes; Turkana, TaNgaNyiKa, NyaSa, etc. One could speak of BaNtu Africa which would cover probably the damn largest territory of all regions I could come up with.
None of this is hard and fast or set in concrete. There are no involiable borders where one's right foot can be in region A while their left foot is in region B. There's overlapping and that's why I feel it's best to define while one writes on it one's definition of a particular region is rather than draw up a convention.
In my reality there's a near endless number of African regions that defy any attempt at a simple listing. One can use -- individually or in any combination -- language, topography, religion, climate, culture, politics, or the range of the red tail gazelle, just so long as one gives their own regional definition and sticks to it.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: alTakruri says: ''While I sometimes refer to compass designations for an African region I mostly use other means.''
If you mostly use ''other means'' then why bother using compass designations? And what are your other means?
''Now as long as ES AE&E refuses to define its use of east, west, north, south, and central in regards to Africa then it will remain each readers guess what portion of the continent is meant.''
I can't speak to the presumed ignorance of other members but I know which direction is which.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So with all this talk about how easy and natural it is to tell what is East Africa, South Africa, West Africa, North Africa, and Central Africa; somebody tell me which one Mauritania is in and Uganda is in North Africa right and only the Congo is in central Africa right?
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: I can't speak to the presumed ignorance of other members but I know which direction is which.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri says, ''You don't get it. Displeasure has been voiced over the standard convention where some expand north or west Africa to pratically boundless extremes.''
Then your problem lies not with coordinates but with those already referenced who refuse to see what they mean. This will fall into the political football realm. Since it has been said it is the eurocentrists then they have the football. But it may be that some African scholars use the eurocentric football as well. And now that you are interested, but not sufficiently, then maybe you can consult with African scholars to come up with something so Egyptsearch posters can understand what constitutes a cardinal divide instead of political wheeling and dealing.
Further (much earlier): ''Or south of the equator instead of strict extreme longitude and latitude maybe a center point from either coast would better mark the east-wide divide?''
If this area was singled out for special east/west division then yes, a center point from east/west landmass would do it. But it still involves longitude. It doesn't matter where you shift that coordinate, it is still a dividing point.
''I still have no answer from anyone whether it's yes, no, or maybe.''
Again, for those who refuse to deal with cardinal directions and how they look on a globe then their answer is political (as already mentioned).
''None of this is hard and fast or set in concrete. There are no involiable borders where one's right foot can be in region A while their left foot is in region B.''
Sure there is, latitudinally/longtitudinally. I'm sitting in my pc chair right now and have my left foot in ''region A'' south, and the other in ''b'' north. When you leave your house and turn in any direction you have one foot in one region or the other. (Take note of the quotation marks above for proper context.) Now there is a way to get around this. If the border of another country happens to have a fence several feet wide denoting its boundaries then you won't be able to do it (for obvious reasons).
''In my reality there's a near endless number of African regions that defy any attempt at a simple listing. One can use -- individually or in any combination -- language, topography, religion, climate, culture, politics, or the range of the red tail gazelle, just so long as one gives their own regional definition and sticks to it.''
...and as long as one keeps specific locations out of the picture then the above works.
''So with all this talk about how easy and natural it is to tell what is East Africa, South Africa, West Africa, North Africa, and Central Africa; somebody tell me which one Mauritania is in and Uganda is in North Africa right and only the Congo is in central Africa right?''
Mauritania is in the northern hemisphere in the very western portion of the continent. It would be hard... for me anyway... to put it in a north Africa position in the sense Morocco and Algeria and others are.
Most of Uganda lies above the equator; this puts most of it in the northern hemisphere but east of your 17 degree longitude dividing line. Uganda will be characterized as lying in the southeast portion of the northern hemisphere. The Central African republic probably was named because of its perceived centrality on the continent. And judging by The Congo's location to the south of CAR it can't be called central Africa.
Anytime you move off specific east and west directions and so on then you have no choice but to start using the ''ly's'' on the end of the those directions.
If I had to guess at what is meant by East Africa I would say it was named simply because the ocean acts as a barrier to further land direction. So if someone said where is Somalia I would have to say east Africa; same for Ethiopia. Then Sudan starts heading northeast bordering the Red Sea. Yet using the 17 degree demarcation line Sudan is east also. Egypt has a more northerly course than east, bordering the Mediterranean Sea. So I see Egypt as North Africa; same for Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco because those countries are the furthest land masses north.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
What I'm doing right now is working with my ES AE&E colleagues to arrive at working definition so no one is confused by what one poster to another may mean.
For instance your North Africa varies little from the standard convention. I assure you there are those who'd feel your delimitation is more restrictive than the one you decry as Eurocentric.
Let me tell you something right now. You don't tell me about my definitions. You either accept or reject them. There are overlaps. There are gradations not abrupt discontinuity. I repeat, when I define regions there are no involiable borders where one's right foot can be in region A while their left foot is in region B.
I find it amazing that a country at crosshairs center of the east-west and north-south divides (latitude and longitude as in my earlier post) isn't central?!?
At least my regions aren't absolute and allow for tweaking and even total rejection whereas yours is ironclad and demands acceptance.
But anyway I thank you for it for I now know where at least one other member is coming from. I hope to hear from more of our colleagues' original think on this topic.
posted
alTakruri says: ''I assure you there are those who'd feel your delimitation is more restrictive than the one you decry as Eurocentric.''
Then the issue still remains political for some doesn't it. It isn't my issue; already referred to numerous times. Also take note I used eurocentric simply because it was noted by someone else. I have no way of knowing what a eurocentric map is except within the confines of context on this topic.
''Let me tell you something right now. You don't tell me about my definitions. You either accept or reject them.''
C'mown jim, I didn't reject your explanation of regions, that's why I said, ''and as long as one keeps specific locations out of the picture then the above works.''
''I find it amazing that a country at crosshairs center of the east-west and north-south divides (latitude and longitude as in my earlier post) isn't central?!?''
Now I know you ain't talkin' 'bout the Congo.
Someone designated The Central African Republic as being in a central location. Not only is it central but it has a geo/political boundary. Now if you want to ask if more can be included in that central definition politically then yes it probably can be tweaked; but not geo/politically unless someone goes to war to make it happen. Of further interest central will denote something as being defined as at the center, not what the lead-off map shows at the beginning of this topic.
''At least my regions aren't absolute and allow for tweaking and even total rejection whereas yours is ironclad and demands acceptance.''
Again alTakruri I'm not disputing your regionality as you stated it (at 9:53 a.m. on March 2).
''But anyway I thank you for it for I now know where at least one other member is coming from.''
Acknlowledgement duly recognized.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Longetude & latitude don't denote real "regions" IMO.
I'm not so sure anymore West Africa could be divided from what is traditionally North or Central or Southern Africa. I've heard Tripoli referred to as East Africa tho.
Instead of making up regions bounded by eachother perhaps we should identify regions of influence based on other factors, can anyone can think of them (good ones).
Heck, with East-West we still have to name nations, cities, topography, ancient societies or polities [which can need reference back to nations or topography like "the THNW of the Eastern Sahara near Libya/Egypt (guess)"].
Language, ancient post-farming advent cultural complexes, geography, or beliefs are a few examples.
I don't know if beliefs would be a good one though.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Check my four extreme longitudes and latitudes then tell me what country is in their crosshairs. Central African Republic is NNW of center. Again, defining Central Africa as a compass point region demands a perimetre either in kilometres/miles or degrees and also if circular or quadrilateral.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: alTakruri says: ''I find it amazing that a country at crosshairs center of the east-west and north-south divides (latitude and longitude as in my earlier post) isn't central?!?''
Now I know you ain't talkin' 'bout the Congo.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The political map of Africa is Eurocentric because Europe sliced the magnificant African cake into the slices we have today.
I remember when definitions of North Africa was brought up a couple of years ago that somebody posited Nigeria as a country in North Africa.
More recently all of 'status quo' West Africa was deemed as North Africa like on the Risk board.
This is what I meant by saying your definition may be seen as more restrictive than the current one. My bad about saying you decried the current regional divide as Eurocentric.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: alTakruri says: ''I assure you there are those who'd feel your delimitation is more restrictive than the one you decry as Eurocentric.''
Then the issue still remains political for some doesn't it. It isn't my issue; already referred to numerous times. Also take note I used eurocentric simply because it was noted by someone else. I have no way of knowing what a eurocentric map is except within the confines of context on this topic.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given the shape of Africa, one could argue that the South-West of Africa is non-existent, therefore, all of "West-Africa" is in fact North-West Africa.
It all depends on who's looking and who's deciding/defining.
Posts: 1819 | From: odesco baba | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
What I'm tryng to say is maybe if you weren't too busy goo guzzling you [a herpes infested maricon] wouldn't have as hard a time gettin what i'm sayin.
If you're still too fuzzy headed from the 1 penny buy-one get-one ball beating bashes your brain takes daily just say so. I won't hesitate to help you out.
There is no definite discrete border seperating West from North or Northwest Africa.
Brain session's tactics aren't as sly as he hopes them to be. Constantly asking people for definitions of compass regions [eg "western africa"] when people use compass directions [which are relative] to describe locations.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
There is no definite discrete border seperating West from North or Northwest Africa.
I propose a new taxonomy for the African land mass:
*North-West Africa *North-East Africa *Middle-Belt *South Africa
The new classification system is respecting of the shape of the body of Africa, and is actually quite intuitive.
Posts: 1819 | From: odesco baba | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to start using this system when talking about compass regions right away. I rarely ever need this little thought on new paradigms
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri said, ''Check my four extreme longitudes and latitudes then tell me what country is in their crosshairs. Central African Republic is NNW of center.''
I checked Central African Republic again and it does show the northern third of Congo can more readily be called a central location more accurately than CAR. Judging by the globe there are only two degrees, maybe less, in the northern hemisphere (latitude) at its furthest reaches than the southern. And two degrees above the equator 'equally' dividing the continent will still be in the northern third of Congo instead of CAR. And you are right CAR is nnw of the crosshairs.
''Again, defining Central Africa as a compass point region demands a perimetre either in kilometres/miles or degrees and also if circular or quadrilateral.''
Since central Africa isn't a cardinal direction, noted on the other topic, then there will be no need for compass points, just a central region; unless asked for specific locations within the region. This central region can be tweaked to include northern portions of Democratic Republic of The Congo and also Gabon to the west. That said the central region can't veer as far north as the lead off map since central by its very definition won't occupy extreme north/south/east and west positions. Then again I suppose the politically motivated can include whatever they want.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
''I propose a new taxonomy for the African land mass:
*North-West Africa *North-East Africa *Middle-Belt *South Africa''
If you're in south Africa standing on the soil of Zambia and you wanted to go to Angola, in which direction would you go?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Longetude & latitude don't denote real "regions" IMO.
No offense, but this is like saying numbers do not denote quantity. Longitude & latitude coordinates are not subjective, i.e. open to personal interpretation, as some on here make it out to be. These quantitative paradigms describe the condition of geography, they are not "geological" matter of the earth in of themselves. Take for instance: Are numbers "real"? If so, please elaborate. If not, does that diminish their objective purpose?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I propose a new taxonomy for the African land mass:
*North-West Africa *North-East Africa *Middle-Belt *South Africa
The new classification system is respecting of the shape of the body of Africa, and is actually quite intuitive.
What does "Middle-Belt" entail here? Seeing that politics is almost always injected into these geographical descriptives, the least that can be done, is to apply them in a consistent manner [not to say that your proposal does not attain such]; alas, that is why we call it politics -- devoid of consistency and objectivity.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I've heard Tripoli referred to as East Africa tho.
Tripoli is in Libya, which others refer to as part of "Maghreb". So who is right?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Longetude & latitude don't denote real "regions" IMO.
No offense, but this is like saying numbers do not denote quantity. Longitude & latitude coordinates are not subjective, i.e. open to personal interpretation, as some on here make it out to be. These quantitative paradigms describe the condition of geography, they are not "geological" matter of the earth in of themselves. Take for instance: Are numbers "real"? If so, please elaborate. If not, does that diminish their objective purpose?
You're correct, I was thinking of how North, South, East, and West, are relative, and while thinking of how these don't denote definite bounderies [but direction], at the same time I'd been thinking of African peoples themselves [rather than a map] and how they're truly described in terms of relations rather than non-relations - like how instead of seperate races [like Somalids for example] there exist the people as a whole and then groupings based on commonalities whether genetically or culturally.
Of coarse, lat. points aren't subjective, I was really thinking of location interms of compass direction.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Freehand: Brain session's tactics aren't as sly as he hopes them to be. Constantly asking people for definite regions [eg "western africa"] when people use directions to describe locations.
^Didn't finish: i meant to say how he never defines the regions he asks for. Northern, Eastern, or etc. Africa.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
I propose a new taxonomy for the African land mass:
*North-West Africa *North-East Africa *Middle-Belt *South Africa
The new classification system is respecting of the shape of the body of Africa, and is actually quite intuitive.
What does "Middle-Belt" entail here? Seeing that politics is almost always injected into these geographical descriptives, the least that can be done, is to apply them in a consistent manner [not to say that your proposal does not attain such]; alas, that is why we call it politics -- devoid of consistency and objectivity.
Indeed seems totally subjective, especially the idea of the Middle-Belt. Africa's shape is sort of like a skull so I imagine where his belt/head-band might be tied to the head. That area would cover large chunks (middle halves) of current Central and Eastern Africa (including the "Somalids" ). This middle belt will also cover the Atlantic coast of Africa, the lower half of places like Nigeria, Benin, Ghana would be part of this Middle-Belt.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the era of overt colonialism ended the powers of that time decided to retain the political borders drawn up in European self-interest. The reasoning was that otherwise conflicts over controlling ethnically defined territories would engulf the continent in self- consuming struggle.
Hindsight shows that decision had little influence on ethnic hostilities within the "independent" nation states.
Anyway, the nations of Africa have forged regional alliances that show what Africans themselves have come to accept as defining areas by compass.
posted
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) was founded in 1975 and includes the following nations:
BENIN (The Republic of) BURKINA FASO CABO VERDE (The Republic of) COTE D'IVOIRE (The Republic of) GAMBIA (The Republic of) GHANA (The Republic of) GUINEE (The Republic of) GUINEE BISSAU (The Republic of) LIBERIA (The Republic of) MALI (The Republic of) NIGER (The Republic of) NIGERIA (The Federal Republic of) SENEGAL (The Republic of) SIERRA LEONE (The Republic of) TOGOLESE Republic, The
This is their West Africa
Cameroun, Chad, and Mauritania maintain interest in ECOWAS affairs.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good posts alTakruri, regions based on people seem more suited to scholarly pursuits dealing with African peoples and their history, than do regions based on compass points.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Communaute Economic des Etats de l'Afrique Centrale (CEEAC) Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) was founded in 1983 and includes the following nations:
ANGOLA (LA RéPUBLIQUE D') BURUNDI (LA RéPUBLIQUE DU) CAMEROUN (LA RéPUBLIQUE DU) CENTRAFRIQUE (LA RéPUBLIQUE DU) GABON (LA RéPUBLIQUE DU) CONGO (LA RéPUBLIQUE DU) CONGO (LA RéPUBLIQUE DéMOCRATIQUE DU ) GUINéE EQUATORIALE (LA RéPUBLIQUE DE) SãO TOMé et PRINCIPE (LA RéPUBLIQUE DE) TCHAD (LA RéPUBLIQUE DU)
This is their Central Africa Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, but remember I'm just presenting existing proposals put forth by African leadership without my criticism or endorsement. And they are heavily based on compass point.
Once I've finished these current economic regions -- which may not so readily suit historical or other purposes -- I'll post some other proposals.
quote:Originally posted by Freehand: Good posts alTakruri, regions based on people seem more suited to scholarly pursuits dealing with African peoples and their history, than do regions based on compass points.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just picked up (Thursday) a heavily discounted Essential World Atlas-2005 and it's interesting to see its West Africa as having Chad, Cameroon and Mauritania included but the Ecowas map subtracts those three. Also noted is alTakruri's comment those three countries maintain an interest in Ecowas.
Central Africa
This world atlas eliminates Chad, Angola and Cameroon in Central Africa but Ceeac includes those three. Central Africa and East Africa on this atlas is shown in a continuous picture from coast to coast but Zambia is eliminated in East Africa.
Southern Africa
Democratic Republic of Congo and Tanzania are left out of southern Africa in the World Atlas but Ceeac above includes them.
I'm not putting this atlas information out for argument just noting political decisions from the map makers on both sides. Still it is interesting to see the closeness of both types of maps but equally interesting politically to wonder why the additions and subtractions.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mauritania (ruled by Beydani Maurs) left ECOWAS.
Remember ECOWAS, CEEAC, and SADC are politico-economic organizations. Their maps were presented to show another way a set of Africans decided to map out regions using compass point designations delineating their regional economic communities.
Obviously there's no way to avoid overlaps and exclusions no matter what criteria are used.
Conspicuous by absence is a regional economic community using North Africa as its label.
There is a Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD) that includes: La République du Bénin Burkina Faso La République Centrafricaine Union des Comores République de Côte d’Ivoire République du Djibouti République arabe d'Égypte Etat d'Érythrée La République de Gambie République de Guinée République de Guinée-Bissau République du Ghana Grande Jamahiriya arabe libyenne populaire et socialiste République du Libéria La République du Kenya La République du Mali La République de Mauritanie Royaume du Maroc La République du Niger République Fédérale du Nigeria République du Sénégal République de Sierra Leone République de Somalie La République Démocratique de Sao Tomé et Principe République du Soudan République du Tchad République Togolaise République Tunisienne
As their map shows being outside the Sahara or the Sahel doesn't effect membership.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic