posted
Broaching thread for a topic distracting from the "Diop's mistakes" subject header thread.
Past contributors please repost your relevant material -- pros and cons -- here, thank you.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Supra simply denotes above, while sub is used for below. Think of supra script (as when expressing a footnote's number) and sub script (like where chemistry uses the number 2 in H2O).
In the context of Africa * sub-Sahara means south of the Sahara * supra-Sahara means north of the Sahara though by connotation the Sahara itself falls into supra-Sahara.
Why? Because these terms are rarely used in their strict geographic sense as we do here. The rest of the world outside our beloved forum just euphemistically use the terminology in place of negro and arab/berber or black and white.
And because of other sub and supra related terms the world subliminally links substandard etc., to sub-Sahara but then conjectures superior etc., at the mention of supra-Sahara.
That's the power of dialectic -- speaking/writing without concretely or explicitly expressing major points. Note that there is no sub and supra Pyreneean/Alpine/Carpathian Europe in text books or the media, nor is there a sub and supra Zagros/Hindu Kush/Himalayan Asia or even sub and supra Zagros/Pamir/Sayan/Yablonovyy/Stanavoy Asia.
posted
ViaSat juxtaposes sub-Sahara to North Africa
Eutelsat W3A - Sub Sahara Beam: 7 degrees East covering Sub Sahara Africa available for TT-30x0 terminal service type: DVB-RCS Linkstar Viasat
Eutelsat W6 - North African Beam: 21.5 degrees East covering North Africa & Middle East available for TT-30x0 terminal service type: DVB-RCS Linkstar Viasat
posted
In the February 9th 2002 edition of ABC's The Science Show, Australian physiologist Roger Short from the University of Melbourne defines "supra Sahara in Africa, the bit of Africa on the Mediterranean; Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, even Egypt ..."
posted
A bit more on the bad usage of the shifting connotative term sub-Sahara. The intro to the article where I got the below snippet says: The pre-eminent historian and scholar, Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe takes on the meaningless and racist classification of Africa by the West's news media giants.
Rather than some benign construct, “sub-Sahara Africa” is, in the end, a bizarre nomenclatural code that the West employs to depict an African-led sovereign state – anywhere in Africa, as distinct from an Arab-led one. It is of course the West’s non-inclusion of the Sudan in this grouping, despite its majority African population and geographical location, which gives the game away! More seriously to the point, though, the West uses “sub-Sahara Africa” to create the stunning effect of a supposedly shrinking African geographical landmass in the popular imagination, coupled with the continent’s supposedly attendant geo-strategic global “irrelevance”. “Sub-Sahara Africa” is undoubtedly a racist geo-political signature in which its users aim repeatedly to present the imagery of the desolation, aridity, and hopelessness of a desert environment.
quote:It would appear that we still don’t seem to be any closer at establishing, conclusively, what the West media and allied institutions mean by “sub-Sahara Africa”. Could it, perhaps, just be a benign reference to all the countries “under” the Sahara, whatever their distances from this desert, to interrogate our final, fourth probability? Presently, there are 53 sovereign states in Africa. If the five north Africa Arab states are said to be located “above” the Sahara, then 49 are positioned “under”. The latter would therefore include all the five countries mentioned above whose north frontiers incorporate the southern stretches of the desert, countries in central Africa (the Congos, Rwanda, Burundi, etc., etc), for instance, despite being 2000-2500 miles away, and even the southern African states situated 3000-3500 miles away! In fact, all these 49 countries, except Sudan (alas, not included for the plausible reason already cited!), which is clearly “under” the Sahara and situated within the same latitudes as Mali, Niger and Chad, are all categorised by the West as “sub-Sahara Africa”. To replicate this obvious farce of a classification elsewhere in the world, the following random exercise is not such an indistinct scenario:
1. Australia hence becomes “sub-Great Sandy Australia” after the hot deserts that cover much of west and central Australia
2. East Russia, east of the Urals, becomes “sub-Siberia Asia”
3. China, Japan and Indonesia are reclassified “sub-Gobi Asia”
4. Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam become “sub-Himalaya Asia”
5. All of Europe is “sub-Arctic Europe”
6. Most of England, central and southern counties, is renamed “sub-Pennines Europe”
7. East/southeast France, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia are “sub-Alps Europe”
8. The Americas become “sub-Arctic Americas”
9. All of South America south of the Amazon is proclaimed “sub-Amazon South America”; Chile could be “sub-Atacama South America”
10. Most of New Zealand’s South Island is renamed “sub-Southern Alps New Zealand”
11. Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama become “sub-Rocky North America”
12. The entire Caribbean becomes “sub-Appalachian Americas”
exerpted from Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe The Politics of Classification and the Role of the News Media: On “sub-Sahara Africa”
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Supra simply denotes above, while sub is used for below.
^ The above is shown as being not correct for the following reasons.
1) Supra also denotes quantitative greater-than, wheres sub denotes less-than, this is not the same concept as directional above and below.
This is why conceiving of supra-sahara as Africa - north of sahara is false.
2) A practical example, and one that is of greatest relevance to supra-sahara -> sub-tropical.
This region exists in two discordant bands both above and below the tropics.
It does not concord with 'below' either in a directional sense of 'north' and 'south' or in a latitudinal sense, since the sub-tropics are at HIGHER latitudes than the tropics.
However it does concord with 'less' than tropical.
The term supra tropical would include the same bands...... however it would also emcompass the tropics themselves.
Likewise the term sub-equatorial - two bands ABOVE AND BELOW the equator, but not the equator itself. In other words, less than equatorial.
Supra-Equatorial -> the equator, avove the equator and below the equator.
You will be hard pressed to find a map of supra-equatorial however, just as their is no map of supra-saharan, because they are not strictly geography lexicon.
For Keita, supra-saharan is a population-geography with denotes that Africa's peoples transverse the sahara, and thus cannot be delimited by it.
Sub-sahara does not delimit authentic Africanity. - Keita.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rather than some benign construct, “sub-Sahara Africa” is, in the end, a bizarre nomenclatural code that the West employs to depict an African-led sovereign state – anywhere in Africa, as distinct from an Arab-led one. It is of course the West’s non-inclusion of the Sudan in this grouping, despite its majority African population and geographical location, which gives the game away! More seriously to the point, though, the West uses “sub-Sahara Africa” to create the stunning effect of a supposedly shrinking African geographical landmass in the popular imagination, coupled with the continent’s supposedly attendant geo-strategic global “irrelevance”. “Sub-Sahara Africa” is undoubtedly a racist geo-political signature in which its users aim repeatedly to present the imagery of the desolation, aridity, and hopelessness of a desert environment. This is despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of 700 million Africans do not live anywhere close to the Sahara, nor are their lives so affected by the implied impact of the very loaded meaning that this dogma intends to convey. Except this increasingly pervasive use of “sub-Sahara Africa” is robustly challenged by rigorous African-centred scholarship and publicity work, the West will succeed in the coming decade to effectively substitute the name of the continent “Africa” with “sub-Sahara Africa” and the name of its peoples, “Africans”, with “sub-Sahara Africans” or worse still “sub-Saharans” in the realm of public memory and reckoning.
excerpted from Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe The Politics of Classification and the Role of the News Media: Code
posted
A deafening echo reiterating a comment by MS
quote:It cannot be stressed too often that the extant (European-created) African states that are immanently hostile to the overriding interests of the African humanity have not ceased to be havens that continuously enrich the West most dramatically. The flip side of the coin that tells the tale of the extraordinary wealth which the West and its African regime-clients expropriate from Africa, day in, day out, is the emaciated, starving and dying child, woman and man that has been the harrowing image of the African on television screens and other publicity channels across the world. At stake, of course, is the case that the state in Africa demonstrates a glaring inability to fulfil its basic role to provide security, welfare and transformative capacities for society’s developmental needs and objectives. It is still a conqueror’s and conquest state, precisely the way the European creator envisioned its ontology. It is virtually at war with its peoples, a genocide-state that has murdered 15 million in Biafra, Rwanda, Darfur and southern Sudan, the Congos and elsewhere on the continent in the past 40 years. It is the bane of African social existence. Africans now have no choice but to dismantle this state (“sub-Sahara”, “sub-sub-Sahara”, “proto-Sahara”, “quasi-Sahara”, “supra-Sahara”, whatever!) and create new state forms that expressly serve their interests and aspirations. This is the most pressing African task of the contemporary era.
excerpted from Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe The Politics of Classification and the Role of the News Media: Bane
posted
Of course sub and supra have subtle nuances pending the word they prefix. This is why I explicitly wrote the phrase "In the context of Africa" to preclude irrelevant examples like sub-tropical a reference to climate as much as geography.
Another line of latitude, the equator, is more of a geographical term. Let's look at it in sub and supra forms. Sub-equatorial (which means adjacent to the equator) describes a strict geographic belt. Supra-equatorial is not commonly a geographic term, afaik, But, In the few instances of its use in regards to Africa it does refer to places north of the equator.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Melbourne defines "supra Sahara in Africa, the bit of Africa on the Mediterranean"
^ This is a sensible definition of Mediterranean Africa.
Just as Atlantic Africa references to Senegal, Mauritania, Sierra Leone.
It is not a sensible reference to sahara, which is irrelevant to Melborne's Mediterranean point of reference.
For the same reason that it would make little sense to reference Senegal as Supra-saharan *because* it touches the North Atlantic Ocean.
Which is why the term supra saharan is not used to mean 'touching the mediterranian' by Keita and other scholars. So Melborne is wrong.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Of course sub and supra have subtle nuances pending the word they prefix. This is why I explicitly wrote the phrase "In the context of Africa"
^ There is no such unique context wherein "sub or supra" can -no longer mean greater or less- because they reference Africa as opposed to some other continent.
Nor is any rationale provided for *why* there would be and *africa only* meaning for these terms? ?
If what you are implying were true, then 'sub-tropical Africa' could only ever be *south of the tropics*, whereas sub-tropical America would be *north and south*.
As for supra-sahara:
The only African geography that is above the sahara is Maghreb. And Maghreb is not equivelvant to supra-sahara, which may include areas above, within and below the sahara, in precisely the same vein as supra equatorial africa, or sub tropical africa. And that is why Keita correctly uses it to encompass this broader [greater than saharan] area.
quote:to preclude irrelevant examples like sub-tropical a reference to climate as much as geography.
^ As is saharan. What do think desert references if not climate?
Sub-tropical and Supra-Equatorial are indeed relevant. They are not rendered irrelevant simply because they expose the contradictions in your discourse.
And supra-saharan as used by Keita is as much a reference to population genetics as is geography, which is why their is no geographic map for it, still, after all the rhetoric. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Melborne appears to be no more wrong than the following.
quote:“…how many Afrikans to day wonder how it come about that Arabs, whose homeland is the Arabia Peninsula, came to occupy all of the supra Sahara Africa, from the Sinai peninsula across to Morocco’s Atlantic coast. And what they did to the Black Egyptians, Black Berbers and other blacks who were the aborigines of that expanse of land?”
Chinweizu Why black Africa should resist Arab domination of AU: Part I: The Arab Quest for Lebensraum in Africa Arab expansionism in Africa, 640-1900
posted
^ Red hering. Neither a definition of supra-sahara, nor concordant to touching the mediterranian - indeed 'atlantic coast' technically contradicts Melborne, and Arabs do not only occupy Africa -above- the sahara, so you make no point.
I will however accept a map of supra-sahara as only Africa north of sahara as evidence in your favor.
quote:Sub-tropical and Supra-Equatorial are indeed relevant. They are not rendered irrelevant simply because they expose the contradictions in your discourse.
And supra-saharan as used by Keita is as much a reference to population genetics as is geography, which is why their is no geographic map for it, still, after all the rhetoric.
Here is what Keita has to say with regards to supra-equatorial Africa:
The diversification and early expansion of PN2 bearing populations likely started in the northeast quadrant of Africa (defined by bisecting the continent along its north-south axis and at the equator). This region is postulated to be the ancestral home of two of the three major language phyla of supra-equatorial Africa: Nilosaharan and Afroasiatic. ->
Consistent with Keita's use of supra-saharan.
The term here is used as a population-geography, denoting the Nilo-saharan and Afrisan language phylum which span the equator.
Note supra-equatorial, like supra-saharan is not strictly speaking, a geographic term, it would be difficult and probably not very useful to draw as static lines on a map.
Supra-equatorial Africa, overlaps the geography that is supra-sahara.
Why?
Because the Nilo-saharn and Afrisan language speakers do.
And what is Keita's point, in using these terms?
Sub-sahara does not delimit authentic Africanity.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That defines North Africa, and *includes the sahara* and does not denote north of sahara. It differs from Keita only in that it excludes the sahel. So how does this help you?
quote:While scholars and activists inside Africa are coming together from around the entire continent in shared scholarly debate, outside Africa the colonial sundering of the continent by a line drawn in the Saharan sand still orders the academic division of labor all too often. The splitting of “supra-Saharan” Africa (this apposite term alone offends the sensibilities) and sub-Saharan Africa (a term long “naturalized”) results in a skewed and truncated view of the study of Islam in Africa.
Margot Badran Program of African Studies COLLOQUIUM REPORT Debating Islamic gender dynamics in Africa Northwestern University
posted
Anothor example supra-saharan contiguous with supra-equatorial Africa:
quote:Given these findings, it is more accurate to call V "Horn-supra-saharan African," not 'Arabic;' it is indigenous to Africa.
- Keita S. O. Y. Boyce, A. J. (Anthony J.) Genetics, Egypt, and History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation History in Africa - Volume 32, 2005, pp. 221-246
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because that's exactly what I said the term supra Sahara often does, i.e., include the Sahara. Why? Again and I ask others to excuse the redundancy, the term most commonly refers to regions populated by Egyptic, taMazight, and Arabic speakers (though sometimes Teda/Tibbou landrange is also included).
All of those listed countries have a border on the Mediterranean and most of them include territory directly north of the Sahara while many of them include the Sahara within their borders.
They fulfil both the denotation and one connotation of the rather new and rare term supra-Sahara (merely an euphemism for Berber Africa/Arab Africa/North Africa/ "white" Africa.
Face it. You just didn't know what supra-Sahara meant in the world outside this forum. This forum has a plethora of self-definitions unknown in the real world.
You present next to nothing from varied real world sources in support of your private definition for the terminology.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ That defines North Africa, and *includes the sahara* and does not denote north of sahara. It differs from Keita only in that it excludes the sahel. So how does this help you?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is another unmistakable implication of the term, in this Keita piece:
The peoples of the Egyptian and northern Sudanese Nile valley, and supra-Saharan Africa now *speak Arabic* in **the main** but, as noted, this largely represents language shift.
- Keita; Genetics, Egypt and History: Interpreting Geographical patterns of Y Chromosome Variation, 2005.
...which would "in the main", be consistent with territories listed below:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
As defined by
D. F. Janssen Growing Up Sexually. Volume I: World Reference Atlas. Interim report Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Ancient Egyptian is Afroasiatic, and current inhabitants of the Nile valley should be understood as being in the main, although not wholly, descendants of the pre-neolithic regional inhabitants, although this apparently varies by geography as indicated by the frequency of Near Eastern haplotypes/lineages (Table 1, Lucotte andMercier 2003a, Manni et al. 2002, Cruciani 2002). An accurate spatio-temporal interpretation of the PN2/M35 lineage corresponds to the northern core range of Afroasiatic: “We suggest that a population with this subclade of the African YAP/M145/M213/PN2 cluster expanded into the southern and eastern **Mediterranean** at the end of the Pleistocene”(Underhill et al. 2001:51). (**“Southern”** here refers to *supra-Saharan Africa*.) . . . a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages withM35/M215 mutation expanded northwards from sub-Saharan to north Africa and the Levant” (Underhill et al. 2001:55).
- Keita; Genetics, Egypt and History: Interpreting Geographical patterns of Y Chromosome Variation, 2005.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The peoples of the Egyptian and northern Sudanese Nile valley, and supra-Saharan Africa now *speak Arabic* in **the main**, which would be consistent with territories listed below,
The Keita snipit includes Sudan, the Melborne statement does not.
And...if you feel that Sudan and Egypt are *not really included* in supra-sahara because Keita mentions them separately....then Melborne includes Egypt and Keita does not.
So either way, they are not the same list.
And.......neither one is consistent with *above the sahara*.
Both of you have essentially conceded that supra sahara includes the sahara and does not refer exclusively to regions north of the sahara.
The only *real* point you can hope to contest is whether the term can include the sahel - ie - adjacent regions south of the sahara.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you refuse to comprehend words have popular connotations as well as dictionary denotations and quite far from your simplicity I have layed out both types of meanings and given examples of them as well.
If you just want to win a defensive argument for your private definition then consider yourself the champ Rasol even though what you offer didn't hold up under strong proofing.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Because that's exactly what I said the term supra Sahara often does, i.e., include the Sahara.
To which I replied - therefore it is inaccurate to state that it simply means *above the sahara* which you also claimed.
If the later statement is true then the former is not.
You cant have it both ways, AlTakruri.
If you admit that it can include the sahara then we are closer to agreement - let me ask you a final question.
Can it include the sahel?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you refuse to comprehend words have popular connotations as well as dictionary denotations
I am aware of that. You are the one who claimed and I quote -> Supra-saharan -simply means above the sahara.
Effectively you are then forced to retract this claim, and admit that it can also include the sahara. I accept your admission.
So why do you accuse me of not being aware of the variable meanings of terms, when you are the one argued for a singular [and false] meaning of supra as above to begin with?
quote:If you just want to win a defensive argument for your private definition then consider yourself the champ Rasol.
I simply agree with Keita that sub-sahara does not delimit africans, and that E3b1 and Afrisan language phylum is horn/supra saharn which means that it spans the sahara.
^ When it's for a good cause, everyone wins. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Because that's exactly what I said the term supra Sahara often does, i.e., include the Sahara. Why? Again and I ask others to excuse the redundancy, the term most commonly refers to regions populated by Egyptic, taMazight, and Arabic speakers (though sometimes Teda/Tibbou landrange is also included).
All of those listed countries have a border on the Mediterranean and most of them include territory directly north of the Sahara while many of them include the Sahara within their borders.
Essentially what would otherwise be termed "supra-Saharan Africa", is generally referred to as "North Africa" in most Eurocentric literature. "North Africa" has been ceased upon as the preferred term over "supra-Saharan Africa" in most literature published in the Eurocentric world, while "sub-Saharan Africa" has stuck for 'regular' use in Eurocentric literature for the most part, essentially as a rather dogmatic Eurocentric geopolitical catchphrase, fraught with negative stereotypes.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't have to introduce strawmen by trying to put words in my mouth. You have read what I lay out as the denotation and connotation of supra-Sahara and in this post to the parent thread you already have the answer to the "final" question you pose which you need never to have asked had you but taken the time to digest what I wrote for what it plainly says.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:The peoples of the Egyptian and northern Sudanese Nile valley, and supra-Saharan Africa now *speak Arabic* in **the main**, which would be consistent with territories listed below,
The Keita snipit includes Sudan, the Melborne statement does not.
And...if you feel that Sudan and Egypt are *not really included* in supra-sahara because Keita mentions them separately....then Melborne includes Egypt and Keita does not.
So either way, they are not the same list.
And.......neither one is consistent with *above the sahara*.
Both of you have essentially conceded that supra sahara includes the sahara and does not refer exclusively to regions north of the sahara.
The only *real* point you can hope to contest is whether the term can include the sahel.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Essentially what would otherwise be termed "supra-Saharan Africa", is generally referred to as "North Africa" in most Eurocentric literature.
^ Actually I agree in that most of what AlTakruri is referencing is simply a Eurocentric political geography known as North Africa, which politically is Africa that is not controled by Blacks. However, I do not agree that this is what Keita is implying.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are we going through this hair-splitting torture when it appears that we all are in basic agreement as to the divide the term, by either of its appellatives, conjures in the popular mind?
This is like a bunch of hareidi scholars doing a talmudic study.
I don't have a problem with any individual scholar's private definitions so long as that scholar is clear as to his/her usage. More and more academic papers are providing internal definitions of their key terms to filter out exernal individual perceptions of meaning and to focus in on the writer's/presenter's implementation.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I don't think supra-saharan is a very well known term.
But's lets move the conversation foward.
How would you like the sahara to be referenced with respect to lineages that traversed it, such as E3b1 that span from Kenya to Morocco?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who? Me, personally? Sahara is Sahara. I try not to use either sub or supra affixed to Sahara. Were I to speak to a language or a Hg traversing an expanse, I'd list each (micro)region from the inception point to the last terminal.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ I don't think supra-saharan is a very well known term.
But's lets move the conversation foward.
How would you like the sahara to be referenced with respect to lineages that traversed it, such as E3b1 that span from Kenya to Morocco?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The peoples of the Egyptian and northern Sudanese Nile valley, and supra-Saharan Africa now *speak Arabic* in **the main**, which would be consistent with territories listed below,
What would be false, is your broken ability to actually cite people correctly. It is like a disease with you. This is how it is done:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Here is another unmistakable implication of the term, in this Keita piece:
The peoples of the Egyptian and northern Sudanese Nile valley, and supra-Saharan Africa now *speak Arabic* in **the main** but, as noted, this largely represents language shift.
- Keita; Genetics, Egypt and History: Interpreting Geographical patterns of Y Chromosome Variation, 2005.
...which would "in the main", be consistent with territories listed below:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
As defined by
D. F. Janssen Growing Up Sexually. Volume I: World Reference Atlas. Interim report Amsterdam, The Netherlands
The Keita snipit includes Sudan, the Melborne statement does not.
Which is why you can do yourself a favor and learn more, by actually quoting people properly, insteading of cutting and pasting phrases into a hodgepodge, and then calling it a quote.
To spoonfeed you into properly quoting people, let me help you again:
I wrote:
Here is another unmistakable implication of the term, in this Keita piece:
The peoples of the Egyptian and northern Sudanese Nile valley, and supra-Saharan Africa now *speak Arabic* in **the main** but, as noted, this largely represents language shift.
- Keita; Genetics, Egypt and History: Interpreting Geographical patterns of Y Chromosome Variation, 2005.
...which would "in the main", be consistent with territories listed below:
^In your selective radar for quoting people, with your crude copy and paste antics, you forgot to take note of the terms "in the main" in my statement, and you also forgot to pickup on this from Keita:
The peoples of the Egyptian and northern Sudanese Nile valley, and supra-Saharan Africa now *speak Arabic* in **the main** but, as noted, this largely represents language shift.
"*Northern* Sudanese Nile Valley" would not have escaped your attention, if you weren't so skilled at crudely copying and pasting other people's words out of context.
Btw, where is your explanation for the following part of the Keita quote, to fit your broken understanding of the term?
supra-Saharan Africa now *speak Arabic* in **the main** but, as noted, this largely represents language shift. - Keita
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
And...if you feel that Sudan and Egypt are *not really included* in supra-sahara because Keita mentions them separately....then Melborne includes Egypt and Keita does not.
That you think you know what I feel, is but a figment of your imagination.
I can understand why the Nile Valley territories would be emphasized, given the "subject" of his article. See: - Keita; Genetics, Egypt and History: Interpreting Geographical patterns of Y Chromosome Variation, 2005.
But please fascinate us with an answer to the question posted above. In case you need reminding, it was this:
Btw, where is your explanation for the following part of the Keita quote, to fit your broken understanding of the term?
supra-Saharan Africa now *speak Arabic* in **the main** but, as noted, this largely represents language shift. - Keita
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
So either way, they are not the same list.
And.......neither one is consistent with *above the sahara*.
Don't know what would it take, to hammer this into your head, when you talked about nations "strictly" conforming to the *literal* meaning of the said geographic terms twice already:
This is a non-issue, as far as what you are replying to is concerned...for the "sub-Saharan" region doesn't "strictly" start from "below" the Sahara, any more than "supra-Saharan" region is "strictly" above the Saharan region. Countries like Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Chad for example, have parts of their territory on the Saharan desert, and yet, are generally placed as "sub-Saharan African countries". - Mystery Solver
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Both of you have essentially conceded that supra sahara includes the sahara and does not refer exclusively to regions north of the sahara.
Think of "North Africa" ~ "supra-Saharan African countries", that is why they are not listed in "sub-Saharan African" territory. Yet most of these North African countries have territories that lie on the Sahara, as do some of the "northernmost" sub-Saharan countries exemplified above. Don't expect you to understand this anytime soon, because you are trying to defend a claim of yours, that you know deep down to be erroneous, in an effort to save face.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
The only *real* point you can hope to contest is whether the term can include the sahel.
See above: If the territory fits into the so-called "North African" territory, you can bet that it is implicated in "supra-Saharan Africa" as well.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: try not to use either sub or supra affixed to Sahara. Were I to speak to a language or a Hg traversing an expanse, I'd list each (micro)region from the inception point to the last terminal.
What are just some examples of micro-region. I'm assuming you would feel the 'horn' is and example, no?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:See above: If the territory [sahel] fits into the so-called "North African" territory, you can bet that it is implicated in "supra-Saharan Africa" as well.
So are you saying that Keita references the sahel as either being supra-saharan or not, based on political-control of the territory?
In Keita's references nations [territories] are almost arbitrary. He is discussing gene flows, and population-geography terms are concordant with population migrations which transgress national boundaries.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:See above: If the territory [sahel] fits into the so-called "North African" territory, you can bet that it is implicated in "supra-Saharan Africa" as well.
So are you saying that Keita references the sahel as either being supra-saharan or not, based on political-control of the territory?
Again, you are engaging in deliberate misquotations. God forbid that you claim to be 'citing' somebody and the intended reader doen't ask for a link to the original material, or scroll their eyes over to the actual post in question. Are you that mentally incapacitated in "correctly" quoting people.
This is your quoting of me:
See above: If the territory [sahel] fits into the so-called "North African" territory, you can bet that it is implicated in "supra-Saharan Africa" as well. - Rasol's porported quoting of me.
Now, my actual words:
See above: If the territory fits into the so-called "North African" territory, you can bet that it is implicated in "supra-Saharan Africa" as well. - Mystery Solver
See the difference? Apparently, in your case, that would be a "no".You've significantly disfigured my words by inserting your own terms.
quote:Originally posted rasol:
So are you saying that Keita references the sahel as either being supra-saharan or not, based on political-control of the territory?
No. I'm saying what *exactly* I said. Can't read? Your problem.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
In Keita's references nations [territories] are almost arbitrary. He is discussing gene flows, and population-geography terms are concordant with population migrations which transgress national boundaries.
Is that what you understand from this (?):
supra-Saharan Africa now *speak Arabic* in **the main** but, as noted, this largely represents language shift. - Keita
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, let's look at the British invention once known as the Kenya Colony of which the present Euro colonialist defined boundaries demark the nation state Kenya.
For me this Kenya itself has several regions it falls into with the Horn applying only to its northern reaches.
Kenya is also part of the Great Lakes, the Highlands, and the Swahili Coast.
Which, or how many, of these Kenyas is a startline, chainlink, or terminus for E3b1?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Ok, let's look at the British invention once known as the Kenya Colony of which the present Euro colonialist defined boundaries demark the nation state Kenya.
For me this Kenya itself has several regions it fallsinto with the Horn applying only to its northern reaches.
Kenya is also part of the Great Lakes, the Highlands,and the Swahili Coast.
Which, or how many, of these Kenyas is a startline, chainlink, or terminus for E3b1?
^ Interesting ideas.
Personally I don't think you can 'get around' the sahara, [pardon the pun] which is the largest geographic entity in Africa, and crucial to understanding it's population history.
Keita choosed not to ignore or evade the sahara.
Instead, he profers a dialectic which recognises the trans-saharan origin of African people and cultures, as opposed to one which views the sahara as and apartheid barrier, which somehow 'naturally' confines true-Africans.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what you're talking about. The furtherest east point you gave was Kenya The furthest west point you gave was Morocco I started with Kenya. You balk at selecting one many or any of its regions and continue obsessing the Sahara which has quite a few more microregions than does Kenya.
I now understand your question was no such thing but merely a rhetorical ploy as a springboard for more statements expressing your idea of supra Saharan.
I don't agree with your idea and am satisfied in having presented use of the term from a wide range of sources not parrotting the same sole single scholar as if he alone fills a vacuum for use of the term.
I don't feel as if I have to force agreement of my ideas on anybody. I present a case, the readers assess it then accept or reject it as seen fit. No one here can definitively say I am correct or incorrect because no one here has the credentials to do so and that's beside the fact that scholars themselves have varying shades of self-definition though all of them include all the countries in Africa which have a Mediterranean border or are north of the Sahara to be supra-Saharan.
That being the case we end in disagreement. There is nothing more for me to say as you really have no interest in attempting to map out the origin and dispersal of E3b1 by a detailed renumeration of the microregions it spread through whether in East Africa or Northern Africa.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol asks: So are you saying that Keita references the sahel as either being supra-saharan or not, based on political-control of the territory?
quote:MysterSolver accuses: Again, you are engaging in deliberate misquotations.
^ Yet another false statement from you.
Something is seriously wrong with the functioning of your brains; I'm going to post this again, to demonstrate it:
---
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:See above: If the territory [sahel] fits into the so-called "North African" territory, you can bet that it is implicated in "supra-Saharan Africa" as well.
So are you saying that Keita references the sahel as either being supra-saharan or not, based on political-control of the territory?
Again, you are engaging in deliberate misquotations. God forbid that you claim to be 'citing' somebody and the intended reader doen't ask for a link to the original material, or scroll their eyes over to the actual post in question. Are you that mentally incapacitated in "correctly" quoting people.
This is your quoting of me:
See above: If the territory [sahel] fits into the so-called "North African" territory, you can bet that it is implicated in "supra-Saharan Africa" as well. - Rasol's porported quoting of me.
Now, my actual words:
See above: If the territory fits into the so-called "North African" territory, you can bet that it is implicated in "supra-Saharan Africa" as well. - Mystery Solver
See the difference? Apparently, in your case, that would be a "no".You've significantly disfigured my words by inserting your own terms.
---
^What part of this demonstration did you not understand?
Bear in mind that after this was posted, Rasol proceded to make this dumb baldfaced lie:
I didn't quote anyone. - Rasol.
quote:Originally posted rasol:'
I asked you a question.
Question was answered.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
So your accusation is a deliberate lie.
In what way?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
That's means you're back on the naughty list, again
You are going back to the mentally-handicapped list and the liars club. It's only fair, since you don't make a whole lot of sense, on top of consistently embarrasing yourself with lies that you cannot get away with, no?
quote:Originally posted rasol:
Respect to AlTakruri for moving the conversation forward.
Of course, cowering away from the question posed to you in the very last post, that you replied [actually *dodged* the entire post] with another fiasco of a lie.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Your antics, I simply ignore...
It is your prerogative however way you wish to run away; you'll however, be kept on your toes and educated in the process, even if you don't openly acknowledge it.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Supra simply denotes above, while sub is used for below.
^ The above is shown as being not correct for the following reasons.
1) Supra also denotes quantitative greater-than, wheres sub denotes less-than, this is not the same concept as directional above and below.
This is why conceiving of supra-sahara as Africa - north of sahara is false.
2) A practical example, and one that is of greatest relevance to supra-sahara -> sub-tropical.
This region exists in two discordant bands both above and below the tropics.
That is precisely what "supra-tropical" is: latitudes of the globe "above" the tropics. The appearance of "supra-tropical" and "sub-tropical" in a single literature means just that, 'latitudes above the tropics" and "latitudes below the tropics" respectively. These are the actual *literal* meanings of the terms.
Having said that, it's true that in other instances, "sub-tropics" has been applied to denote "subtracting the tropics", wherein "supra-tropics" has been dropped, just as "supra-Saharan" has fallen in use, out of favor for the term "North African" in most Eurocentric-tainted discourse.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
The term supra tropical would include the same bands...... however it would also emcompass the tropics themselves.
Likewise the term sub-equatorial - two bands ABOVE AND BELOW the equator, but not the equator itself. In other words, less than equatorial.
Supra-Equatorial -> the equator, avove the equator and below the equator.
Supra-tropical doesn't mean "below the tropics", any more than "supra-Saharan Africa" and "supra-Equatorial" mean below the regional "reference" units namely, "Sahara" and the "equator" respectively.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Sub-sahara does not delimit authentic Africanity. - Keita.
Indeed, "sub-Saharan" which has taken the form of a politicized geopolitical term [as has "North Africa"] laden with mostly negative overtones, doesn't limit what is 'authentically' African. This is not to be confused with the idea that Keita mistakes "supra-Saharan" to mean "Africa as a superset" or "Africa as a whole". Case in point:
Where is your explanation for the following part of the Keita quote, by applying your [superset] understanding of the term?
supra-Saharan Africa now *speak Arabic* in **the main** but, as noted, this largely represents language shift. - Keita
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Main Entry: supra- Function: prefix Etymology: Latin, from supra
above,
beyond,
earlier;
transcending <supranational>
greater,
exceeding.
In the context, of supra-saharan, sub-equatorial, supra-national, supra-equatorial, and sub-tropical, sub-polar, the correct application is less or greater, [set quantity] not directional above or below. [north/south].
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Altakruri: I don't know what you're talking about. The furtherest east point you gave was Kenya The furthest west point you gave was Morocco I started with Kenya.
Unfortunately since you didn't quote me, I had no idea what you're taking about.
So, I scrolled up the thread to find the 1st reference to Kenya:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ How would you like the sahara to be referenced with respect to lineages that traversed it, such as E3b1 that span from Kenya to Morocco?
^ The question is in direct reference to Keita's use of the term horn-supra-saharan as a contiguous entity concordant with the E3b1 lineage.
quote:Altakruri writes: I now understand your question was no such thing but merely a rhetorical ploy as a springboard for more statements expressing your idea of supra Saharan.
Or..... attacking my question is itself a 'ploy' that hopes to evade it.
The idea of supra-sahara you were asked to address is Keita's. It's his use of the term that set off the discussion.
Since you atttacked the question, you manage to not address it, so here it is again:
The distribution and high prevalence of haplotype V (and less so of XI,Nile valley primarily), and Afroasiatic speakers in Africa correspond with the geography of the Horn-supra-Saharan arc. - Keita.
In any 'mis'-definition of supra-saharan as only 'north' of sahara...... no such geographical arc can exist.
So the fact is, I asked and honest, intelligible, relevant and polite question, and received no answer.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
^ Main Entry: supra- Function: prefix Etymology: Latin, from supra
above,
beyond,
earlier;
transcending <supranational>
greater,
exceeding.
In the context, of supra-saharan, sub-equatorial, supra-national, supra-equatorial, and sub-tropical, sub-polar, the correct application is less or greater, [set quantity] not directional above or below. [north/south].
The etymology of the word in Latin is "above" and "below"; pure and simple.
Using the bizarre logic that 'sub-Saharan Africa' means less than the Sahara makes no sense, any more than that of "supra-Saharan" meaning greater than the Sahara, which is why you continue to evade this simple question:
Where is your explanation for the following part of the Keita quote, by applying your [superset] understanding of the term?
supra-Saharan Africa now *speak Arabic* in **the main** but, as noted, this largely represents language shift. - Keita
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where is your explanation for the following part of the Keita quote, by applying your [superset] understanding of the term?
supra-Saharan Africa now *speak Arabic* in **the main** but, as noted, this largely represents language shift. - Keita
^ You've quoted this 7 times in attempt to somehow support 'supra-sahara' means only 'above or north of the sahara', but since arabic is not spoken only north or above the sahara, this statement does not support your claim, and therefore repeat posting is useless.
However it is consistent with Keita's other statements such as:
The distribution and high prevalence of haplotype V (and less so of XI,Nile valley primarily), and Afroasiatic speakers in Africa correspond with the geography of the Horn-supra-Saharan arc. - Keita.
....which you do not address.
You do not address because you understand very well that such and arc can only exist if supra sahara is conceived therein as extending from the Maghreb thru the Sahara/Sahel and to the Horn.
This discussion began when it was explained how Keita *correctly* used this term to denote such.
In spite of all the furor. No refutation has ever been offered because none is possible.
So....we *argue* apparently for arguments sake....
quote:Using the bizarre logic that 'sub-Saharan Africa' means less than the Sahara makes no sense.
^Sub-saharan Africa does not mean less than the sahara, nor did I ever say such a thing so this is yet another strawman argument, for arguments sake.
I *did state* that sub-sahara is a political geography euphemism for Black Africa, but then you didn't address that either.
Again, in support of this, I quoted Keita: Sub-sahara does not *delimit* authentic Africanity
But you didn't address this..... either.
Your reply addressed nothing I said, evoked strawman arguments, and repeated a quote which doesn't help you.
quote:Where is your explanation for the following part of the Keita quote, by applying your [superset] understanding of the term?
supra-Saharan Africa now *speak Arabic* in **the main** but, as noted, this largely represents language shift. - Keita
^ You've quoted this 7 times in attempt to somehow support 'supra-sahara' means only 'above or north of the sahara'
I've quoted several times, losing count, because you keep evading the question.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
, but since arabic is not spoken only north or above the sahara, this statement does not support your claim, and therefore repeat posting is useless.
Your rationale makes no sense, and shows just how handicapped you are in your reading skills, unwittingly or by choice, because it says this:
supra-Saharan Africa now *speak Arabic* in **the main** but, as noted, this largely represents language shift. - Keita
Even after emphasizing the words, you missed them. So, you are on the record stating that Keita is saying above, that Arabic is spoken in "Africa as a whole" [or your so-called "superset Africa"] **in the main**, since that is the logic you are applying to supra-Saharan?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
However it is consistent with Keita's other statements such as:
The distribution and high prevalence of haplotype V (and less so of XI,Nile valley primarily), and Afroasiatic speakers in Africa correspond with the geography of the Horn-supra-Saharan arc. - Keita.
You don't know what you are talking about, but I'm sure you'll miss the implication in the following again:
Ancient Egyptian is Afroasiatic, and current inhabitants of the Nile valley should be understood as being in the main, although not wholly, descendants of the pre-neolithic regional inhabitants, although this apparently varies by geography as indicated by the frequency of Near Eastern haplotypes/lineages (Table 1, Lucotte andMercier 2003a, Manni et al. 2002, Cruciani 2002). An accurate spatio-temporal interpretation of the PN2/M35 lineage corresponds to the northern core range of Afroasiatic: “We suggest that a population with this subclade of the African YAP/M145/M213/PN2 cluster expanded into the southern and eastern **Mediterranean** at the end of the Pleistocene”(Underhill et al. 2001:51). (**“Southern”** here refers to *supra-Saharan Africa*.) . . . a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages withM35/M215 mutation expanded northwards from sub-Saharan to north Africa and the Levant” (Underhill et al. 2001:55).
- Keita; Genetics, Egypt and History: Interpreting Geographical patterns of Y Chromosome Variation, 2005.
Southern and Eastern "Mediterranean" are mentioned, wherein Keita clarifies yet again, to your def ears [or eyes in this case], that "southern" ***Mediterranean*** here is "supra-Saharan Africa", apparently in reference to the African regions on one side of the Mediterranean sea; despite this fact, should we apply your logic of "Africa as a whole/superset Africa" to this?
quote:Originally posted rasol
....which you do not address.
Lie. I specifically posted a very detailed account of this in Clyde's thread, but it flew over your head, just as the questions above.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
You do not address because you understand very well that such and arc can only exist if supra sahara is conceived therein as extending from the Maghreb thru the Sahara/Sahel and to the Horn.
Your atrociously poor reading skills have rendered you completely handicapped, as you attempt to "guess" what somebody else is thinking, rather than reading what you **have already been told** [and hence rendering it quite unnecessary to comically guess people's psyche way off the chart] in print ad infinitum. What were you told [countless times now] about "supra-Saharan Africa" and "sub-Saharan Africa" strictly conforming to the 'literal' meanings of the term; what does it say in that post? Are you capable of citing the post again, without mutilating it? Who besides Rasol, has missed the point, even after I redundantly repeated myself on this?
And yet, in all this, you failed to see the contradictions in this statement:
You do not address because you understand very well that such and arc can only exist if supra sahara is conceived therein as extending from the Maghreb thru the Sahara/Sahel and to the Horn. - Rasol
- Where has your "superset Africa" mentality been applied in what you just stated above [highlighted]?
- Why did Keita not simply say "Supra-Saharan Africa", if the African Horn is included in supra-Saharan Africa, as the subject isn't about the African Horn for that matter, but primarily the Egyptian Nile Valley? What would you need an "arc" for, if we went by your "superset Africa" mentality?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
This discussion began when it was explained how Keita *correctly* used this term to denote such.
Another lie. This discussion began when you embarrasingly misinterpreted "supra-Saharan" to mean "Africa as a whole" or "superset Africa", and replied to my correct presentation of the terms, which was btw, reiterated by several others to you, but to no avail, including by the person you continued to invoke in your conversation, even after he confessed to his error - one that you keep repeating like a broken record.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
In spite of all the furor. No refutation has ever been offered because none is possible.
Your wrong interpretations of "supra-Saharan Africa" and "sub-Saharan Africa" has been pulverized instantly after you first presented them; you were and are just too intellectually blind to catch on - it doesn't miraculously turn your erroneous claims into something correct. Where does that leave you(?): you ask people to refute things that aren't even an issue. I agree with Keita; it is just quite evident that you don't understand a word he is saying.
quote:Originally posted rasol:
So....we *argue* apparently for arguments sake....
That is what this entire circus you've created is all about, isn't it? Defending a claim that makes absolutely no sense, and you know it [albeit upon being educated about it].
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Using the bizarre logic that 'sub-Saharan Africa' means less than the Sahara makes no sense.
^Sub-saharan Africa does not mean less than the sahara, nor did I ever say such a thing so this is yet another strawman argument, for arguments sake.
Quite laughable. You were applying your logic of "less or greater" to the term "supra-Saharan", along with other similarly prefixed terms and antonyms respectively; this by default renders "sub-Saharan Africa" as being "less than Sahara", which any able-minded person knows, literally means "below" the Sahara. These are your words, not my invention:
In the context, of supra-saharan, sub-equatorial, supra-national, supra-equatorial, and sub-tropical, sub-polar, the correct application is less or greater, [set quantity] not directional above or below. [north/south]. - Rasol
You may however, disown them, or keep futilely defending them.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
I *did state* that sub-sahara is a political geography euphemism for Black Africa, but then you didn't address that either.
Because it's a non-issue that you wish to distract with. Why would I want to address something countless times that everyone else but you knows that I've already pointed out both here and another thread; a point even acknowledged by the author of this thread?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Again, in support of this, I quoted Keita: Sub-sahara does not *delimit* authentic Africanity
But you didn't address this..... either.
Another lie that you could have easily avoided, by simply reading. Case in point:
Originally posted by rasol:
Sub-sahara does not delimit authentic Africanity. - Keita
To which I replied:
Indeed, "sub-Saharan" which has taken the form of a politicized geopolitical term [as has "North Africa"] laden with mostly negative overtones, doesn't limit what is 'authentically' African. This is not to be confused with the idea that Keita mistakes "supra-Saharan" to mean "Africa as a superset" or "Africa as a whole".
Something that I've said both here and the other thread. Amateur lying is the only thing left in your arsenal?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Your reply addressed nothing I said, evoked strawman arguments, and repeated a quote which doesn't help you.
Anything else?
If you can't read, how are you supposed to know the difference between what's been addressed and what hasn't?
If you are in self-delusion, how are you supposed to be expected to acknowledge your erroneous claims, but futilely defend them in a way tantamount to a walking corpse, even in comical ways like that of
- "misquoting" people even after being exposed point blank for doing so, one which I've proved multiple times now [and observed by others],
- dodging questions [as I have proved time and again] and only selectively answering 'Rasol-signature' fragmented posts that you think [in your lone mind] will allow you to distract from your blatant intellectual shortcomings on the matter at hand,
-asking people to refute non-issues,
-and asking them to address something which they've already informed you on?
^Laughable? That, it is; Distracting? Nope, you couldn't do it, however much you try to wiggle your way out.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:MS writes: Where is your explanation for the following part of the Keita quote, by applying your [superset] understanding of the term?
supra-Saharan Africa now *speak Arabic* in **the main** but, as noted, this largely represents language shift. - Keita
quote:^rasol: You've quoted this 7 times in attempt to somehow support 'supra-sahara' means only 'above or north of the sahara', but since arabic is not spoken only north or above the sahara, this statement does not support your claim, and therefore repeat posting is useless.
However it is consistent with Keita's other statements such as:
The distribution and high prevalence of haplotype V (and less so of XI,Nile valley primarily), and Afroasiatic speakers in Africa correspond with the geography of the Horn-supra-Saharan arc. - Keita.
....which you do not address.Anything else?
->
quote:Mysterysolver writes: I've quoted several times, losing count, because you keep evading the question.
No, you quote the same thing over and again because it's all you have, and even then it doesn't help you prove that supra sahara is *only* north of sahara, or even make any sense out of such a ridiculous notion, and so your redundancy is utterly pointless.
You're back to circular exchanges again, which means you're back on the naughty list and again being ignored. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic